Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

Ash333 wrote:

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

doobydave wrote:Each vote cast is for a representative of the constituency you vote within.

An individual.

I always thought the vote was cast for a party, which is represented by an individual, who puts a face to the party. I could be wrong but im pretty sure im right with this one, as i always believed it was a very good way to approach elections. I reckon SR could help with this one.

You vote for your chosen MP for your area. He/she will be a member of a political party, and the party with the biggest share gets leadership...

So do you vote the party or indivitual in your mind?

you vote for the individual, it is his/her name that your x goes next to, and whoever is elected in your district is YOUR mp, who you can take questions etc to.

the party is secondary

Hopefully someone can clear this issue up. I always thought the party was the one which you voted for, otherwise why were labour allowed to change leaders without any vote? If we had voted for Blair, surely they would have to re-run votes as the person, Brown, is not reflective of the opioion of the voters. Whereas because Brown is labour, and we voted labour, it was possible to change as it is only a representive of the party which was voted in. Although the x goes next to a name, does it not also have the political party writtern on it? Which the x also goes next to.

Ash333 wrote:you vote for the individual, it is his/her name that your x goes next to, and whoever is elected in your district is YOUR mp, who you can take questions etc to.

the party is secondary

Why then, is campaigning done on a national/local basis party orientated?
Why are policies party dictated, and agreed on by the party at their conference? Why do all MP's of any given party have to adhere to the party line, or face severe reprimand?
Yes Ash, I agree that you vote for the individual, but in alot of constituencies, a party could put a four-legged monkey as the candidate and it would still get in.
Unfortunately, it takes a concerted effort, specific LOCAL reasons, or some kind of celebrity status, for an INDIVIDUAL to get elected, rather than the 'party person'.

BTW, I wish we did have a system whereby we were able to vote for the PM on a seperate basis, and if that person resigns, then it should go to the vote again.
I'd never have voted for that sour-faced prat Brown, and I think it is disgusting that he is in charge of this country without, I feel, a true mandate.

Honselty, and i know im guna get some stick for this, Brown anit done too bad. The cannabis issue will always make me have distain for him, but he has not done too bad as Blairs replacement.

In principal you vote for your choice of MP to represent the constituency you live in
They will be representing a party or even standing as an independent candidate
At a general election the leader of a party that has gained a majority of seats in the house of commons will be asked by the crown to form a government
The role of prim minister then effectively becomes an internal party matter

The problem in the UK is that more & more people are voting at general elections thinking that they are voting for the prime minister

How each person views what they are voting for is where the confusion arises and that is caused by the way the party's campaign
My take on it is in a general election I will vote for the candidate that represents the party I would like in government
In a By election I would vote for the person who will best represent the area I live in
But in essence You only vote for your local MP & the party they represent


& is it just me but I don't remember as much fuss being kicked up when Thatcher was replaced by major as has happened with B-Liar/Brown

Any way I favour a hung parliament
All 600 & odd of them by the neck

DoobyDave is right you are voting for an individual who may or may not belong to a mainstream political party. the votes are totalled by constituencey and whichever party has candidates with the most votes gains that constituency for the party but the MP has responsibilities to the constituencey regardless of which party they belong to. they are your representative in parliment even if you did not vote for them.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/mps.cfm

What is scary is that we are not voting on POLICIES that usually are put forward in a manifesto before an election.
Who cares who the personality is?
It is what they do and how they vote in parliment that matters.

The leader of a party is not decided by the electorate but by the party themselves which means Brown lacks the mandate of a general election. Major did survive an election I seem to remember after taking over from thatcher. Brown has yet to do that.

A hung parliment ( all by the neck LOL ) is one hope of breaking the 2 party system as it would for a coalition but not a strong one at the moment as 10 gets you one when it comes to the election brown will lose it to the tories
FF

You are supposed to vote for the best MP for your constituency, to represent your area in the house of commons.

Unfortunately, people vote for their 'party' no matter which fucking moron they put up to represent their local area. How many people actually know much, if anything about their local MP?

The idea of the system is good, but if fails because people identify with the social values of a party, rather than the particular person who is best for your area.

And they also vote for the party which they think has the best leader, but again, that's not the point of the political system in the UK. We always miss the point though.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:Honselty, and i know im guna get some stick for this, Brown anit done too bad. The cannabis issue will always make me have distain for him, but he has not done too bad as Blairs replacement.

Sorry mate. Got to disagree with you there. As Chancellor, he implemented a whole host of dodgy policies that are partially to blame for the economic mess we are in.
Amongst other gems, between 1999-2002, he flogged off half The U.K.'s gold, on the cheap, when the price was at a 20 year low. Since then its more than quadrupled in price.

rks, its cool man i like this forum because of the huge difference in viewpoints. I know about the gold thing, but i think most of the blame must lie with those in the city playing gambling games with money. However you are completely right with the gold thing, but the way he is handling the situation atm seems to me to be ok.

Basically id rather Brown than the tories. I would never vote Tories, even if they for example said they would legalise cannabis, it would still be a hard move for me to make to vote Tories. I think that is contraverisal lol.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:rks, its cool man i like this forum because of the huge difference in viewpoints. I know about the gold thing, but i think most of the blame must lie with those in the city playing gambling games with money. However you are completely right with the gold thing, but the way he is handling the situation atm seems to me to be ok.

Basically id rather Brown than the tories. I would never vote Tories, even if they for example said they would legalise cannabis, it would still be a hard move for me to make to vote Tories. I think that is contraverisal lol.

No probs mate. Its opinions and points of view. When it comes to politics, everyone has a different one, and I take no offence at anyones. Quite the opposite, because if someone's view differs from mine, and I feel strongly enough about it, I enjoy a good old debate. As for the guys in the City, yes I agree with you, they did act irresponsibly, but they acted within the law, as set by the government.
One of the major issues in the UK at the moment is that people and companies cannot borrow money from banks to fund house purchases or expand and create jobs. The goverment has publically stated that banks should lend more. Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley are fully nationalised, Royal Bank of Scotland effectively is, and 43% (ish) of Lloyds is also state owned- so why the delay?

CHELSEA_SMOKERS_SOCIETY wrote:what a fucking fucking piss take.

you know i knew this day was coming, it was announced a while back... but i just couldnt really accept it, and kind of put it to the back of my mind.

that saggy faced cunt, who i didnt vote for, you didnt vote for, not a single person in this country voted for has taken us BACK in time.

class B again? jesus fucking christ. so in what way has all the campaigning and research, that saw cannabis downgraded changed in the last 5 years? his own advisors advised against upgrading. his own party were the ones who down graded.

this spinless cunt has buckled to the 'daily mail' readers of this country.

all this means is more arrests and more criminal records for simple possesion? what the fuck good does that achieve?

apparently cannabis use is endemic in this country. endemic is another word for accepted you cunt.

In no way is weed on a par with that stuff its been lumped with in this "class b" bracket,Alcohol should be class A easily.