Politically disillusioned

Unknown said:

It's about making the least bad choice

All the parties are only interested in being power so they can do whatever they want when they get there.

For us, the disabled and vulnerable, we are just too small a percentage of the vote to be worth doing anything serious about. We are never going to make a shift in the power balance and it isn't as if we represent one political viewpoint so there is just too little return for the time investment needed to look after us.

We are also financially much more expensive to cater to than the rest of the population - they are not asking for every company in the country to implement a system where comms can be done without a phone (as one example) to for staff to be hired in organisations such as schoold and universities to make it easier for us to participate.

We are just not attractive to them other than to pay lip service to in the hope of getting votes.

In the bigger picture of the balance of power in the country, any party that stays in for 3 terms invariably becomes rotten. It is happening now, it happened to New Labour and it happened to the conservatives under Thatcher at the end.

I think all parties should be limited to 2 terms just to ensure the late stage rotteness is avoided, but that would no doubt bring plenty of its own problems too.

I agree with firemonkey that getting the current bunch out is more important than what is going to replace them - it would be hard to be any worse.

Unknown said:

It's about making the least bad choice

All the parties are only interested in being power so they can do whatever they want when they get there.

For us, the disabled and vulnerable, we are just too small a percentage of the vote to be worth doing anything serious about. We are never going to make a shift in the power balance and it isn't as if we represent one political viewpoint so there is just too little return for the time investment needed to look after us.

We are also financially much more expensive to cater to than the rest of the population - they are not asking for every company in the country to implement a system where comms can be done without a phone (as one example) to for staff to be hired in organisations such as schoold and universities to make it easier for us to participate.

We are just not attractive to them other than to pay lip service to in the hope of getting votes.

In the bigger picture of the balance of power in the country, any party that stays in for 3 terms invariably becomes rotten. It is happening now, it happened to New Labour and it happened to the conservatives under Thatcher at the end.

I think all parties should be limited to 2 terms just to ensure the late stage rotteness is avoided, but that would no doubt bring plenty of its own problems too.

I agree with firemonkey that getting the current bunch out is more important than what is going to replace them - it would be hard to be any worse.

Have you looked into why it is that all political parties seem to turn to dog doo-doo after a while?

I'm not sure about it taking 3 terms to become rotten. May and Cameron's governments only look less awful by comparison to what came after.

And I would be very concerned about the actions of politicians who are assured of their party losing power. It would be actively beneficial for them to allow crises to develop and have them fall at the next person's door. If the concrete had lasted just a little longer, they would have been very happy to be able to claim that crumbling schools is a Labour problem.