General election...

Hahahaha. Lol, bukh! Best laugh I've had all day and it's been a funny day :O) Perhaps, coincidentally, the Thai PM and leader of the right-wing ‘Democrat’ party and the Thai equivalent of the chancellor of the exchequer were both born in the UK and went to public school here. They, wisely, try to avoid elections!

Turn up at the polls and vote the silliest name, or just turn up at the polling station with a petrol bomb, a small army and proceed with operation anarchy and burn those government puppets to the ground, Sorry if this is a bit harsh, but ... well fuck it, lets just burn the entire parliment to the ground and celebrate our victory with a bon fire and some fireworks once a year.

Oh dear. I think that we have a genuine duty to vote - even if that vote is a spoilt ballot paper. If 30% of the ballots cast were spoilt then we would get a change in voting system - and that's one of the things that we need most of all. I shall probably be voting Green as we have a real chance in my constituency of electing the first Green MP. I think that she will be an excellent person to have in parliament and that it will send a message to the other parties that we do need a change of system.

I too shall vote Green, as I too live in that constituency and would like to see some more MPs in Parliament that are not either from the Labservatives, the UKIP or various nationlists. But if we had a properly representative voting system, I would vote to give the Lib Dems a chance. They deserve a chance.

Wow... some of you are really angry!

Many people really want a vote for change! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8607267.stm You don’t know what you’ve got ‘till its gone!

Yeah, compared to Thailand or Burma or a thousand places like that, Britain really doesn't have it so bad. We might as well just sit back, relax, and welcome in David Cameron's "X-Factor"... after all, in a few years time we'll probably be having general elections via tv talent shows. Meanwhile, whoever is leading Thailand after all the shit is over (whenever that will be) will be wondering what the hell went wrong in Britain; after all, for some reason we are (or have been) something of a "democracy idol" in those parts.

I think that Britain is seen as something of a ‘model’ of Democracy because it has learned to be fairly subtle in its hypocrisy where as so many Asian governments are far too blatant! Since you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time if you can create the illusion of even handedness it ruffles less feathers.

Wasn't that bob marley?

Well I choose to abstain. I deny all ideas that there is some moral duty to vote. I will not legitimise a system founded on violence. I will not thus give my consent to be governed by war criminals or warmongers. I do not subscribe to the principle of majority rule; I do not subscribe to the principle of rule. All Governments are tyrannies, all tax is theft. The state exists to serve the interests of the ruling class & voting for politicians will not change that. I declare my independence & when you go to vote remember exactly what you deny me through your creation of government. ANARCHY NOW!....... You may choose to call my position childish, you may choose to call my position naive. But I am not the one hoping that the same collection of crooks we have been encouraged to choose between for decade after decade are finally going to justify their existences. No! Representative democracy is a lie built on a pile of lies. I will not vote.

In some place people are dying to vote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8612783.stm

I am sorry Mangone, but they are wrong to do so. There are good reasons to take risks with your life, in the cause of profound social change perhaps, but the vote is fool's gold, always has been always will be. I am swayed not at all by the argument which runs "people died so that you can vote." People have died for very much better reasons, what do you want to do, trade martyrs? Okay.... http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/souchy_may.html

I agree Kropotkin, fuck elections, fuck the ruling elite. Sadly as Buhk said when starting this thread it's between one right class party or another, all pandering to the rich, how can Labour call itself Labour when it changed to New Labour to pander to an elite group who momentarily wanted change to teach the old Torys a lesson. Now the Torys pretend to be slightly more in the loop to appease the average person when in fact they're just back 'on the firm' with the usual suspects. The wars are in full swing and they want the working class kids. When I was 16 and uneducated I wanted to join up, 'sorry' they said 'you need a clean criminal record and GCSEs to enlist nowadays'. Funny how when they need cannon foder kids with a few convictions and no education are welcome. Fuck em all I say, none of em represent me.

I always find that people's opinions are usually far better defined by what they actually approve rather than simply by what they condemn... So it would be very enlightening to hear which system the last two posters believe gives a superior method of choosing government and which countries are actually using this method both popularly and successfully.

Mangone, I am a radical democrat, and a libertarian, I am proud to call myself an anarchist. Therefore, a method of choosing a government is of little interest to me because politics, hierarchy and the state are not vehicles for human advance but, like the class society they serve, obstacles to it. I believe that people are perfectly capable of running their lives, their communities and their workplaces by the application of direct democracy. I maintain that it is perfectly possible for production to be established on the basis of need, and for all administration of "things" to be undertaken through confederation and co-operation between radically democratic organisations. Very many people have died in the cause of liberty, but I cannot point to whole countries where what I would call a free society exists. Experiments are ongoing in Chiapas in Mexico, in the face of Government oppression and military aggression.... look into it Mangone. In fact though, the onus is on you and other supporters of liberal democracy to justify your system. We live in a world on the very edge of catastrophic climate change, poverty and malnutrition are widespread, inequality generalised, children die for want of clean water, the global military-industrial complex is of monstrous proportions, democracies pursue clearly imperialist policies. Even in the most prosperous representative democracies cultural poverty and mindless consumerism are rife. How dare you try to sell on this torn cloth, this broken reed? How dare you promote a system which in practice merely delivers whole economies into the hands of multi-nationals? And there we have it: your representative democracy, the curtain behind which the corporations do their global deals and decide all our fates. Go on, go and vote. Which colour is your favourite? Never mind if you don't like that shade of bland you can find yourself another one at the next election.

Blimey you're brave! I wouldn't suggest that, but on the other hand, they can have might vote back, I relinquish it freely. :)

“I maintain that it is perfectly possible for production to be established on the basis of need, and for all administration of ‘things’ to be undertaken through confederation and co-operation between radically democratic organisations.” So how does this radical democracy stay democratic without voting, K38? A panel of experts guess what people would vote for were they to vote? A specially selected team of Anarchist telepaths?

No, radical democracy is not some brand new idea that I have invented Mangone, and your approach does little justice to something practised in very many co-operatives around the world. There is a distinct difference between discussion and then, if necessary, a vote to make a decision, and voting for representatives. That is the distinction between representative democracy and direct democracy. Let me explain a little further, I have worked in factories which could very well have been run without the supervisors and managers. This could have been achieved, and has been documented to have been achieved historically, by direct worker democracy. Often decisions amongst people working in the same cause can be made without voting - solidarity is a marvellous thing - but, if necessary a vote can be taken. This kind of democracy does not run through the creation of representatives but through mandated delegates, instantly recallable and with only the authority to carry the message from "below" to the next level of confederation "above". I repeat, these are not ideas that I have pulled from thin air, but ideas which have been quite extensively theorised and tested - usually under the most difficult of conditions. It seems appropriate Mangone, given that this is ABCTales, to refer you to George Orwell's 'A Homage to Catalonia' for a glimpse of what a society putting direct democracy into action can be like. If all else fails, please feel free to inform yourself with any number of internet resources dedicated to demonstrating that the services of politicians ("representatives") are surplus to the requirements of running society.

I agree that models of worker democracy do not always work FTSE, although I would guess we tend to hear more about the ones that fail than the ones that succeed. The things is, and the same was true of the co-operative movement, it is rather hard for relatively small alternatives to survive in the capitalist milieu. If we are really to create a future with radical democracy I am afraid that it will have to be rather a revolutionary change - perhaps due to massive disaffection with the present system, perhaps in response to a crisis or crises. The other thing to note is that the present system does not work, at least not for the majority of the planet's inhabitants or for the Earth.

So why don't you go into the voting booth and write 'Anarchy now' across your voting paper. If even 10% of the population did it then change would occur and people would begin to listen to the anarchists. I have a lot of time for true anarchism but I do believe that you have to use every available peaceful avenue to disseminate your beliefs - and utilising your vote in this way is one of them. I also think that we adopt the social contract at birth - and opting out of it is very difficult indeed. I do not believe that you fail to use any public services at all - it's almost impossible - and therefore as a member of society you have a duty to express your opinions on the way it is run.

You have me thinking there Tony. I believe that people I know may use, unwittingly and in a remote way, public services, but if they weren't there they wouldn't miss them as they probably don't realise they are even using them. Could you name a few of the services that they are using? Apart from a pound note.

"after which one or other right-wing party carries on pursuing the policies of Margaret Thatcher for four or five years until there's another general election". In fact we no longer live in a Capitalist society with Thatcherite ideology. Thatcher was a strong advocate of the free market. Bail-outs of banks, home-owners is socialising loss. We live under Corporatism now where the interest of a few large organisations are paid for. There is no candidate being fielded in my constituency I feel able to vote for. I have been aggressed against for so long it is now simply strategic defence in this bellum omnium contra omnes. I will vote for whoever gives me the most tax credits when I become a single mother! jude

Without government there would be chaos. If we thought about it calmly we would/ should conclude that order is necesasary for a good quality of life. If you don't choose to vote - fair enough, but you increase the chance for somebody else to control us or to bully us. In Iraq a couple of years back there was political dissension and sectional militias attacking each other and bullying the population. Before that there was a tyrant who was never even elected, who took power through military coups and had the power to wipe anyone he didn't like. In Afghanistan we have militant Taliban using their guns to subvert democratic choice. We should value our democracy and our freedom of speech, and our law and order.

I'm detecting quite a lot of cynicism here about the general election and even apathy. To me elections are primarily about communication. How well or badly do the different parties get their messages across? How do they connect with a highly diverse and fragmented electorate? How do they handle the balance between style and substance? How do they use new media? Like it or not this election is a case study in how to - or how not to - interact with 21st century audiences. This is cutting edge stuff. As writers shouldn't we be totally fascinated by all of this?

Sorry, I should have said it is 'Free-Market Capitalism' which is dead (with the emphasis on the free-market) leaving Bail-out Capitalism or Corporatism. Either way, it is not Thatcherite. I do believe Thatcher would have (if she could) let the banks go to the wall. She was, like me, a moral absolutist rather than a consequentialist (in fact it was her poor implementation of theory that was one of her many Achilles Heels) and she would not have put such a high value on the fall-out from a collapsed banking system. The human cost would have been tremendous but as Kant said, "Do What Is Right Though the World Should Perish" . Broosh, I don't have time to be fascinated by all of this. I am 33 and so it is time to start think about having a family. And that means maximising my position in a god-awful system, not chasing ideology. Why should I fret about how political parties connect with a diverse and fragmented electorate - I probably wouldn't be able to connect with most of the electorate either. The only way of connecting would be to screen the leaders' debate on a Saturday evening in front of Piers Morgan, Simon Cowell and Cheryl Cole who then give their verdicts before the phone lines open. Gordon Brown and Susan Boyle could sing a duet about the NHS. The Bond markets are going to force at least £50bn of cuts on whomever ends up 'governing' . Since fiscal policy will be decided by external forces, I voted (by post yesterday) for the party which is closest to me on social/ civil law and even that is under pressure (for example Brussels pressuring UK for an outright ban on smacking children). jude

But Jude as a writer do you not care about your potential audience out there? I don't really want to waste time writing for audiences that no longer exist. There are obviously many ways of learning about modern UK audiences, but it seems to me one quick way is to see how they respond to the different messages and approaches used by the political parties during election 2010. As for having a family while being fascinated by the election, I thought women were great at multi-tasking. At least that's what my wife keeps telling me.

I tend to write niche articles for journals with very small circulation and I write poetry for pleasure (I sometimes enter it into magazines and competitions). There is a small market... I am happy with the few hundred people who read my work. I have no talent or desire for commercial writing on any large scale and even if I did, I wouldn't ghost-write some WAGs biography just because that's what people want to buy! Also, the myth of women muti-tasking is exactly that, a myth! Apart from which, I am writing a 20k word thesis and working full time and we can only focus on two things (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7594996/Scientists-disco...) It isn't so much time, it's just that I have to evaluate how I spend my emotional capital. Getting upset because of the logical flaws running through political policies which are all geared towards buying floating voters in the key marginals isn't going to achieve anything. There's a funny cartoon that epitomises my position all through my twenties http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/duty_calls.png I have lost count of all the discussions and debates we have had here in the decade I have been frequenting the site and I think it has changed me for the better and helped me refine and mature my views. I still do follow the election and pay some attention but as I said, my priority is to maximise my own position. jude

Fair enough Jude. I actually agree with you about multi-tasking.It is a bit of a myth. If there are any celebrity WAGs on ABCtales, I just want you to know I am available for this kind of task.

'Free market economics' have never been 'free'. Look at the trade tariffs and other barriers designed to enable large multinationals to vampire on developing world resources. On a local level there is no free market. In a true economic and social libertarian society, if I invent a revolutionary drug in my home laboratory, I should be able to test on animals and sell it with a disclaimer that it has not been tested in clinical trials (and let people make up their own minds about the risk) and it will make me profit. I can't experiment because I need a license which is a violation of my freedom. I cannot market the drug because of the requirement of a large scale clinical trial (it takes millions of pounds to have a drug approved for the market). My only choice is to sell my research to a pharmaceutical giant or work for them so they get the lionshare of the profit instead of me. It isn't the free-market that keeps the poor down but the fact that it is coupled with social conservatism and legal regulation. You can point to the Thalidomide tragedy to argue why regulation is necessary but Avicenna's The Canon of Medicine from 1025 AD provides a sensible basis for testing. Pregnant women would sensibly avoid any drug that had not been tested for teratogenic effects. You're right that the pain for losers will be worse without any subsidy. I believe there will always be losers but that doesn't give anybody the right to aggress against my freedom and coerce me into helping them. The problem with economic and social libertarianism is that you cannot graft it onto the current system without imprisoning people as losers forever. That's why I am a moderate libertarian in that I believe in preserving welfare for the most vulnerable and also maintaining state sponsored quadpartite education (grammars, technical acadamies, arts and humanities acadamies and vocational schools) so every child gets the best education suited to them. By the way, there is an interesting article in New Scientist this week about how no democratic system can be 'fair'. I would imagine that one possible conclusion is that perhaps democracy itself is not right. jude