Would you have told me exactly which policies would be watered down and under which circumstances or which measures they would add-on? No, I don't think so...So you could have told me all you wished but it would have made no difference, because you're not the candidate or the party, you're just a punter, like me.
I'm not sure why you said all of that.
Because you said:
If you would have asked me before the election I would have told you that all of the parties would be watering down their policies AND they would introduce measures that they didn't put into their manifestos.
I know to what you were responding to, Legend. I just don't see the connection between what I said and what you said.
Legend: If fact x was known, I would not have done action y.
Mod: Fact x
was known. I guess that means you shouldn't have done y, then?
Legend: But sub facts x1, x2 and x3 were not known at the time. And you weren't a candidate.
Mod: I don't see the relevance to the issue at hand.
Legend: Because you said stuff about Fact x.
Mod: erm, so why did you bring up x1-3?
It seems you were simplifying your answer. When you originally said,
quote:
If I...knew that the party I voted for might water down its policies in order to form a coallition, or include certain people from other parties in government then I wouldn't have voted for them.
what you seem to have meant to actually say was:
quote:
If I...knew that the party I voted for would make political compromises on certain specific points...then I wouldn't have voted for them.
No, sorry, but that's not 'being clear on their position', that's just a vague declaration of their liking/disliking of the situation. Being 'clear on their position' means explicitly declaring what policies they'd be prepared to sacrifice or add in the event of a Hung Parliament.
Don't confuse soundbytes with clear policy statements.
I'm assuming you voted Conservative.
The party you voted for explicitly said that in a hung parliament, deals would be made, unsound compromises etc, here are some quotes from their political broadcast which imagined a Hung Parliament:
quote:
We, the Hung Parliament Party, aim to change the very face of politics. We feel the disillusionment so many of you have with modern politics. We want to do away with the old conventions and set out a new vision for Britain. It's time for real change.
We're going to bring in "Behind closed door politics"... Under a Hung Parliament government where no party has a majority, 'under the table deals' will be the order of the day.
The Party you voted for told the whole country what they thought would happen...for some reason you think the response to this information would be 'don't vote for the Conservative Party'. I don't agree this is the best response, but you said it.
I wasn't taken by surprise, I'm just saying it shouldn't happen that way.
So, taking your words at their face value, given that you were well aware that the most likely outcome was that the Conservative Manifesto would not be implemented in full...why did you vote for them?
No, I said that my voting preferences are shaped by the policies the parties declare to support and not by my trying to imagine what yet undeclared policies they will support under certain circumstances.
You, on the other hand, suggested that I should abstain or vote for a smaller party because the system doesn't ensure I get what I voted for.
That isn't my position. That was me taking your position (If I...knew that the party I voted for might water down its policies in order to form a coallition, or include certain people from other parties in government then I wouldn't have voted for them') to it's logical conclusion (ie., you wouldn't vote for anybody). Might I now conclude, based on your reaction in general and the above paragraph quoted, that the original phrase under contention was hyperbole?
In other words, you're saying I shouldn't vote whom I want to vote because the system is flawed.
No - you were saying that because the system is flawed and because politicians are neither perfectly honest nor perfectly clairvoyant, you would not vote for them knowing that they would make political compromises or form cross party coalitions if they deemed it was necessary to do so.
Even at the best of times, political compromises are required. Manifestos are rarely realized. The polls were suggesting a slight Conservative majority or a hung parliament. You know all this. I'm sure it's one part of your long lists of grievances with the present system. Given that you know it - it would seem by your stated principle you would not vote. I can only assume that what you said was more of an expression of your anger about it rather than a voting strategy.
My view, for what its worth, is to keep voting for a Party whose philosophy and campaigning has been for a more representative parliament and whose membership is composed of people that feel strongly that Parliament does not fairly reflect the will of the people and to avoid any Party which has many members who are conservative and prefer to keep the present system.
You probably should have abstained or voted for an smaller party if you really did not want to vote for a Party that was likely to have most of the power but would have to make compromises.
That's a clear suggestion to change my voting preferences because the system doesn't ensure that I get what I voted for, if I ever saw one.
To recap - what you actually saw me do was reach a conclusion based on your premise. Given your strategy of not voting for a party you know won't realize it's Manifesto 100% etc, the conclusion is - don't vote for such a party. I'll break it down:
You probably should have abstained....
if you really did not want to vote for a Party that...would have to make compromises.
If you REALLY did not want to vote for a Party {that would do x} then you probably should not vote for a Party {that would do x}. That's all I was saying. I was pointing out that your strategy might have been a little overboard. I wasn't suggesting you change voting strategies, I was suggesting that your stated voting strategy is absurd and in contradiction with your own stated views.
Just as an interesting aside: The modern Conservative Party is fully known as the Conservative and Unionist Party since they themselves are the remains of a coalition with the Liberal Unionists many moons ago. The Liberal Unionists split from the other Liberals who in turn would go on to merge with SDP to for the Liberal Democrats. So this coalition is, in a sense, the reuniting of long lost brethren.
abe: I hope that clears up any confusion that may still have been lingering.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)