This is a subject that political parties are heavily discussing at the moment.
Personalities of the leaderships of a party are important to a point. These days when people are famous for being famous, the do not have to be the best singer, actor, football or leader to be the favouriate in the publics eyes.
BUT .. it not the only reason people vote for them, I mean would the BNP be in government now if Tony Blair had been the leader. I do not think so.. Would the Libs be in power if they had Gary Linker in charge.. ?
Same with Neil Kinnock Flower. I personally thought the man was a buffoon, and would have made a poor PM, but I still voted Labour throughout the Tory years because a Kinnock led Labour government was IMO the lesser of two evils. In the old-style Labour Party at least, the Parliamentary Party and the NEC largely held sway when it came to policy, and would hopefully have countered any tendencies towards idiocy on his part! ;) That's less true of the more presidential style PMs we've had of late I think. I voted twice for Labour under Tony Blair, despite having no great love for him, because I felt that some kind of centre-left Tory light was still preferable to the Tory right, and I naively expected the party to successfully push through a more left-of-centre radical agenda once securely in power in spite of him.
Anyways, I'm rambling . . . the short answer is, I tend to vote for the party, and the personality of the party leader, or the personality of the local representative I directly elect to Parliament is largely irrelevant.
Neil x x x ;)
You have to vote for policies not personalities, how can you complain about the person you elected because you liked their hair, clothes, or even mannerisms? As for their actual personalities, who knows the truth about them anyway? We only know what the press and media want us to know.
I wonder if the likes of Heath or Callaghan would have ever been elected if it was about personalities? lol
As I have said on another thread, unless the leader of a political party is the candidate in your constituancy you don't actually get to vote for who is Prime Minister anyway.
It wouldn't have been Foot or Kinnock anyway.
John Smith was elected as leader of the Labour party and, but for his untimely death from a heart attack, I think the country would have been better off under his premiership rather than Bliar.
I think people vote based on their party loyalties or their belief that a particular party will act in their own best interests. They are then inclined to demonise personalities from opposition parties.
My mother alwasy said she could never vote for Thatcher because she had evil hooded eyes when in fact as a died in the wool socialist living on a council estate on the breadline she wouldnt have voted Tory if they were led by somebody charismatic like erm er that charismatic politician erm names on the tip of my tongue nope its gone.
I always voted for the party..until Tony Blair became it's leader,I felt then that "new" Labour had become a party (much like the Tories) devoid of any ideology or morality,and the removal of clause 4 of the partys' constitution was the last straw.I believe that all 3 major parties now are totally lacking in any central belief,and without this are nothing but poor accountants tinkering around the edges of policy lacking any will or belief to drive any important or significant changes.I have since the advent of Blair voted for smaller single issue parties (I count the green party amongst them...as are the B.N.P.(though nothing would get me to vote that particular ticket)) or spoiled my ballot paper.
Michael Foot was if nothing else a gentleman, and honest to boot (excuse the pun). Whatever he might have done had he ever been PM he would have done with sincere intentions. His belief in Soviet style socialism and unilateral disarmament would have stopped me voting for him, had I been old enough to vote.
people may not be aware but they vote for the projected personality. that's what the media circus is for, and there is absolutely no fundamental differences between the main political parties and all of them serve their masters who aint you and me. if there was a principled political party who genuinely proposed to serve the common interest of the vast majority of the people, it would be ridiculed, slandered and vilified in the media if it stood a chance of being elected. if it was on the fringe, it would'nt get any media space whatsoever.
latest example, the lisbon treaty. all parties in agreement. after all the huff and puff, no fundamental difference.
The con party are just another party. Good at lying to get into power and then good at looking after their backs and helping their friends.
Anyway: People vote for who their newspaper supports.
i vote for none of them now.
because they are all corrupt bastards who need dragging before the courts and slamed away for a full election term so they cannot serve for at least 8 years.
we need the military to take over this fast becoming banana republic!
