They're not voting because...
- I'm in a marginal seat (Liberal Democrat...
I'm in a marginal seat (Liberal Democrat/Tory) and I've been contacted by various parties soliciting my vote.
Normally I would be inclined to vote Liberal Democrat. The LibDems don't seem to be as nasty as the Tories (in their present incarnations) and didn't seem quite so keen to give up principles in order to gain electoral or other advantage as New Labour.
However, although the LibDems have criticised the government's dangerous and ridiculous "anti-Terrorism" measures, when the time came for a critical vote on the prevention of terrorism bill, 17 Liberal Democrats, including Charles Kennedy, did not turn up. The bill got through by a margin of 14 votes
I suppose that the LibDems were worried that had they visibly swung the vote to defeat the bill, they would have been exposed to criticism in the case of possible terrorist incidents in the UK in the future.
I will not vote for a party which dumps important principles in this way.
It would take a gun pointed at my head to make me vote Tories and in the present election, they are running such a thoroughly nasty anti-immigration campaign that I am speechless.
New Labour will continue to put me off voting for them as long as they persist in this obsession with spin. It renders them incapable of ever giving a straight answer.
I shall sit out this current election. At least in this way,written 17th Apr 2005
my unexercised vote will be added to those who choose not to be involved in the democratic process.
G Wroe replies: Your concerns sound very similar to that of the Green Party. Why not find out more about us at www.greenparty.org.ukwritten 17th Apr 2005
Mark Scott replies: It sounds like you are a natural Lib-Dem voter, but you want to punish them for what Charles Kennedy has admitted in inteviews was a regrettable miscalculation on the Iraq vote. You should give him the beneft of the doubt, and if only to help keep the Tory out, get out and vote on the 5th!written 17th Apr 2005
sans replies: I have been following the passage of the anti-terrorism law carefully. I believe that the Liberal Democrats did not believe the vote would be so close (it is a govt with a majority of 167 MP's)and this has been widely reported in the press. The vote was lost in the House of Commons but defeated repeatedly in the House of Lords by a combination of Liberal Democrats, Conservative and some Labour peers. In the end the Liberal Democrats got the amendments they wanted which were that a judge would decide on the validity of the evidence used in any house arrest and that the law would have to be renewed every year.
You can follow what happened here http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs - under the heading "terror laws". Other papers also extensively covered the passage of the law but most require subscription.
So your supposition that the Liberal Democrats did not vote against the law in the House of Commons on purpose is a misconception.written 17th Apr 2005
Anonymous replies: So it's fine for Charles Kennedy not to vote, but when the public take the same attitute they get berated.
Hardly a good example is it?written 17th Apr 2005
koski replies: Thanks for the comments. Putting aside the provocative conspiracy theory aspects of my post, I would have expected Kennedy to have voted on such an important issue and at such a critical point. I am still astonished that he didn't. I've emailed Kennedy to tell him that I won't be voting and will stick with this decision.
I wonder how many workers from the various parties are posting on these boards to influence posters' views...written 17th Apr 2005