Don’t lose your right to vote because of apathy
Individual voter registration will replace the current system in time for the general election in 2015, according to a government minister.
It will replace the current system in which households are asked to declare the identities of everyone living there who is qualified to vote.
Instead, it will be up to the individual elector to ensure that his or her name remains on the electoral register.
The Electoral Commission has welcomed the announcement, claiming that the measure will cut fraud and “lead to a more secure electoral register” – but Labour has raised concerns that some voters will be left out.
This is a genuine fear – that pressure of other commitments will push electoral registration out of mind. Most working people, along with the unemployed, are confronted with a multitude of matters that fight for their attention every day; registering for an event that won’t take place for several months is likely to slip their minds. There is also the threat of creeping apathy; the feeling that voting won’t change anything, that has been carefully promoted by right-wing propaganda and agents-provocateurs in the social media.
There is a very deep concern that this is exactly why Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are bringing in the new system.
Tory voters are well-regimented. They will make sure they stay on the register, and they will vote according to their instructions, on a regular basis. It is a gross generalisation, but they are generally less stressed than other voters, with fewer commitments. Liberal Democrats could face electoral annihilation in 2015, so this will add urgency to their attitude.
Labour voters – supporting the main opposition to the two Coalition parties – are often less committed to the process. It can be hard to motivate them to come out and vote, and individual voter registration adds a new layer to this difficulty.
It seems likely that people who have not registered under the new system will still be able to cast a ballot in the 2015 general election, under transitional arrangements – but the Shadow minister for constitutional reform, Stephen Twigg, has warned that 8.7 million voters are “on course” to fall off the register because of the way the government is rushing the change through.
Here at Vox Political, we believe that everyone in the UK should continue to enjoy – and exercise – the right to vote. In fact, ever since universal suffrage was introduced (as recently as the 20th century), it should be the duty of the government to ensure that this happens. Nobody should be turned away from a polling station.
This measure does not ensure that – in fact it makes such a situation less likely. That is why this blog will endeavour to ensure that all our readers are made aware of when the arrangement changes and what they need to do – and we will issue reminders, to ensure that you do not lose the right that your forebears suffered and died to win for you.
Vox Political needs your donations more than ever before! The site is funded entirely by donations and book sales.
This site needs YOUR support to continue.
You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book,
Strong Words and Hard Times
in either print or eBook format here:
Great. I think people should just have to register once instead of every year. I will of course vote UKIP.
Well I can’t tell you not to!
You will, of course, be voting for an even more right-wing government than we have now – or you will be wasting your vote altogether.
most votes are wasted anyway – in general because there are so few marginal seats than can swing an election
but to think that having a vote means anything in this country is, sadly, an optimism too far! There is no representational effort for most MPs – it’s all about ‘party’ The population hold little to determine policy changes, priorities or power. hell, the y can’r even recall MPs …..the democracy is a sham, particularly whilst we have a monarchy
What are YOU going to do about it?
I’ve laid my cards on the table, and pointed out what people can do – consistently, over several articles since VP was first set up nearly two years ago.
I’m doing my bit to make a difference. Are you?
I am getting a bit fed up with the “Tory & Labour all the same”, “votes don’t matter”, and all the other fatalistic nihilism.
Votes do count. Otherwise why are the ConDems so set on pandering to “their” voters?
If we want to change how democracy works, we have to engage and push our views.
If ANYONE thinks that Labour would have set in motion the monstrous policies we have now – killing thousands of people, impoverishing millions, etc – then please think again. The last government put in place measures to try to remove children from poverty (child tax credits – and it’s not a benefit, it’s a tax allowance) to improve the NHS, brought in the minimum wages, and yes, they also made mistakes.
But on the balance of probabilities, I would strongly suggest that there really isn’t time to sit back & wait for an alternative opposition party to come along, and do better. Compromise is at the heart of politics, but to not vote will only mean your opinions really don’t matter.
But it is a personal choice.
It appears to me to be another ploy to reduce the opposition vote even more Mike. Truth is, many traditional Labour voters, and many young voters, just never bother to turn out, so are just as likely to not bother to sign up. We should all take heed of your warning, and make sure we get on that register.
Regards from Norfolk, (desperate Tory heartland!) Pete.
Has this been enacted or is it on the cards? If it has been enacted why haven’t we heard about it, or are only Conservative voters getting a mail-out on the matter?
It has been enacted, and the act will come into force next June.
It is utterly despicable the lengths to which this excuse of a Government will go to cling on to power!!! They know that under the present electoral system they are doomed, purely because their policies and attitude toward those unlucky enough to be claiming State Benefits are so unpopular. This isn’t a Democracy any more – it’s a Dictatorship!!!!!!
So do you have to register every year? Im already registered. Such sneaky little tactics that will definitely alienate millions of voters. My god, we’re in trouble.
This assumption that those who don’t vote are apathetic is nonsense. The electoral dictatorship that masquerades as parliamentary democracy is nothing but a closed shop scam. Three/four different factions, three/four different coloured ties, same old neo-liberal Thatcherite economics, same old imperialist war mongering nonsense, same old scapegoating of immigrants and those claiming social security, same old elite laughing their socks off at the millions who give their personal mandate once every five years to a bunch of crooks, liars, thieves, hypocrites and murderers. Those who vote deserve everything they get, because that’s what they voted for.
Same old anti-voting, support-the-status-quo propaganda.
How can the idea of not voting be the same as supporting the status quo? when the choice you are given is an illusion of choice then the idea of voting is crazy.
We have an out of date representative democracy that is a complete sham. We need a new system that guarantees everyone’s participation in the decision making process.
You don’t seem to understand that Tory voters are very well-regimented and conditioned to ensure that they give their masters what they want. They will always vote, as and when required, therefore the “don’t vote” propaganda may be seen as directed towards voters for the other parties. If these targeted voters are misled by the propaganda, then they will allow the Tory voters the leeway they need to swing the next election, allowing the Conservatives back in, in support of the current status quo. Simple – and nothing at all to do with your contention that our democracy is out of date.
“nothing at all to do with your contention that our democracy is out of date.”
this is an incorrect assumption mike. it has everything to do with our democracy being out of date. All Labour need to do is organise a massive voting campaign and get the traditional Labour voters out on polling day. Given the terrible damage the coalition are doing to that traditional Labour support that should not be a problem. Particularly now that Arnie Graff is on board.
Regardless my point sill stands, the option is between the devil and the devil you already know and that is no real choice at all.
Having already posted my point of view – in the original article – and seeing nothing here that might lead me to change it, I’ll leave it to readers to judge your words.
This is another way to disenfranchise the poor by making them register. I registered online…I think.
I’m thinking of voting for TUSC or some other left wing party, but because of the voting system it would be a wasted vote.
If you register online there is an option to have a confirmation sent to your email. You can visit your online registration anytime – just keep the letter with your password – and make sure all your details are correct, including the email confirmation.
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog.
Like it will make a difference even if Labour win. They are committed to the benefit cuts and austerity that the Tories have brought in with the Lib Dem support. Disenfranchisement is always bad but lets not delude ourselves that Labour will make a difference where it matters. They are tied to the same co-opted corporate political paradigm as the Tories.
http://takeourpowerback.net/
This is precisely the kind of propaganda to which I refer in the article. JR here is trying to make us all believe that we can’t do anything at all that will make a difference.
The fact is, people need to take responsibility for their own political lives. That means not only voting, but making sure politicians seeking election know what you want; if they can’t provide it, tell them you won’t support them or their party, and they’ll change their minds pretty quickly if enough people tell them that. There is plenty of time to get major issues included in the various manifestos.
Also, you can always join the party of your choice and change it from within. If JR thinks Labour is as committed to the benefit cuts and austerity (a bizarre claim when the Tories are constantly moaning that Labour has opposed every single such measure they have imposed on this country), then why not JOIN Labour and make a case for change?
It’s easy to be an armchair sceptic. Get up and take a look around and the landscape isn’t always what you expect.
Unfortunately Mike you dont see to have realised my point or read my blog posts on these subjects. You might want to do that before you make assumptions.
Our MP’s dont represent us anymore, they have been bought by corporate interests:
http://takeourpowerback.net/2013/11/24/mps-who-do-they-represent/
The democracy we have is a representative democracy. We vote for representatives every 5 years based an a 5 year manifesto. After that we get no say in how our country is run. To think otherwise is a delusion on a grand scale.
Your idea you can change a party from within is quite frankly ridiculous. The executive run the party. Members do not have a say on teh big issues.
I agree its very easy to be an armchair secptic. Which is why i run my own website and blog about these issues and i also campaign for a real democracy, something we dont have in this country.
“The fact is, people need to take responsibility for their own political lives.”
i couldnt agree more, unfortunately what you propose is’nt that. If you want people to take responsibility for their own political lives you have to give them the tools to do that.
http://takeourpowerback.net/2013/11/10/direct-democracy-using-technology-to-empower-ourselves/
Read my blog Mike and you will avail yourself of my opinions and views and why i hold them.
Labour plan to be even harder on welfare:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
Labour gave up on fighting austerity in the summer of 2013:
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12352
I will read your blog, although I don’t have much hope for it, based on what you have said here.
You should be aware that Rachel Reeves softened her tone and policy immediately after the Guardian report you reference was published. That was comprehensively reported in this blog, if I recall correctly. Perhaps you should read it?
You seem convinced by a ‘softening of tone’ Mike. I and many others are not.
took us into an illegal war in Iraq.
supported deregulation of the financial services that led to the recent financial crisis
introduced PFI for the NHS
supports austerity in all but name which is why they have been so silent in the 1st years of the coalition government
have no new workable proposals to try to stop the off shore banking tax havens and are explicitly tied to the global economic debt system as much as any other mainstream political party is
supports benefit cuts
agrees with Cameron’s support of NSA and GCHQ spying on us and the erosion of our online privacy.
Labour are not the answer to this countries problems. They are another corporate backed entity.
Labour are the BEST answer to this country’s problems, at this moment in time. Any alternative proposal, right now, will only weaken opposition to the main enemy – a Conservative Party that is more despotic now than at any time in the last hundred years.
It is easy to put up a list of perceived grievances – yours has many that are arguable, if not completely wrong – and I could put up a very large list of Labour achievements to stand against it. You do not have proof for many of your suggestions. Some of the others are matters that Labour will admit were mistakes and would rectify, in government. Some of the others, I’ll admit, I would have to check – but the errors elsewhere cast doubt on your veracity.
If my list is wrong please show me and your readers how. I have proof for every suggestion i made. The facts are there and are irrefutable. If you think i am wrong them show me and your readers the errors.
took us into an illegal war in Iraq.- labour were the ruling party and supported in this war decision by the tories
supported deregulation of the financial services that led to the recent financial crisis- labour did nothing to regulate the banks or the markets preceding the last financial crash, they were supported in this by the tories
introduced PFI for the NHS- this was a labour idea and policy.
supports austerity in all but name which is why they have been so silent in the 1st years of the coalition government- they are only now as an election looms playing the anti austerity card- ed balls only criticism of austerity is its pace, not the idea of it.
have no new workable proposals to try to stop the off shore banking tax havens and are explicitly tied to the global economic debt system as much as any other mainstream political party is- irrefutable
supports benefit cuts- they havent proposed to repeal the majority of the welfare cuts
agrees with Cameron’s support of NSA and GCHQ spying on us and the erosion of our online privacy.- labour have been silent on this as a party relying on keith vaz on the intelligence select committee to speak for us
prove these claims otherwise please mike.
I refer you to the many, many previous articles on benefit cuts, tax havens, and austerity. If all you have on the NSA and GCHQ is that Labour is relying on Keith Vaz – a senior Labour member – to speak against government policy, then Labour is against government policy.
PFI was a mistake, financial deregulation was a mistake. Iraq is contentious, but it seems unlikely Labour would have taken the UK to war there if all the information had been known. That might have required a different leader, of course!
Why have Labour not come out and criticized the NSA and GCHQ scandal? Keith Vaz sits on an all party committee, he doesn’t speak for Labour on this just as the Tories on the same committee don’t speak for the Tories.
PFI was a mistake that continues to cripple the NHS and Labour have no plans to repeal it.
Financial deregulation was a major factor in creating the banking crisis and Labour have no plans sort it out. The crisis was created by the banks playing the markets with our money in a profilgate and unregulated way. It was created using massive credit given to us in the form of cheap loans and credit cards and a housing bubble. Exactly the situation we are walking into again. Labour bailed out those banks and created the excuse the Tories needed for austerity. What they should have done is what Iceland did. Instead generations of people will suffer with the cuts both the Tories and Labour support.
MPs on all-party committees represent their party on them! Of course Keith Vaz speaks for Labour on that one!
Your lack of knowledge about the structure of Parliament suggests that I should not even bother answering your other comments.
All party committees are parliamentary committees Mike. They aren’t partisan. There function is to enable Parliament to question in depth what they can’t do in the chamber. Keith Vaz doesn’t represent the parties views or stance on that select committee.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/31/spying-shock-world-britain-refusing-engage
“The prime minister’s credulous approach and Ed Miliband’s refusal to break ranks speak volumes for the state of the UK debate.”
They are non-adversarial committees; that doesn’t mean they are non-partisan. Labour members take a Labour viewpoint, in the same way Tory members take a Tory viewpoint. You don’t leave your ideology at the door in any Parliamentary committee.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/select/
I fail to see why you have posted this link, which does not support your opinion.
It explains the function of select committees Mike. It clearly supports my opinion they are all party and bi partisan and that members of them do not speak for their parties but speak for and on behalf of Parliament.
Wrong – select committees are, of course, composed in order to include a proportionate number of members from all Parliamentary parties. They represent their parties’ views on those committees.
And select committees are not All-Party Parliamentary Groups – the organisations to which you were originally referring.
Perhaps you are confused. You certainly do not seem to understand the system.
No they don’t mike as stated in the reference from Parliament itself.
You’d better quote the reference because I can’t find anything indicating non-partisan participation.
Parliamentary committees work in the same way any government or local government committee does – along party lines. Have you never been to a local council meeting?
Mike don’t be an arrogant patronizer, it really doesn’t suit your argument
My words were fair comment. I’m still waiting for the reference.
The whole page is the reference Mike. Read it and you will it makes no claim as you suggest that the committee is partisan.
It doesn’t have to. For your claim to stand, it would have to state – explicitly – that the committee is non-partisan and members are expected to put their party interests aside.
You seem to be living in a dreamworld in which party political affiliations only matter in the chambers of the Houses of Commons and Lords. That is not correct. MPs are elected on party platforms and are expected – by the electorate – to follow the ideals of those parties, whether that be in the Commons chamber, in select or subject committees, or in all-party parliamentary groups. That is how it works.
I’m surprised that I have to explain such a fundamental part of our Parliamentary system.
My point as you repeatedly fail to comprehend is that they don’t follow the ideals of the electorate or their party. Your arrogant tone and patronizing style stifles the debate and to be honest makes you look stupid to your readers.
I have repeatedly shown you giving examples of where you are incorrect and your response is to be arrogant and patronizing. Good luck with that approach Mike
I just admitted a mistake – is that arrogant and patronising? Unpalatable, but if we didn’t admit our errors sometimes, nobody would get anywhere. That being said, it is easy to see that select committees do not behave in a non-partisan way. Look at the behaviour of whips in selecting backbenchers to sit on those committees, and look at the way they behave when they are working on those committees – for example, the Conservative members of the Work and Pensions committee who sought to ingratiate themselves with Iain Duncan Smith when they were supposed to be asking hard questions about his misuse of statistics and the failures of Universal Credit, in the session on December 9.
So in practice, they DO follow the ideals of their party.
Interestingly, I’ve just done a little more reading which suggests that the intention has been for select committees to try to reach cross-party consensus. However the reality is that the choice of members is up to party whips, who choose those backbenchers who are most likely to represent party interests – and so your contention fails, in practice, if not in theory.
Care to share this research mike? Because it sounds like rubbish.
“Following the adoption by the House of recommendations from the Reform of the House of Commons Committee (which was chaired by the former MP, Dr Tony Wright);
the majority of Select Committee Chairs are now elected by their fellow MPs. This applies to departmental committees and the Environmental Audit, Political and Constitutional Reform, Procedure, Public Administration and Public Accounts committees.”
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP09-55.pdf
I don’t see the relevance of your quotation.
I dont see the relevance of that pdf. Its a research paper from 2009.
Here is the guide for committee members from 2011
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/guide-select-ctte-members.pdf
Here is the latest liason committee report from 2012:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmliaisn/697/69702.htm
You have made an assumption based on the limited number of select committee reports that the mainstream media report on that committee members are broadly partisan and question witnesses on party lines. for the vast majority of committes this is simply not the case Mike.
In the United Kingdom, Departmental Select Committees came into being in 1979, following the recommendations of a Procedure Select Committee, set up in 1976, which reported in 1978. It recommended the appointment of a series of select committees covering all the main departments of state, with wide terms of reference, and with power to appoint specialist advisers as the committees deemed appropriate. It also suggested that committee members should be selected independently of the party whips, as chosen by the Select Committee of Selection. The 14 new committees began working effectively in 1980.
The chairs of (the majority of) select committees have been elected by the house as a whole since June 2010: before that members were appointed by their parties and chairs voted on solely by those members.
You are out of date with your facts and out of touch with how select committees are created.
No. But I can see that you are either not capable of discussing this reasonably, or unwilling.
For example: The pdf is a BRIEFING paper from the House of Commons Library, designed to provide background information on the committee structure.
You are seeing what you want to see, rather than what is there,
Anyway, this has lost its relevance to the subject of the article.
Its a research paper mike and it is 4 years nearly 5 years out of date
It has never been superceded, therefore it appears to be an accurate appraisal of the current committee system in terms of the way it was devised and the system on which it operates.
If you wish to nit-pick, go ahead, but I won’t entertain any more such comments here. This side-argument will detract from the main issue, which is that people may lose their right to vote, due to recent legislation.
Just the RED face of the Tory Coin
Nonsense. Even at its neoliberal worst, Labour was a LOT better than the Conservatives.
3 cheeks of the same arse. Mike argues for a continuation of the illusion of choice the status quo represents. Don’t ever forget that Thatcher said her greatest achievement was New Labour
But the current Labour Party is not New Labour. Either you have not familiarised yourself with changes within that party or you are deliberately peddling a false image of it.
What changes mike? Are there any substantial ones? Milliband is planning to bring back blairites as the recent leaked memo shows
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/07/secret-memo-blairites-labour-election-alastair-campbell-alan-milburn-ed-miliband
But Miliband is not a Blairite and will control what they do. Clearly I am not about to convince you, but at least other readers can make their own decisions about what you are saying. My own is that it seems you may influence people into letting the Conservatives back into office, which would be a disaster for every citizen of this country who doesn’t have at least £20 million in an offshore account.
You think he will control them? How? The Tories have no chance of being re elected. They are polarizing the debate and even attacking their own middle class support base. This period in power is all about a landgrab for resources.
He’ll control them in exactly the same way any employer controls the actions of any employee. They are being brought in to do a particular job in a particular way. That is all.
JR you are right 3 checks of the same arse. It is people like Mike born with Labour blood that will just vote Labour no matter what. Labour has changed, they have lied and screwed the education system, taken us to war on lies. I enjoy reading Mikes blog as at times he makes some good points. But I do not trust labour at all. It is Mike and the old guard that fear change and love the idea of the 3 main parties .
Of course I disagree strongly. I’m not saying Labour doesn’t have any faults at all – in fact I have criticised Labour very strongly in my articles at times, and contributed to changes in policy and personnel. The point of this article, though, is to make it clear that people need to retain – and use – the right to vote that was won by their forebears after long and bitter struggle. If our political parties don’t carry out the democratic will of the people, it is partly because the people have abandoned the political parties – that’s down to apathy. History tells us that ordinary people getting and using the vote has made a huge difference – when they have actually made a conscious decision to take part in the political process. It is only since they have withdrawn from that process that the rot has set in.
“If our political parties don’t carry out the democratic will of the people, it is partly because the people have abandoned the political parties – that’s down to apathy.”
your blaming the electorate for the low turnouts? your blaming the electorate for the apathy? are you being serious here?
the electorate has lost faith in the parties, MP’s and the democratic process because they see that they arent represented. they see time and again they are not consulted on important issues that affect them, they see time and again they are lied to and hoodwinked.
the political class do not represent the people, they have been bought and corrupted by the lobbying and incentives of big business and corporate interests.
the electorate arent stupid mike. they see a system that is broken and that doesnt work for them and so they shun it. this is entirely the fault of the system and the parties and the MP’s. The system is balanced in favour of a privileged minority that are corrupt.
The problem with shunning an electoral system that has broken is, your non-participation makes it worse! The only solution is to get involved and work to evolve the system back into something workable. Otherwise you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Not if you replace it with a system that is truly representative
That is impossible to achieve from outside, I reckon. Evolving the system seems the only workable way of making that happen.
Exactly mike. Which is why you shouldn’t be urging people to vote for any of the 3 main parties at all.
Voting for this party is the only way.
http://www.paparty.co.uk/
Tell you what: I’ve put up your comment with the link. We’ll let the people decide.
Fair enough
Another point to consider is that juries are drawn from those registered to vote. With, potentially, large swathes of the electorate disappearing, the chances will increase that juries will consist entirely of White, middle- or Upper- class men whose world view will have been shaped by the Mail and Telegraph and will give them a set of prejudices to match.
What will that do to the idea of being tried by a Jury of one’s peers?
yet again, the scales of justice are tilted even further away from the Common Man.
[…] Individual voter registration will replace the current system in time for the general election in 2015, according to a government minister. […]
I think it’s a damned disgrace and it should have been put to the people first! They should be sending out letters, putting up flyers and billboards and having tv and radio adverts for the whole of next year. This would give people a real chance and if they had a text number, as well as the website/phone number/address to write to then it would give a larger portion as well.
[…] Don’t lose your right to vote because of apathy. […]
Disabled people have been demonized to the point that most people think we are scroungers.
Voting hardly changes anything.
Tories-disgusting people who don’t think that I have a right to exist.
Lib Dems-Traitors
Labour-Untrustworthy
UKIP-fascist
TUSC-Will never get anywhere
I do vote, but I’m in a safe seat for the Tories.
All of those comments on the parties are merely your opinion of course. Voting does change the national situation – and has changed it radically over the course of the last century. Take a look at a history book and you’ll see that.
Those who vote in the next election could be the ones that change the way the UK votes! It has to change sometime and that time is getting closer. I have always believed in the one man, one vote rule as changing boundaries just becomes another excuse every time an election is approaching. With this new “way” of registering less people will get to be able to vote, which is exactly what this pathetic coalition wants.
I think the tories are going to find just how much they are hated when the election does come, I only wish it were sooner so that people’s minds are fresh! They’ve gone and hurt the pensioners in a hateful way this time, and the pensioners are the ones that go out religiously to vote.
I’m hoping Labour have a landslide vote, but I wish to goodness that they would pull their fingers out and start fighting against every cut, every policy, every lie and every unlawful MP in government now!
One thing to be said for Cameron is that he believes stingily in the concept of ‘One Man, One Vote’…
…Providing he is that man
That SHOULD have read STRONGLY!
Registering, and voting, is essential – but no to vote for any of the self-serving, major three parties. The effectively one party state (does anyone imagine Labour repealing this, the upcoming gagging order or any other government-serving legislation, when they back?) run by a self-selecting, professional political class needs to be challenged. If it isn’t, all we will get is more of the same. If UKIP – with their legion of faults and petty-minded policies -can mobilise an alternative, why can’t the concerned Left ? Because they care more ? If we fail to seriously challenge the existing, comfortable parties and their professional elites at th ballot box we’ll get the same old whirligig again – and the government we deserve. Like we have now..
I think this is rubbish. Labour is not the same as the Conservatives. If you think it is, you haven’t been paying attention. Labour has promised to repeal many laws that have already been imposed by the Coalition and you have no reason to believe that they will go back on those promises. The gagging law includes many measures that are specifically intended to curtail support for Labour, so I have no reason to believe they will allow it to continue, if they gain a majority in 2015 despite all the attempts at gerrymandering that are being brought up.
You seem to have allowed yourself to be duped by all the right-wing propaganda out there – and it is right-wing propaganda; anyone who tells you a vote for any of the current three major parties is a vote for more of the same is trying to ensure a Conservative victory next time – whether they realise or not that this is what they’re doing.
UKIP is not mobilising an alternative – it is proposing even harsher and more repressive policies.
The best way to challenge the current government at the ballot box is to join the main opposition – Labour – and work to ensure that its policies reflect your own idea of right and wrong. I’ve been saying this for some time now, but there seem to be plenty of people who would rather criticise from a distance while actually doing nothing at all.
Labour has been corrupted by the Westminster Village. They may well promise, but I won’t hold my breath for repealing any of the “Tory” legislation that will suit a government of any colour from the major parties (i.e. those professional politicians with a vested interest in the status quo). I’ve heard that kind of rhetoric before. All changes once settled into power.