General Election 2010

[Park Life 71]

Phil is seething.

 

Hoping for big cuts in his 70% tax rate under the tories.

 

[Christmas Tree 4709]

That's what I've been saying to anyone thinking of voting Tory because of Cameron. Yes, he might have these big ideas, but his party his still full of useless shite that he'll have to back down on quite a few of them. That's if you believe he was going to do some of the things he promised anyway...

 

The difference between the Tories and Labour now is that what Mandelson and Brown say pretty much goes. The Tory leader however (even Thatcher found this) is much more under the control of the 1922 committee and other backroom bigwigs - it'll be they who are deciding Cameron's deal imo.

 

 

Time will tell, as it always does, but I think you are all mis-judging Cameron. I think he's very principilled and have seen nothing to counter that argument.

 

We'll see tho.

[Renton 21392]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

[PaddockLad 17124]

Brown only just beat Michael Foot.

 

Untenable.

 

 

He'll be gone before supper time

 

On the face of it thats logical, but Clegg will want concessions on PR which the tories won't have......so it'll be a minority government, Nodrog will hang around for a couple of years to guard the recovery, then fuck off and write the most ill natured poliitcal memoir ever

[Park Life 71]

There is "not very much happiness among Conservative ranks" about the election result and there are mutterings that the campaign actually reduced support, Spectator editor Fraser Nelson says.

 

 

Clearly it did like.

 

It is a total fuck up by Cameron. Was scheduled for a clear maj and didn't get it, even with nearly everything in his favour.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

That's what I've been saying to anyone thinking of voting Tory because of Cameron. Yes, he might have these big ideas, but his party his still full of useless shite that he'll have to back down on quite a few of them. That's if you believe he was going to do some of the things he promised anyway...

 

The difference between the Tories and Labour now is that what Mandelson and Brown say pretty much goes. The Tory leader however (even Thatcher found this) is much more under the control of the 1922 committee and other backroom bigwigs - it'll be they who are deciding Cameron's deal imo.

 

Oh aye, the Tory campaign has been all about Cameron and no-one else..on the basis that the rest of them are a bunch of bumbling bastards.

 

 

This is the sort of bias claptrap that gives us shit politicians. It has been a presidential style campaign from all three.

[Park Life 71]

There is "not very much happiness among Conservative ranks" about the election result and there are mutterings that the campaign actually reduced support, Spectator editor Fraser Nelson says.

 

 

Clearly it did like.

 

It is a total fuck up by Cameron. Was scheduled for a clear maj and didn't get it, even with nearly everything in his favour.

[NJS 4375]

However it must have many down sides since no-one Labour or Tory have brought it in.

 

I'll have to find a nice unbiassed source to read up on it.

 

I remember after 83 and 87 there was a real sense that Labour could never win a majority again and they started to discuss PR with the obvious problem that it needs the winners to actually consider it first.

 

I think since then because they've won power they've rediscovered faith in the current system and being honest I think the last few elections at least have produced results which reflected the mood of the country (with a few niggles). This one for example shows an appetite for something new but not enough of that to produce a Tory government.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

Following on from Happys point. The parties are now so close in the middle ground that coalitions should now work in grown up politics.

 

Old party lines make a lot of us seem a lot further apart politically than in reality we actually are.

 

I suspect most on here are fairly decent, happy to do their bit, believe in fairness and want good public services and a decent society for our families to live in.

 

It's the old part lines that focus's our attention on the differences, rather than what we agree on.

 

New politics, bring it on.

 

If you really believe that you should support the Lib Dems. Sounds like wooly bullshit to me like, but that's not to say we couldn't develop some form of PR that works well, other countries manage it.

PR has many benefits. Every vote counts so parliament actually reflects public opinion, for as long as I can remember we’ve been governed by a party the majority of the country didn’t vote for. Under FPTP the views of people who live in marginal seats carry a grossly disproportionate weight, which is wrong whichever way you look at it. PR would also protects us from obviously bad or extreme policy getting pushed through parliament, and it provides a proper mechanism for getting on with things when the national vote is split three ways like we have now.

Well said.

 

 

However it must have many down sides since no-one Labour or Tory have brought it in.

 

I'll have to find a nice unbiassed source to read up on it.

 

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

 

My knowledge on it which is very limited, just thinks it would give us more situations like this where politicians get the final say of the make up of the government.

 

I would also hate it lead to a situation where one party or one lib lab pact is always in power.

 

I hate the fact that in South Tyneside we always have a Labour council. Bad things happen when power is one sided. (not saying a conservative council would be better, just that the councillors are more wary of their decisions if they know they can be put out of a job)

[Guest alex]

Following on from Happys point. The parties are now so close in the middle ground that coalitions should now work in grown up politics.

 

Old party lines make a lot of us seem a lot further apart politically than in reality we actually are.

 

I suspect most on here are fairly decent, happy to do their bit, believe in fairness and want good public services and a decent society for our families to live in.

 

It's the old part lines that focus's our attention on the differences, rather than what we agree on.

 

New politics, bring it on.

 

If you really believe that you should support the Lib Dems. Sounds like wooly bullshit to me like, but that's not to say we couldn't develop some form of PR that works well, other countries manage it.

PR has many benefits. Every vote counts so parliament actually reflects public opinion, for as long as I can remember we’ve been governed by a party the majority of the country didn’t vote for. Under FPTP the views of people who live in marginal seats carry a grossly disproportionate weight, which is wrong whichever way you look at it. PR would also protects us from obviously bad or extreme policy getting pushed through parliament, and it provides a proper mechanism for getting on with things when the national vote is split three ways like we have now.

Well said.

 

However it must have many down sides since no-one Labour or Tory have brought it in.

 

I'll have to find a nice unbiassed source to read up on it.

Self-explanatory surely.

[Happy Face 29]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

[Guest alex]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

[Christmas Tree 4709]

However it must have many down sides since no-one Labour or Tory have brought it in.

 

I'll have to find a nice unbiassed source to read up on it.

 

I remember after 83 and 87 there was a real sense that Labour could never win a majority again and they started to discuss PR with the obvious problem that it needs the winners to actually consider it first.

 

I think since then because they've won power they've rediscovered faith in the current system and being honest I think the last few elections at least have produced results which reflected the mood of the country (with a few niggles). This one for example shows an appetite for something new but not enough of that to produce a Tory government.

 

 

The result is the result tho and is probably right.

 

The lib dems havent really changed, people in England are sick of Labour but the tories still have too much bad will to be fully trusted.

[Renton 21392]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

 

Because in general they're cunts. I'm sure that answer could be framed better mind.

[Park Life 71]

My feeling is Brown will dig in.

[Gemmill 44491]

Statement from GoBro imminent according to the beeb.

 

Also police are investigating how a 14 year old boy was able to vote in Preston.

[Happy Face 29]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

It's a toughie.

 

The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is.

 

I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[Phil 6]

Brown only just beat Michael Foot.

 

Untenable.

 

He didn't seem to have any issue taking up residence at No 10 without an election.

 

Did Major? We're not the USA, we don't vote for a president.

 

Two wrongs make a right in your book?

You could argue it's unfair but there's nothing wrong with it in constitutional terms. Perhaps electoral reform is needed.

 

 

I can't see Labour or Tory going for proportional representation as it would open the door for Lib Dem to be a real party.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

Phil, where have you been?

 

All labour politicians have been going on about for the last 12 hours is how theyare now in favour of PR!!!

 

Clinging to the piggy trough.

[Christmas Tree 4709]

Brown to speak soon.

 

If he goes, will that mean to non elected prime ministers in a row?

 

Wish I was at home with the TV on.

[Gemmill 44491]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

[Guest alex]

Election historian on the BBC just saying he's against it.

 

Suggested you need this kind of result twice in a row to say it's failed...which has never happened.

 

Also leads to a lot of smaller parties with more MPs causing congestion in the commons.

 

And if it does? I can see it this time and iirc it almost happened twice in a row in the 70s.

 

I'm just repeating what he said. I'm woefully uninformed on electoral systems. But the way I see it, if you have 650 seats and 30m voters then PR says if you can muster 50,000 votes you become an MP....which means UKIP would have 17 MPs and the BNP would have 10...you'd also get a growth of religiously motivated parties, which I'm not sure I favour.

 

I prefer the system of voting for two or three parties in order of preference.

 

Am i way off?

The thing is though, why should people you don't happen to agree with / don't conform to the centrist parties be disenfranchised?

 

It's a toughie.

 

The commons is like a school playground with two (three at a push) parties arguing the toss as it is.

 

I think when you have 20 parties with reprasentation, and a fifth of the MPs not affiliated to any major party, it turns into a democratic hindrance rather than an improvement.

I think that's a lame argument to keep the status quo in all honesty. I think they'd work together because they'd have to, like in other European countries.

[Guest alex]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

No. 10 doesn't have an outside lock on the front door. You can only open it from the inside. Trivia-tastic.

[Phil 6]

Phil, where have you been?

 

All labour politicians have been going on about for the last 12 hours is how they are now in favour of PR!!!

 

Clinging to the piggy trough.

 

 

There's a massive difference between Voting Reform (i.e. voting for 1st 2nd 3rd favourite) and Proportional Representation which is based on percentages.

 

 

Lib Dem wont take a minor tweak to the voting system. They want their percentage represented.

[Gemmill 44491]

I hope he comes to the front door, snaps his key off in the lock, licks the doorhandle and shouts "Tell Cameron to fuck off" before slamming the door behind him.

No. 10 doesn't have an outside lock on the front door. You can only open it from the inside. Trivia-tastic.

 

Fuck off dweeb-features!