The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (05/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2482362&viewfull=1#post2482362

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (02/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2481378&viewfull=1#post2481378

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[Furunculus]

I am going to have a third vote on election day itself, before 5:30pm, to record my last moment gut-feeling.

Feel free to do the same.

[Idaho]

WTF! what planet do you live on?

I am a Tory/UKIP type person, and I have a Polish girlfriend, and there is zero incompatibility between the two.

It might be convenient for you to conflate the Tory's and UKIP with the BNP, as it makes them easier to be branded as guilty by association, but it is fundamentally dishonest.

The UKIP position is that they don't want to be european.
The BNP position is that they don't want have any europeans (or anyone else).

They may well be different messages. But they come from the same place. BNP is the working class expression of it, and UKIP is the middle class expression of it.



The Tory position on immigration isn't exactly ideological, it is merely a pragmatic recognition that the less well off consider it to be a problem, and it is their job to represent the view of the electorate. If you don't get that then you will never understand why labours votes among the working class are about to drop off a cliff at this election.

I as a right-wing individual don't personally give a damn about immigration, but I see social tension rising in other parts of the country and realise something should be done about that, unlike the labour position that immigration was an ideological tool to transform via social engineering the very fabric of the country.

I think both Labour and Conservative were trying to be pragmatic on immigration. Both of them followed the same de facto basic trend. The difference is that on paper the had to pander to different power bases.

[Beskar]

Lib-dem/Tory coalition won't work - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/lib-dem-tory-coalition
Liberal led, Labour coalition? - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/02/nick-clegg-prime-minister-hutton


I have to admit, I could easily settle for Nick Clegg becoming the next Prime Minister in a Lib-Labour coalition. It would be a very good move to make. Especially as it would give the Labour-left some actual power instead of the Labour-Right (New Labour Blairites)

[Furunculus]

They may well be different messages. But they come from the same place. BNP is the working class expression of it, and UKIP is the middle class expression of it.

absolute twaddle, explain how a desire to be the arbiter of your own identity is in any way similar to a dislike of having foriegners live in your area/country?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Tory/UKIP lot claim to be against immigration - but it's all balls. The UKIP's money backer runs a big shop near here. He employs Polish staff because they work cheaper :laugh4:

They love immigration - they just want the immigrants to quietly disappear after they have cleaned the toilets and swept the streets.

dossn't make them bigots, which the BNP are.


Also, Tories want to pray the gay away. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/conservatives-philippa-stroud-gay-cure)

Some people need to exit the dark ages.

Some things to consider:

1. New Frontiers is a non-conformist Evangelical (non-American) Church; Tories are usually Established Church, Labour are Catholic, and the Lib-Dems are non conformists (and now Atheists).

2. Only the Guardian has said something nasty about her; even the homosexuals interviewed say nice things about her.

3. It's an opinion that was barely out of fashion when she was a child, so it's not "dark ages".

4. A funny opinion about homosexuality doesn't disqualify you from wider social work, nor does it make you wrong about everything.


absolute twaddle, explain how a desire to be the arbiter of your own identity is in any way similar to a dislike of having foriegners live in your area/country?

Quite.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Tory position on immigration isn't exactly ideological, it is merely a pragmatic recognition that the less well off consider it to be a problem, and it is their job to represent the view of the electorate. Oh, please!

'We ourselves are elightened, but hey, the unwashed masses will have none of it, so what can we do, eh?'

What hypocrisy, what lack of moral backbone, what unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions.
It reduces the white working class to the bigots of Brown, far inferior to the superior elite. The sole difference that Brown does not whereas the Tories will listen to the bigots, will be their humble servants.

It maintains the same elitist snobbery of the working class of Brown, but adds hypocricisy and cowardice to it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, please!

'We ourselves are elightened, but hey, the unwashed masses will have none of it, so what can we do, eh?'

What hypocrisy, what lack of moral backbone, what unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions.
It reduces the white working class to the bigots of Brown, far inferior to the superior elite. The sole difference that Brown does not whereas the Tories will listen to the bigots, will be their humble servants.

It maintains the same elitist snobbery of the working class of Brown, but adds hypocricisy and cowardice to it.

I think, actually, that the Torries do consider it a problem. Immagration is happening too quickly right now, it isn't managable. thinking that doesn't make you a bigot.

[InsaneApache]

It does if your called Gillian and live in Rochdale. :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think, actually, that the Torries do consider it a problem. Immagration is happening too quickly right now, it isn't managable. thinking that doesn't make you a bigot.I too think the Tories think so too. I also personally think immigration has happened too quickly and that it is not bigotry to think so.

What I resent, is the claim the Tories do not think so but that the lower classes leave them no choice. This is simply a repeat of Brown's snubbery, with the added element of hypocricy. It allows for thinking what the uneducated bigots think, while keeping up the appearance that one himself if of course well above such bigotry, that it is only one's strict adherence to democratic principles that one should act on this inferior bigotry of the unwashed masses.

[InsaneApache]

Meanwhile, back in the jungle....

When I look back on it now what surprises me is how disarmingly polite my attackers were.


"What are you doing?" asked one of the two, seemingly inquisitive, Asian teenagers who approached me on a quiet cul-de-sac in Bow, east London, shortly after 1pm yesterday.

"There's been a photographer around here, do you know her?" he added.
Related articles
More UK News
Search the news archive for more stories

I didn't, but I explained I was a journalist for The Independent looking to speak to a man at an address in the area, who was standing as a candidate in the local elections, about allegations of postal vote fraud. "Can we see your note pad," the boy asked.

I declined and then the first punch came – landing straight on my nose, sending blood and tears streaming down my face. Then another. Then another.

I tried to protect myself but a fresh crop of attackers – I guess between four and six – joined in. As they knocked me to the ground one of them brought a traffic cone repeatedly down on the back of my head.

As their fists and feet slammed into me, all I could think about was some advice a friend had given me. She's a paramedic and has dealt with countless victims of assault. "Whatever you do don't get knocked to the ground," she once said. "Blows on the floor are much more dangerous." It seemed faintly absurd now. "That's easy for you to say," I thought. "How on earth are you meant to stay up?"

I don't know how long it lasted – it was probably only a minute – but it was a long minute. I don't remember them saying anything as they did it. The first noise I was aware of was the beeping of a car horn and a woman screaming.

The noise brought a man out of a nearby block of flats. With little regard for his own safety he waded in and defended me until my attackers ran away.

I shudder to think what would have happened if he hadn't been brave enough to take action and I cannot thank him enough for what he did. He gave me a bottle of water to wash the blood away and showed me a mobile phone that one of the attackers had dropped which he later handed to the police. He also maintained that he saw at least two of the attackers run into the candidate's house.

What brought me to Bow yesterday were allegations of widespread postal voting fraud. Both the local Conservative and Respect parties in Tower Hamlets have been looking through the new electoral rolls for properties that have an alarmingly high number of adults registered to one address. The area has a large Bengali population and this type of fraud is unfortunately all too common. In some instances there have been as many as 20 Bengali names supposedly living in two or three-bedroom flats. When journalists have previously called, all too often there are far fewer living there. In some instances, no Bengalis at all.

In such a heavily populated borough, a few fraudulent postal votes might not sound like it matters but when you look at how slim the majorities are here you know every vote counts. In Bethnal Green and Bow, Respect has a tiny 1,300-vote lead. In neighbouring Poplar and Limehouse, where George Galloway is taking on Labour's Jim Fitzpatrick and Tory newcomer Tim Archer, the lead is around 4,000. But boundary changes have brought thousands of affluent Tory-leaning voters into the constituency, making it an equally tight race.

So far Scotland Yard is looking into 28 allegations of bogus voter registration in London, although the Conservative and Respect parties both say they have highlighted many more. Concerns have been amplified by a flood of new voter registrations in the past few weeks in the run-up to the nationwide deadline on 20 April. Election officials in Tower Hamlets have removed 141 suspect ballots from the register but overall 5,166 new names were received before the deadline with little time to check their veracity.

Bengalis do tend to have large families and this is the third most deprived borough in the country. Overcrowding is a serious issue. But other Bengalis I know in the area had told me that it was very unusual to have any more than five adults in one house. The households are large, they said, because they have lots of children – not lots of adults.

Thinking back on my experience perhaps I was naïve to venture into the area on my own, although I do live in east London, know the estates well and have rarely felt threatened. My Bengali neighbours, meanwhile, are particularly kind and well-liked because they tend to keep a tighter leash on their kids.

The paramedics who treated me told me that they rarely went into the area without a police escort. "These kids are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty," one of them said. "There's a lot of drugs and gang-related violence but it is rare for a stranger like you to be attacked."

The slight difference, of course, is that I'm not a stranger in the normal sense. Whoever these kids were it was evident that they were no strangers to the occasional journalist and photographer sniffing around.

Last night, I managed to speak to the man I wanted to interview about the alleged fraud, and whose house I was outside when I was attacked. He said: "I am not going to talk to you about this. Why have you been knocking on my door. You don't disturb me. If you knock on my door again I will take you to court."

Police probe voter fraud

*Police forces across the country are investigating over 50 complaints of voting abuses, including 10 complaints passed to the police in Tower Hamlets where The Independent journalist Jerome Taylor was attacked.

Tower Hamlets Council confirmed it had asked the police to investigate 10 cases of voter fraud in its area, but it revealed that 3,123 late applications have been received for postal votes and it has had too little time to properly check whether they are all genuine before the register closed.

That could open the poll in the two constituencies in Tower Hamlets – Bethnal Green and Bow and Poplar and Limehouse – to massive postal voter fraud. Respect is in a bitter fight to retain the highly marginal Bethnal Green seat – vacated by Respect MP George Galloway, who is standing in neighbouring Poplar and Limehouse – and, in an unprecedented development in British politics, all the candidates of the main parties are Bangladeshi Muslims.

The council said it would support calls to change the rules after Thursday's elections, to provide more time for checks to be carried out on late postal vote applications. "That could mean closing applications for postal votes at least four days before the normal voter registration process closes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-first-punch-came-landing-on-my-nose-sending-blood-down-my-face-1961464.html

New Labour. New Britain.

[Furunculus]

Oh, please!
'We ourselves are elightened, but hey, the unwashed masses will have none of it, so what can we do, eh?'
What hypocrisy, what lack of moral backbone, what unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions.
It reduces the white working class to the bigots of Brown, far inferior to the superior elite. The sole difference that Brown does not whereas the Tories will listen to the bigots, will be their humble servants.
It maintains the same elitist snobbery of the working class of Brown, but adds hypocricisy and cowardice to it.
stop tying yourself in knots, what you state is not representative of what i said.

it is a fact that the working class have the most to lose from uncontrolled immigration, as it pools in their communities and 'takes' their jobs. it is 100% not elitist or snobbish to recognise that ill and then seek to remedy it.

there are bigots everywhere, but I am not the one labelling the entire working class as bigoted, i leave that to gordon brown and yourself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am going to have a third vote on election day itself...

That's the ticket! Vote early, vote often!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Meanwhile, back in the jungle....

When I look back on it now what surprises me is how disarmingly polite my attackers were.


"What are you doing?" asked one of the two, seemingly inquisitive, Asian teenagers who approached me on a quiet cul-de-sac in Bow, east London, shortly after 1pm yesterday.

"There's been a photographer around here, do you know her?" he added.
Related articles
More UK News
Search the news archive for more stories

I didn't, but I explained I was a journalist for The Independent looking to speak to a man at an address in the area, who was standing as a candidate in the local elections, about allegations of postal vote fraud. "Can we see your note pad," the boy asked.

I declined and then the first punch came – landing straight on my nose, sending blood and tears streaming down my face. Then another. Then another.

I tried to protect myself but a fresh crop of attackers – I guess between four and six – joined in. As they knocked me to the ground one of them brought a traffic cone repeatedly down on the back of my head.

As their fists and feet slammed into me, all I could think about was some advice a friend had given me. She's a paramedic and has dealt with countless victims of assault. "Whatever you do don't get knocked to the ground," she once said. "Blows on the floor are much more dangerous." It seemed faintly absurd now. "That's easy for you to say," I thought. "How on earth are you meant to stay up?"

I don't know how long it lasted – it was probably only a minute – but it was a long minute. I don't remember them saying anything as they did it. The first noise I was aware of was the beeping of a car horn and a woman screaming.

The noise brought a man out of a nearby block of flats. With little regard for his own safety he waded in and defended me until my attackers ran away.

I shudder to think what would have happened if he hadn't been brave enough to take action and I cannot thank him enough for what he did. He gave me a bottle of water to wash the blood away and showed me a mobile phone that one of the attackers had dropped which he later handed to the police. He also maintained that he saw at least two of the attackers run into the candidate's house.

What brought me to Bow yesterday were allegations of widespread postal voting fraud. Both the local Conservative and Respect parties in Tower Hamlets have been looking through the new electoral rolls for properties that have an alarmingly high number of adults registered to one address. The area has a large Bengali population and this type of fraud is unfortunately all too common. In some instances there have been as many as 20 Bengali names supposedly living in two or three-bedroom flats. When journalists have previously called, all too often there are far fewer living there. In some instances, no Bengalis at all.

In such a heavily populated borough, a few fraudulent postal votes might not sound like it matters but when you look at how slim the majorities are here you know every vote counts. In Bethnal Green and Bow, Respect has a tiny 1,300-vote lead. In neighbouring Poplar and Limehouse, where George Galloway is taking on Labour's Jim Fitzpatrick and Tory newcomer Tim Archer, the lead is around 4,000. But boundary changes have brought thousands of affluent Tory-leaning voters into the constituency, making it an equally tight race.

So far Scotland Yard is looking into 28 allegations of bogus voter registration in London, although the Conservative and Respect parties both say they have highlighted many more. Concerns have been amplified by a flood of new voter registrations in the past few weeks in the run-up to the nationwide deadline on 20 April. Election officials in Tower Hamlets have removed 141 suspect ballots from the register but overall 5,166 new names were received before the deadline with little time to check their veracity.

Bengalis do tend to have large families and this is the third most deprived borough in the country. Overcrowding is a serious issue. But other Bengalis I know in the area had told me that it was very unusual to have any more than five adults in one house. The households are large, they said, because they have lots of children – not lots of adults.

Thinking back on my experience perhaps I was naïve to venture into the area on my own, although I do live in east London, know the estates well and have rarely felt threatened. My Bengali neighbours, meanwhile, are particularly kind and well-liked because they tend to keep a tighter leash on their kids.

The paramedics who treated me told me that they rarely went into the area without a police escort. "These kids are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty," one of them said. "There's a lot of drugs and gang-related violence but it is rare for a stranger like you to be attacked."

The slight difference, of course, is that I'm not a stranger in the normal sense. Whoever these kids were it was evident that they were no strangers to the occasional journalist and photographer sniffing around.

Last night, I managed to speak to the man I wanted to interview about the alleged fraud, and whose house I was outside when I was attacked. He said: "I am not going to talk to you about this. Why have you been knocking on my door. You don't disturb me. If you knock on my door again I will take you to court."

Police probe voter fraud

*Police forces across the country are investigating over 50 complaints of voting abuses, including 10 complaints passed to the police in Tower Hamlets where The Independent journalist Jerome Taylor was attacked.

Tower Hamlets Council confirmed it had asked the police to investigate 10 cases of voter fraud in its area, but it revealed that 3,123 late applications have been received for postal votes and it has had too little time to properly check whether they are all genuine before the register closed.

That could open the poll in the two constituencies in Tower Hamlets – Bethnal Green and Bow and Poplar and Limehouse – to massive postal voter fraud. Respect is in a bitter fight to retain the highly marginal Bethnal Green seat – vacated by Respect MP George Galloway, who is standing in neighbouring Poplar and Limehouse – and, in an unprecedented development in British politics, all the candidates of the main parties are Bangladeshi Muslims.

The council said it would support calls to change the rules after Thursday's elections, to provide more time for checks to be carried out on late postal vote applications. "That could mean closing applications for postal votes at least four days before the normal voter registration process closes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-first-punch-came-landing-on-my-nose-sending-blood-down-my-face-1961464.html

New Labour. New Britain.

Sounds just like voting week in the old 5 Points neighborhood at the height of Tamany Hall.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meanwhile, back in the jungle....

When I look back on it now what surprises me is how disarmingly polite my attackers were.


"What are you doing?" asked one of the two, seemingly inquisitive, Asian teenagers who approached me on a quiet cul-de-sac in Bow, east London, shortly after 1pm yesterday.

"There's been a photographer around here, do you know her?" he added.
Related articles
More UK News
Search the news archive for more stories

I didn't, but I explained I was a journalist for The Independent looking to speak to a man at an address in the area, who was standing as a candidate in the local elections, about allegations of postal vote fraud. "Can we see your note pad," the boy asked.

I declined and then the first punch came – landing straight on my nose, sending blood and tears streaming down my face. Then another. Then another.

I tried to protect myself but a fresh crop of attackers – I guess between four and six – joined in. As they knocked me to the ground one of them brought a traffic cone repeatedly down on the back of my head.

As their fists and feet slammed into me, all I could think about was some advice a friend had given me. She's a paramedic and has dealt with countless victims of assault. "Whatever you do don't get knocked to the ground," she once said. "Blows on the floor are much more dangerous." It seemed faintly absurd now. "That's easy for you to say," I thought. "How on earth are you meant to stay up?"

I don't know how long it lasted – it was probably only a minute – but it was a long minute. I don't remember them saying anything as they did it. The first noise I was aware of was the beeping of a car horn and a woman screaming.

The noise brought a man out of a nearby block of flats. With little regard for his own safety he waded in and defended me until my attackers ran away.

I shudder to think what would have happened if he hadn't been brave enough to take action and I cannot thank him enough for what he did. He gave me a bottle of water to wash the blood away and showed me a mobile phone that one of the attackers had dropped which he later handed to the police. He also maintained that he saw at least two of the attackers run into the candidate's house.

What brought me to Bow yesterday were allegations of widespread postal voting fraud. Both the local Conservative and Respect parties in Tower Hamlets have been looking through the new electoral rolls for properties that have an alarmingly high number of adults registered to one address. The area has a large Bengali population and this type of fraud is unfortunately all too common. In some instances there have been as many as 20 Bengali names supposedly living in two or three-bedroom flats. When journalists have previously called, all too often there are far fewer living there. In some instances, no Bengalis at all.

In such a heavily populated borough, a few fraudulent postal votes might not sound like it matters but when you look at how slim the majorities are here you know every vote counts. In Bethnal Green and Bow, Respect has a tiny 1,300-vote lead. In neighbouring Poplar and Limehouse, where George Galloway is taking on Labour's Jim Fitzpatrick and Tory newcomer Tim Archer, the lead is around 4,000. But boundary changes have brought thousands of affluent Tory-leaning voters into the constituency, making it an equally tight race.

So far Scotland Yard is looking into 28 allegations of bogus voter registration in London, although the Conservative and Respect parties both say they have highlighted many more. Concerns have been amplified by a flood of new voter registrations in the past few weeks in the run-up to the nationwide deadline on 20 April. Election officials in Tower Hamlets have removed 141 suspect ballots from the register but overall 5,166 new names were received before the deadline with little time to check their veracity.

Bengalis do tend to have large families and this is the third most deprived borough in the country. Overcrowding is a serious issue. But other Bengalis I know in the area had told me that it was very unusual to have any more than five adults in one house. The households are large, they said, because they have lots of children – not lots of adults.

Thinking back on my experience perhaps I was naïve to venture into the area on my own, although I do live in east London, know the estates well and have rarely felt threatened. My Bengali neighbours, meanwhile, are particularly kind and well-liked because they tend to keep a tighter leash on their kids.

The paramedics who treated me told me that they rarely went into the area without a police escort. "These kids are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty," one of them said. "There's a lot of drugs and gang-related violence but it is rare for a stranger like you to be attacked."

The slight difference, of course, is that I'm not a stranger in the normal sense. Whoever these kids were it was evident that they were no strangers to the occasional journalist and photographer sniffing around.

Last night, I managed to speak to the man I wanted to interview about the alleged fraud, and whose house I was outside when I was attacked. He said: "I am not going to talk to you about this. Why have you been knocking on my door. You don't disturb me. If you knock on my door again I will take you to court."

Police probe voter fraud

*Police forces across the country are investigating over 50 complaints of voting abuses, including 10 complaints passed to the police in Tower Hamlets where The Independent journalist Jerome Taylor was attacked.

Tower Hamlets Council confirmed it had asked the police to investigate 10 cases of voter fraud in its area, but it revealed that 3,123 late applications have been received for postal votes and it has had too little time to properly check whether they are all genuine before the register closed.

That could open the poll in the two constituencies in Tower Hamlets – Bethnal Green and Bow and Poplar and Limehouse – to massive postal voter fraud. Respect is in a bitter fight to retain the highly marginal Bethnal Green seat – vacated by Respect MP George Galloway, who is standing in neighbouring Poplar and Limehouse – and, in an unprecedented development in British politics, all the candidates of the main parties are Bangladeshi Muslims.

The council said it would support calls to change the rules after Thursday's elections, to provide more time for checks to be carried out on late postal vote applications. "That could mean closing applications for postal votes at least four days before the normal voter registration process closes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-first-punch-came-landing-on-my-nose-sending-blood-down-my-face-1961464.html

New Labour. New Britain.Pft.

Disneyland. You have paramedics that dare to go into sensitive areas.

[Furunculus]

That's the ticket! Vote early, vote often!


lol, but it is interesting to see how the collective opinion morphs over time.

[Idaho]

dossn't make them bigots, which the BNP are.

I don't think they are bigots. I think they are generally doddering fools who haven't got a scooby about real politics.


Tories are usually Established Church, Labour are Catholic, and the Lib-Dems are non conformists (and now Atheists).

Eh? The Labour party originated out of the dissenter/methodist/baptist branch of christianity. No idea where you got the idea they were catholics.

[Beskar]

Eh? The Labour party originated out of the dissenter/methodist/baptist branch of christianity. No idea where you got the idea they were catholics.

Used to be different. Labour originated out of socialism and trade-unionism, typically non-religious. Though there was much methodist/etc support.

The Whigs (later Liberals) were for Catholic emancipation.

The Tories come from the more royalist branches, the former cavaliers, the supporters of King Charles during the Civil war, however, the more modern conservatives branched out from the Whig party after the reign of Pitt the Younger. The most amusingly, the most worthwhile thing the Conservatives did was unintentionally expand the vote to all house owners, which gave more power to the working and middle classes in the 1867 second reform act.

[Furunculus]

The most amusing thing the Conservatives did was unintentionally expand the vote to all house owners, which gave more power to the working and middle classes in the 1867 second reform act.

surely you mean "worthwhile"..........?

[Beskar]

surely you mean "worthwhile"..........?

I would said "worthwhile", but they did it unintentionally, which is why i said "amusing" as they did something worthwhile by unintented consequence. But you are correct, I should have used a different word, or even "amusingly worthwhile"

[tibilicus]

A couple of polls from tonight.
YouGov/Sun
CON 35%(nc), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 24%(-4)

ComRes
CON 37%(nc), LAB 29%(nc), LDEM 26%(nc)

As you can see, if the polls are to be believed, the lib dem surge is collapsing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Used to be different. Labour originated out of socialism and trade-unionism, typically non-religious. Though there was much methodist/etc support.

The Whigs (later Liberals) were for Catholic emancipation.

The Tories come from the more royalist branches, the former cavaliers, the supporters of King Charles during the Civil war, however, the more modern conservatives branched out from the Whig party after the reign of Pitt the Younger. The most amusingly, the most worthwhile thing the Conservatives did was unintentionally expand the vote to all house owners, which gave more power to the working and middle classes in the 1867 second reform act.

Disraeli deliberately expanded the franchise, something Palmaston refused to do. Disraeli persuaded the Tories that the new voters would be Tory, but whether he believed that or not remains an unanswered question.

Regarding religion, I was talking more about current trends, Labour has the highest number of Catholics, especially among Blairites.

[CountArach]

As you can see, if the polls are to be believed, the lib dem surge is collapsing.
If that were true then both polls would have shown it. Drawing too much of a conclusion from one poll is a bad option.

[tibilicus]

If that were true then both polls would have shown it. Drawing too much of a conclusion from one poll is a bad option.

ComRes, Youguv, Opinum and ICM have shown a drop in lib dem support in the past couple of days. A week ago they were polling any where from 28-32%. Whilst it may not seen to significant to see them drop to the 26-28% region I personally still expect that the lib dems will fail to materialise on the support come election day. Don't get me wrong, even if they poll 26%+ it's a fantastic achievement, I just think the dreams of a weak ago where there was talk of the lib dems gaining 90 seats or more wont happen.

Basically I'm of the belief that the support for them is "soft". I think on Thursday they will struggle to gain a uniform swing.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (05/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2482362&viewfull=1#post2482362

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (02/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2481378&viewfull=1#post2481378

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[gaelic cowboy]

I would like to apologise on behalf of the entire island north and south that we failed to prevent Cameron getting back to England dam volcano never goes when you want it to :clown:

[Furunculus]

I would like to apologise on behalf of the entire island north and south that we failed to prevent Cameron getting back to England dam volcano never goes when you want it to :clown:

lol, i don't think your speaking on behalf of the DUP.

[gaelic cowboy]

lol, i don't think your speaking on behalf of the DUP.

lol

Man I can just see the hastily prepared car crash style events they would have had to prepare today in the north if he had got stuck over here. Labour may secretly hate the working class but Tory incomprehension of the "colonies" would have made for tremendous fun.

[Furunculus]

que?

[tibilicus]

The real question seems to be can we afford another 5 years of LAbor?http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sTgAtpqbuWmfrrz3VgWirMw/view.m?id=417110&tid=120787&cat=News.

[Furunculus]

no is the short and sweet answer to that.

[al Roumi]

no is the short and sweet answer to that.

Lol, perhaps the real questions are (cos I've heard nothing on them really so far):

What can we afford?
What can we afford to do without?

Shame we aren't voting on proposals to address either question - frankly I feel less wise about parties' intentions now than I did before the election was called. boo.

[Furunculus]

oops, a trifle embarrassing:

Hung parliament would be bad for Britain, says law firm where Nick Clegg's wife works

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7121656/Hung-parliament-would-be-bad-for-Britain-says-law-firm-where-Nick-Cleggs-wife-works.html

DLA Piper, where Miriam González Durántez is a partner and head of international trade, said that legislation passed by coalitions is often “anodyne” because it has been “watered down” through “endless” negotiation.

The leading legal practice also said that British hung parliament could lead to “perverse” results as “extreme” parties force “bad” policies through in return for keeping a minority government in power.

Its intervention will come as an embarrassment to the Liberal Democrat leader, who is likely to be the biggest beneficiary if the general election ends in political stalemate.

Mr Clegg could be the “kingmaker” if neither Labour nor the Conservatives win an outright majority, playing a key role in the choice of the next Prime Minister as well as being able to demand that his party’s policies on electoral reform are made law before supporting any coalition.

But on the eve of the election DLA Piper, where the Lib Dem leader’s wife has worked since 2006, issued a press release on the serious problems that a hung parliament could create for Britain.

Paul Stone, a partner and public law expert at the firm, said: "A hallmark feature of a coalition government is the sheer time it can take to achieve consensus. From a legal point of view, this often results in laws being passed that are of high quality and well scrutinised, but unfortunately, are often watered down to the point of being anodyne as a result of endless rounds of review and compromise.

“The main risk to UK legislation is from the perverse results which can arise when the extreme agendas of minority fringe, or single issue parties, actually gain a disproportionate ability to influence policy in return for keeping a minority government in power. In such a situation the silent majority may well find itself being forced to bend to the will of the hard line minority; such situations can result not only in ‘bad’ laws but laws which are clearly outside the scope of what the broad majority of a voting population would be prepared to support.”

However he added that Italy’s “weak coalition governments” helped the economy in the 1970s, as the political “vacuum” allowed businesses to flourish without state interference.

[Idaho]

oops, a trifle embarrassing:

Hung parliament would be bad for Britain, says law firm where Nick Clegg's wife works


My god! If even the law firm where Nick Clegg's wife works is against a hung parliament - we'd be crazy to even contemplate it :laugh4:


Whoever wins tomorrow, you can bet that in 2 years time, the rich will have got richer, and the poor will have got poorer.

[Furunculus]

first web election

also the first big-betting election:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/05/election-betting-record

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Heard a blurb on NPR yesterday suggesting that England's currency was going to take a pounding if there was a hung parliament because "Europe wanted a clear decision." This was a follow-on line to a brief discussion of the Euro's getting hammered because of the currency market's assessment of the Greek debacle.

Sound right to you folks in Blighty?

[rory_20_uk]

Unlikely. Markets will have factored in uncertainty with the current value.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

Whoever wins tomorrow, you can bet that in 2 years time, the rich will have got richer, and the poor will have got poorer.

You'd think those poor sods would eventually run out of money.

How cliche.

[Furunculus]

Heard a blurb on NPR yesterday suggesting that England's currency was going to take a pounding if there was a hung parliament because "Europe wanted a clear decision." This was a follow-on line to a brief discussion of the Euro's getting hammered because of the currency market's assessment of the Greek debacle.

Sound right to you folks in Blighty?

rory is correct, it is simple risk to them that they have had months to factor into their speculation, so given that all three parties promise to 'tackle' the deficit and given that the euro is being repeatedly pounded in its rear sterling is still quite a positive market for currency investment.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (05/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2482362&viewfull=1#post2482362

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (02/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2481378&viewfull=1#post2481378

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Whoever wins tomorrow, you can bet that in 2 years time, the rich will have got richer, and the poor will have got poorer.

LOL


Heard a blurb on NPR yesterday suggesting that England's currency was going to take a pounding if there was a hung parliament because "Europe wanted a clear decision." This was a follow-on line to a brief discussion of the Euro's getting hammered because of the currency market's assessment of the Greek debacle.

Sound right to you folks in Blighty?

Possibly, a Hung Parliament would reduce the likelyhood of rapid reforms and cuts, but I think the markets will hold off to see in we do our usual thing of "pulling together" during a crisis.

So I'd give it a couple of weeks, possibly months, before panicking.

[Furunculus]

Final prediction from me:

Cons 325
Lab 200
Lib 90

Fractional Tory working majority given that Sinn Fein don't vote in Westminster.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (06/05/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2483692&viewfull=1#post2483692

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341
Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (06/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2483786&viewfull=1#post2483786

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070
Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (05/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2482362&viewfull=1#post2482362

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (02/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2481378&viewfull=1#post2481378

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

voting closes at 5:30pm today, make your changes asap.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Whoever wins tomorrow, you can bet that in 2 years time, the rich will have got richer, and the poor will have got poorer.Britain still has the US and Singapore to overtake! Then it will be the industrial nation with the most uneven income distribution of all!

Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level of the Victorian age. Back, too, is the tendency to blame poverty on a moral deficit of the lower class. Dickens is turning in his grave. Gone too, is social mobility - now the lowest in Europe. The UK is a class society again.

Last year, the richest ten percent of Britons got 30% wealthier. Crisis? What crisis? The largest transfer of money from the poor to the rich since the Industrial Revolution. The bill will still have to be paid, the money has been borrowed by the state. This election is about who is going to pay for it the next few decades: the recipients of the handouts, i.e., Britain's wealthy and the international billionaire club in the City, or Britain's tax paying working classes?


I blame NuLab for not having done more in the past thirteen years for it's natural base: working class Britons. Miss Duffy indeed. But whereas she is 'that bigoted woman' to which Blair and Brown are deaf and blind, the Cons are always worse still. Their philosophy is based on thinking of this woman as morally deficit, inferior. Her little pocket change benefit fraud - barely a fraction of what the rich manage in tax evasions - the cause of Britain's financial woes. A woman not worthy of equal education, nor her children or grandchildren. A woman of another Britain, inferior Briton.

[Furunculus]

lol, i don't recognise that description of the tories.

[Furunculus]

the ten canary seats that will indicate in whose favour the vote surge is going:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7683710/General-Election-2010-Top-ten-key-seats-to-watch-on-election-night.html

[Rhyfelwyr]

BNP candidate batters Asians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8663681.stm)

I think what Griffin said is true, the media are trying to turn the BNP into the axis of evil. Which is pointless and unfair, since they are mostly disaffected Labour voters. Most people I know that support them are old women. :laugh4:

[al Roumi]

BNP candidate batters Asians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8663681.stm)

I think what Griffin said is true, the media are trying to turn the BNP into the axis of evil. Which is pointless and unfair, since they are mostly disaffected Labour voters. Most people I know that support them are old women. :laugh4:

Eh? What part of being a disaffected labour voter is it that means one is right to vote BNP???

If the BNP were given any power they would only extend the current misery their voters might experience to others, through some appalingly misguided policies that have little or nothing to do with the economic or political interests of the country. How on earth is that a good thing?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Final prediction from me:

Cons 325
Lab 200
Lib 90Cons 285
Lab 255
LibDem 85
Furthermore, I also predict the remaining parties will take all remaining seats. :knight:

Thank you, Furunculus, for keeping track of our predicitions. Good fun.


BNP candidate batters Asians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8663681.stm)Disgusting, both groups of men. Off to gaol with the lot of them.

[Furunculus]

Furthermore, I also predict the remaining parties will take all remaining seats. :knight:

Thank you, Furunculus, for keeping track of our predicitions. Good fun.

A very astute observation! :p

My pleasure

[Furunculus]

just louis and I with final day predictions so far, anyone else going to join in with seat predictions for the big three?

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (06/05/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2483692&viewfull=1#post2483692

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341
Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (06/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2483786&viewfull=1#post2483786

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070
Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (05/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2482362&viewfull=1#post2482362

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (02/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2481378&viewfull=1#post2481378

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furunculus = Cons 325 / Lab 200 / Lib 90
Louis = Cons 285 / Lab 255 / Lib 85

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........


voting closes at 7:00pm today, make your changes asap.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I blame NuLab for not having done more in the past thirteen years for it's natural base: working class Britons. Miss Duffy indeed. But whereas she is 'that bigoted woman' to which Blair and Brown are deaf and blind, the Cons are always worse still. Their philosophy is based on thinking of this woman as morally deficit, inferior. Her little pocket change benefit fraud - barely a fraction of what the rich manage in tax evasions - the cause of Britain's financial woes. A woman not worthy of equal education, nor her children or grandchildren. A woman of another Britain, inferior Briton.

This is complete rubbish, unmitigated hogwash upon which I am forced to pour utter scorn.

I am sorry Loius, but this reads like a Marxist describing the Upper Class, and the Upper Class have never had a Marxist understanding of their own position.

In any case, the working class effectively don't pay tax, especially as most of them are now on benefits.

Face it, social mobility improved under the "nasty" party, and now it has decreased under Labour.

As to my prediction, I think a Conservative majority of no more than 40, possibly more than 30. How the Left wing will break up, I don't know.

[al Roumi]

In less turgid news, the BBC has a link to politics-related sketches. I particularily appreciated The Minister for Cuts although neither black adder or Yes minister worked (probably a bit overloaded).

Enjoy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/extra/collections/p007jyx1

[Furunculus]

a list of all the major newspapers and who they are backing, including who they backed last time where that has changed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7664387/General-Election-2010-who-are-the-newspapers-backing.html?utm_source=tmg&utm_medium=TD_papers&utm_campaign=election0605am

[Rhyfelwyr]

Disgusting, both groups of men. Off to gaol with the lot of them.

How so? The Asian guy spat in his face so the BNP guy battered him. Good for him I say, a politician from any other party would no doubt have taken the 'brave and noble' option rofl.


Eh? What part of being a disaffected labour voter is it that means one is right to vote BNP???

If the BNP were given any power they would only extend the current misery their voters might experience to others, through some appalingly misguided policies that have little or nothing to do with the economic or political interests of the country. How on earth is that a good thing?

People want the BNP to be the axis of evil, so they ignore everything to the contrary and demonise BNP supporters so they can make it so in their head. The fact is, the majority of BNP supporters are not the skinhead thugs you want them to be, just ordinary working class folk who don't know muhc about politics and feel cheated by their traditional party of choice.

Do I like the BNP? No. Do I sympathise with the BNP's policies? No. Do I sympathise with the average BNP voter? Yes.

[rory_20_uk]

Prescott anyone? How many times did that obese moron lash out without it being made political?

If someone in th BNP farted whilst facing East that'd make the news as another attack on Islam...

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

How so? The Asian guy spat in his face so the BNP guy battered him. Good for him I say, a politician from any other party would no doubt have taken the 'brave and noble' option rofl.



People want the BNP to be the axis of evil, so they ignore everything to the contrary and demonise BNP supporters so they can make it so in their head. The fact is, the majority of BNP supporters are not the skinhead thugs you want them to be, just ordinary working class folk who don't know muhc about politics and feel cheated by their traditional party of choice.

Do I like the BNP? No. Do I sympathise with the BNP's policies? No. Do I sympathise with the average BNP voter? Yes.

agreed. totally.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

any more seat predictions?

[tibilicus]

Well it seems most people my age still view the Tory party as the "nasty party". I've also spoken to a lot of people today who decided to put an X next to their local Labour candidate. Apparently Brown should be void of all blame in regards to our current financial state. Apparently Labour couldn't of avoided doubling the national debt, it was out of their hands.:rolleyes:

I don't think it's so much we need a Conservative government, I just feel that after 13 years Labour are completely detached from the electorate.

It will be interesting to see the exit polls around 10ish. I'll post them here for those not in the UK and those who don't want to stay up all night watching the results come in. They generally give us an idea which party has one the most seats and shouldn't be to far outside the end total for number of seats won.

[rory_20_uk]

Imagine having two parents. One is always buying toys for the children, fancy foods and days out. The other one doesn't, saying that there isn't the money and they've got to cut back to pay off the credit card debts, and the underpayments on the Mortgage.

The children love the first parent for all the nice gifts and a wonderful time. The second parent is hated as being stingy and a kill joy.

Never is the lack of money consciously pinned on the actions of the first...

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

People want the BNP to be the axis of evil, so they ignore everything to the contrary and demonise BNP supporters so they can make it so in their head. The fact is, the majority of BNP supporters are not the skinhead thugs you want them to be, just ordinary working class folk who don't know muhc about politics and feel cheated by their traditional party of choice.

Do I like the BNP? No. Do I sympathise with the BNP's policies? No. Do I sympathise with the average BNP voter? Yes.Yes, and the majority of Nazis have never killed a Jew with their own hands either.

Nazi thugs they are, the BNP. I, for one, will never ever forgive the BNP / Eriksen for their saying that ´women are like gongs - they need to be struck regularly':


Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal…To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.

[Furunculus]

and you wonder why, despite being utterly repellent thugs, people still continue to vote for them..............?

[al Roumi]

People want the BNP to be the axis of evil, so they ignore everything to the contrary and demonise BNP supporters so they can make it so in their head. The fact is, the majority of BNP supporters are not the skinhead thugs you want them to be, just ordinary working class folk who don't know muhc about politics and feel cheated by their traditional party of choice.

Do I like the BNP? No. Do I sympathise with the BNP's policies? No. Do I sympathise with the average BNP voter? Yes.

Right, so BNP supporters in effect don't know better -i'd agree with that, and extend it to the majority of the electorate (especially as we've not really seen any proposals for dealing with the deficit).

I'm under no illusion that there are misguided people who support the most heinous of proposals without being outright evil, but that is what the whole of politics is about to me: the fight for the minds of voters. For the BNP, that battle is won by convincing people that they are poor because of foreigners and would ergo be better off without them around.

[rory_20_uk]

My Grandmother will not vote Tory due to what Churchill did to the Miners...

I imagine that most BNP voters are not aware of this statement, rather like Tory / labour voters were not implicitly backing the MPs expenses.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

and you wonder why, despite being utterly repellent thugs, people still continue to vote for them..............?As a matter of fact, I do wonder, yes.


Here (http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/nelsonnews/Chemicals-Find-Two-In-Court.1806619.jp) you go: a record haul of home-made chemicals for terrorist attacks, not from the IRA or Pakistanis, but the BNP:


Chemicals Find: Two In Court
TWO Pendle men have appeared before Pennine magistrates accused of having "a master plan" after what is believed to be a record haul of chemicals used in making home-made bombs was found in Colne.
Robert Cottage (49), of Talbot Street, Colne, and David Bolus Jackson (62), of Trent Road, Nelson, made separate appearances before the court charged with being in possession of an explosive substance for an unlawful purpose.

Cottage is an ex-BNP member who stood as a candidate in the Pendle Council elections in May.

Mrs Christiana Buchanan, who appeared for the prosecution in Jackson's case, alleged the pair had "some kind of masterplan".
She said a search of Jackson's home had uncovered rocket launchers, chemicals, BNP literature and a nuclear biological suit.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My Grandmother will not vote Tory due to what Churchill did to the Miners...

I imagine that most BNP voters are not aware of this statement, rather like Tory / labour voters were not implicitly backing the MPs expenses.

~:smoking:You wouldn't seriously compare advocting mass rape of British women with an expenses scandal?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, the more I read about it, the more I wish we had a true equivalent to the BNP here in the USA. I mean, think about it, Pretty much ALL of the potentially dangerous right-wing nutters in one group where the police can infiltrate and stay ahead of them easily. Now THAT is efficient.

[rory_20_uk]

I am comparing ignorance to events.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

will labour fall foul of the golden rule of electoral polling:

http://www4.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/06/will-the-golden-rule-survive-the-night/

i.e. whenever polls have been tested against real election results it’s been the survey with Labour in the least favourable position that has been the most accurate.

[Beskar]

Actually, the more I read about it, the more I wish we had a true equivalent to the BNP here in the USA. I mean, think about it, Pretty much ALL of the potentially dangerous right-wing nutters in one group where the police can infiltrate and stay ahead of them easily. Now THAT is efficient.

I thought you had one. The Republican party.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So what we looking at? No clear cut majority and a coalition government?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well it seems most people my age still view the Tory party as the "nasty party". I've also spoken to a lot of people today who decided to put an X next to their local Labour candidate. Apparently Brown should be void of all blame in regards to our current financial state. Apparently Labour couldn't of avoided doubling the national debt, it was out of their hands.:rolleyes:

I don't think it's so much we need a Conservative government, I just feel that after 13 years Labour are completely detached from the electorate.

It will be interesting to see the exit polls around 10ish. I'll post them here for those not in the UK and those who don't want to stay up all night watching the results come in. They generally give us an idea which party has one the most seats and shouldn't be to far outside the end total for number of seats won.

You know, this is mostly my view as well. I am centre-of-right but I don't especially like the current Conservative party, I could certainyl stomach some Liberal politics if someone other than Clegg was in charge. Labour just NEEDS to go.

[InsaneApache]

Funny that. My grandma wouldn't vote tory because she hated Churchill for breaking the general stroke. Incredible to me as a child and incomprehensible as an adult.

[Vladimir]

More importantly: Who's best to lead Britain through WW III?

http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/

Shades of '29.

[tibilicus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666128.stm

Exit poll people. I will state before I comment that this wont be 100% accurate and could theoretically be some way of the actual result.

Still, if this poll is roughly accurate in terms of the results we'll get a couple of hours from now, remarkable. The Lib Dems loosing 3 seats?! Also Cameron being shot by 19 could work in his favour. I could see him gaining support from minor parties to push his way into a tiny working majority. Also I have a feeling the exit poll wont take into account the amount of money the Tories have invested in marginal battleground seats, which is a lot..

[shlin28]

Just came home after helping the Lib Dems for 6 hours. Based on the statistics (mainly from canvassing figures) I've seen and the people I have talked to, it would appear that Liberal MP Paul Burstow will retain the seat of Sutton and Cheam, albeit with only a small number of votes above Conservative challenger, Philippa Stroud (featured recently in the Observer).

Sunderland will declare soon... can't wait for the results. My first election night, how exciting! :balloon2:

Edit: Labour holds Sunderland South with 11k majority! w00t! Not that the Tories are gonna win that seat anyway... a big swing to Conservatives though, if this is replicated in the marginals...

[Beskar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

[tibilicus]

I'll make one more post tonight before we get a result in the morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666338.stm

Appalling. Nothing else needs to be said. I don't know why you would turn up at 10 to vote anyway but still, more could of been done and polling stations running out of ballot papers is just a joke.

[JAG]

The exit poll is massively underestimating Lib Dem's imo, they will gain some 20+ more seats I think. Anyway, I was very much worried b4 I saw the official exit poll as I saw rumors of it saying an overall Tory majority - very glad it didn't. Everything is up in the air, EVERYTHING to play for still. This is the most exciting election I have ever known, loving it. especially as the anti Tory parties could still, possibly, come together.

[Vladimir]

BBCA says the Lib Dems are taking a bad hit. Shows you can't trust poles much.

[Banquo's Ghost]

BBCA says the Lib Dems are taking a bad hit. Shows you can't trust poles much.

Isn't that the BNP position? :wink:

More seriously, I think the first three results show that there may well be a lot of tactical voting. Wierd swings, for example.

The exit poll also doesn't include postal voting, which looks to be significant this time.

[Furunculus]

well, we're about to find out who was closer to the end result between JAG and myself, all to play for....................

[Banquo's Ghost]

First big shock: Peter Robinson, First Minister in Northern Ireland, has lost his Westminster seat to the cross-community Alliance party - suffering a 22% swing. Nice to see that corruption gets punished.

[Subotan]

Oh wow, that's absolutely astounding. Peter Robinson has been kicked out, and not just that, but he's been kicked out by Alliance!!!!!

[tibilicus]

Well I'm not quite in bed yet so thought I would just comment on the sort of results we might see. This election really does seem anyone's game. The Alliance Party just took a seat from the DUP in what was essentially a Unionist stronghold. It seems anything can happen.

Also Greens look likely to gain their first MP. We could still yet see the emergence of a strong block of minor parties, which again throws everything wide open.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First big shock: Peter Robinson, First Minister in Northern Ireland, has lost his Westminster seat to the cross-community Alliance party - suffering a 22% swing. Nice to see that corruption gets punished.

Yes, Cross-community MP's in Northern Ireland should be a good thing.

No one has mentioned the dodgy polly yet though!

[tibilicus]

Seeming I can't be bothered to look it up, can anyone care to tell me what the Alliance Party actually stands for when it comes the unionism/nationalism. Being cross-community are they essentially of the belief that the current power sharing deal which incorporates Westminster, Dublin and Stormont is the ideal set up?

[JAG]

OK, officially starting to get worried. First proper marginal big swing to Tories and they took it. Hmmm.

[JAG]

But first big Con / Lib marginal, LIBS HOLD! WOOT!

.. Yes a Labour member whooping a Lib Dem hold, with a Tory to Lib dem of 1.1%!

Come on! That off sets the suprise result vs Lab in Kingswood.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But first big Con / Lib marginal, LIBS HOLD! WOOT!

.. Yes a Labour member whooping a Lib Dem hold, with a Tory to Lib dem of 1.1%!

Come on! That off sets the suprise result vs Lab in Kingswood.

Indeed, but there have been fairly large number of 9%+ swings to the Tories, which would give them a majority.

[JAG]

But if you look at those swings - all the big swings were in solid, solid Lab seats, the only seat in the North West which was up for grabs a 4.8% swing to Con. It might be that tactical voting and the marginal campaign by Lab might actually be making the difference. Interesting times.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh I agree. It's even more unpredictable than predicted. :beam:

The great imponderable at the moment is how the Liberals perform in their Lib-Con marginals. Torbay was a good win for them, indicating that the South West might stay gold, where the Conservatives needed it to go back blue.

[InsaneApache]

The exit poll is massively underestimating Lib Dem's imo, they will gain some 20+ more seats I think. Anyway, I was very much worried b4 I saw the official exit poll as I saw rumors of it saying an overall Tory majority - very glad it didn't. Everything is up in the air, EVERYTHING to play for still. This is the most exciting election I have ever known, loving it. especially as the anti Tory parties could still, possibly, come together.

Nice to see you 'round these here parts t'owld lad ......and your team stayed up (again) :sweatdrop:

:)

[JAG]

Nice to see you 'round these here parts t'owld lad ......and your team stayed up (again) :sweatdrop:

:)

Yeah, just about - we would have been in the right dog's do do if we went down financially wise.

I am getting more worried, but did we just hold Durham against the Lib Dems?! If so, that is one hell of a hold...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, Labour held Durham. Big blow to the Lib Dems. Looks like their surge has genuinely disappeared.

[JAG]

Ah geeze - having just seen what Brown has said, my worried feeling is starting to churn into sickened realisation that maybe we are not gonna get through this.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think that's Brown finally accepting that he won't be Prime Minister past tomorrow, even if there's a Lib-Lab pact.

The Tories aren't doing very well in London marginals though. The Liberals failed massively to take their key target of Guildford, which is telling.

[Beskar]

Also Greens look likely to gain their first MP. We could still yet see the emergence of a strong block of minor parties, which again throws everything wide open.

Yeah, there is a lot of campaigning up here in Lancaster, it is a real possibility of them getting a seat here.

[JAG]

My seat of Brentford - in South West London - is going to be super tight, super duper tight based on the swings on the marginals between Con and Lab. I think Con need a 5% swing, gonna be touch and go.

Holding onto Tooting gives me hope though. This is the most bizzare night, some seats with huge swings, most of the marginals not, but varient swings in the marginals too. Amazing. Call this at your peril.

[JAG]

Unbelievable we hold Geldling too with a swing of just 2.9% to the Tories?! Now we hold Exeter, not one of the prorities but one the Con's wanted. Maybe I am wrong to be pessimistic, after all we are picking up seats in Scotland and Wales.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There's a serious constitutional issue looming too. If the Tories form a minority government, it looks like it will be with almost no seats in Scotland or Wales. Essentially, a minority English government will be cutting massive public spending in parts of the UK that have decisively rejected that party. There's actually a swing TO Labour in Scotland at the moment. :shocked:

[JAG]

It is a little worrying, no doubt.

You know what though, the Nationalists are not doing well, so maybe that blunts some of that problem, I dunno though.

This whole election is crazy - what the hell has happened to the Lib dem vote? Seriously, what the hell has happened?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Having just said that, the Tories have just taken two Welsh seats! Montgomeryshire by a 13% swing (albeit from the eejit Lembit Opik).

The Lib Dem vote appears to have completely evaporated. That makes it much more difficult for Labour to try and form a coalition, because their partners won't have any sort of mandate, even in just popular vote.

[JAG]

Having just said that, the Tories have just taken two Welsh seats! Montgomeryshire by a 13% swing (albeit from the eejit Lembit Opik).

The Lib Dem vote appears to have completely evaporated. That makes it much more difficult for Labour to try and form a coalition, because their partners won't have any sort of mandate, even in just popular vote.

Agreed. I am cheering on the Lib Dems here and they are seriously lettign me down. :(

Needed them to take some seats from the Tories and hold their marginals, let alone give them 13% swings!!! Blimey, I have no idea what has happened to the Lib Dem vote, GAH!!!!!!!!!!

Crazyness, Labour are holding onto every single marginal which isn't in the South and hasn't been super duper money'ed out by the Tories. It might be the Lib dems collapse which lets the Tories in.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now I'm really confused. Lib Dems held Huhne's seat which was a absolute priority for the Tories as he only had a 500 majority. And they gained Eastbourne.

[JAG]

Yet they lose Tory target seat number 140+ on a 9% swing.... crazy. Maybe this is the ultimate showing of all politics being local.

I think it is clear though, in the North of England, Scotland, most of Wales and in some parts of the South - in the Lab / Con marginals the Lab vote is holding up and the Tories are not taking the seats. CRAZY!

[Louis VI the Fat]

What a thrilling night!


Alas, it is off to bed for Louis. Am already looking forward to see what surprises lie in store tomorrow morning!

[a completely inoffensive name]

If this turns out be to as bad as Im thinking it could turn out for Lib Dems, I will just hope for a Lib Dem/Labour coalition to pass through the voting reforms it seems Britain needs. Seriously, Im getting sick of seeing in America (and now possibly Britain) the two major parties saying that since the broken system rigged in their favor has turned out in their favor that the public has spoken that the system does not need to be reformed.

[JAG]

Where Labour had the money to fight the marginals the swing has been vastly inferior to the swing in the other marginals. For instance we just lost Carlise on a swing of 7.7%, probably because we didn't put the money in like we did in Tooting for instance where the swing was around 3% etc.

Crazy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is anyone else following this interactive map (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2432632/UK-General-Election-2010-political-map.html)?

[JAG]

Use this instead - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/default.stm

Much better! :)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wtf, is this bull**** from JAG's interactive map.

# Labour Votes: 5,120,270 % of total: 27.4% Seats: 155
# Lib Dems Votes: 4,174,338 % of total: 22.3% Seats: 31

So a 5.1% difference in the popular vote gives you 124 more seats?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where Labour had the money to fight the marginals the swing has been vastly inferior to the swing in the other marginals. For instance we just lost Carlise on a swing of 7.7%, probably because we didn't put the money in like we did in Tooting for instance where the swing was around 3% etc.

Crazy.

It means you can only hold seats with massive cash injections. I told you Labour would not form the next government, and this looks to be the case.


Wtf, is this bull**** from JAG's interactive map.

# Labour Votes: 5,120,270 % of total: 27.4% Seats: 155
# Lib Dems Votes: 4,174,338 % of total: 22.3% Seats: 31

So a 5.1% difference in the popular vote gives you 124 more seats?

First Past the Post.

[JAG]

You were insisting there would be a decent Tory majority, I informed you that would not be the case. I always said it would be a hung parliament I simply believed we could still be the biggest party - however it doesn't look like happening. There could still be a form of coalition, remember to add 3 seats onto the Lab total due to their NI party which take the whip and likewise +1 to the LD's. This is close, Tories are getting a lot of gains atm though and might get enough for a minority govt - it all depends on London really, I am holding my breath for Brentford and Isleworth, my constituency.

[a completely inoffensive name]

First Past the Post.

I know. I'm just pissed. I just hate obsolete and broken voting systems more then the people who attempt to rig and control elections. At least with the riggers they work their hardest to make sure reforms stopping them are not put in place so they dont lose their job, the system doesnt fight back its just there for tradition the most illogical reasoning for keeping something ever.

[JAG]

Wtf, is this bull**** from JAG's interactive map.

# Labour Votes: 5,120,270 % of total: 27.4% Seats: 155
# Lib Dems Votes: 4,174,338 % of total: 22.3% Seats: 31

So a 5.1% difference in the popular vote gives you 124 more seats?

That is our system for you and also why the Lib Dems would be CRAZY not to demand a PR system for their votes in the house.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is our system for you and also why the Lib Dems would be CRAZY not to demand a PR system for their votes in the house.

Well I'm glad that at least you guys have a third party with some measurable amount of seats to promote the idea of PR. The US I fear is never going to ever change the electoral college since there is only the Dems and Repubs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You were insisting there would be a decent Tory majority, I informed you that would not be the case. I always said it would be a hung parliament I simply believed we could still be the biggest party - however it doesn't look like happening. There could still be a form of coalition, remember to add 3 seats onto the Lab total due to their NI party which take the whip and likewise +1 to the LD's. This is close, Tories are getting a lot of gains atm though and might get enough for a minority govt - it all depends on London really, I am holding my breath for Brentford and Isleworth, my constituency.

I am quite sure you said you would have a majority, I recall nothing about a coalition until relatively recently. If you want to talk about adding seats, you have the Ulster Unionists.

[JAG]

I am quite sure you said you would have a majority, I recall nothing about a coalition until relatively recently. If you want to talk about adding seats, you have the Ulster Unionists.

Nope, look back in the thread if you must, for some years now, since Brown got in really, I said a hung parliament was the likliest outcome - it has just become more and more prominent. WOW, we just held onto Birmingham Edgbaston, no one thought we would, unbelievable. Absolutely brilliant, just a 0.5% swing.

[Beskar]

What I am failing to understand is how the Lib-dems even lost seats.

Yeah, Libdems have 1/6th behind Labour and only have a 1/6th of the seats. Pretty ridiculous.

Looks hung, I am hoping for a coalition between Lab-Libdem in an ideal world, with Clegg as Prime Minister. But I don't think even that would get a majority.

[JAG]

They lost seats because their vote crumbled in some Con / Lib Dem marginals and a few Lab / Lib Dem marginals and they did not take many of their target seats. As simpel as that really. Remember they had a good result in 2005 this year was always going to be hard, but after the debates everyone went beserk thinking they were gonna be forming a govt. Crazyness. I hope we can have a Lib Lab govt though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What I am failing to understand is how the Lib-dems even lost seats.

Yeah, Libdems have 1/6th behind Labour and only have a 1/6th of the seats. Pretty ridiculous.

Looks hung, I am hoping for a coalition between Lab-Libdem in an ideal world, with Clegg as Prime Minister. But I don't think even that would get a majority.

Oh stop it Beskar. The Conservatives were always going to get in. Gordon Brown is individually far more dangerous than the aristocracy; even if Banquo did describe Cameron as an "oik". The big issue (and it's a good thing) is the failure of both Cleggmania and the Tory A-list.

When it came down to it people cared more about local candidates and policies than parties and "presidential" personalities.

The other story is that England has a 41% Conservative vote. While Banquo is correct he is also wrong. :bow: The Conservative government will be English, but it will also represent a majority the overall population of the UK. Scotish and Welsh nationalists need to recognise that the "Celtic" fringe is a fringe, and has no right to wag the British dog.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I remember being laughed out of the room when I mentioned the likelihood that Labour and LD shared core constituencies. Everybody said that LD would take away Tory votes due to the southern play that they shared, but that seems not to have happened for some reason.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They lost seats because their vote crumbled in some Con / Lib Dem marginals and a few Lab / Lib Dem marginals and they did not take many of their target seats. As simpel as that really. Remember they had a good result in 2005 this year was always going to be hard, but after the debates everyone went beserk thinking they were gonna be forming a govt. Crazyness. I hope we can have a Lib Lab govt though.

Can't happen right now, look at the figures, Lib-Lab would be less than Con-DUP.

You're flogging a dead horse at this point, even if the gap doesn't further widen, Labour can't form a government.

[PanzerJaeger]

Go Tories!!

The results have absolutely no effect on me, but I'm with them in spirit. :nice:

[JAG]

Can't happen right now, look at the figures, Lib-Lab would be less than Con-DUP.

You're flogging a dead horse at this point, even if the gap doesn't further widen, Labour can't form a government.

Nope you are wrong. On the BBC projected figures - C 306, L 262, LD 55 - that gives L + LD 317 + 3 NI seats which sit with Labour and +1 which is the same in respect for the LD's and you have 321. 4 Sinn Fein DO NOT SIT in the Parliament and therefore realistically you need a majority of 323/4 NOT 326. So with 321 in the bag you really don't think Labour will twist the arm of the newly elected Green party MP, which are to the left of both LD and Labour and to not get things passed by abstations - I don't think so. Coalition here we come, providing Clegg wakes up and realises he needs PR which Lab will give him.

woot!

[JAG]

Wow I am tired, spelling and grammar are out of the window.

My analysis is sound though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow I am tired, spelling and grammar are out of the window.

My analysis is sound though.

I don't know who you are JAG, but I really hope your analysis is right. I may be an American, but the UK election is critical not just toward future policy of my countries biggest ally but also a judgment on the future of PR in England. One more country that switches away from first past the post (which the US uses as well) to PR or a single transferable vote is more ammo for Americans here to make the push against the traditionalists in favor of the Electoral College.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's quite a bit of coalitionizing there. This is assuming that none of the LD's believe that Brown is a turd. Do you think Labour will turn the whole party? Is that a given?

[JAG]

Some of the LD's hate Brown, especially their leader Clegg, however they will bite the bullet and they hate the Tories more - much more. Plus with a chance to get PR under Labour and no PR under the Tories, you know which was they will go.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope you are wrong. On the BBC projected figures - C 306, L 262, LD 55 - that gives L + LD 317 + 3 NI seats which sit with Labour and +1 which is the same in respect for the LD's and you have 321. 4 Sinn Fein DO NOT SIT in the Parliament and therefore realistically you need a majority of 323/4 NOT 326. So with 321 in the bag you really don't think Labour will twist the arm of the newly elected Green party MP, which are to the left of both LD and Labour and to not get things passed by abstations - I don't think so. Coalition here we come, providing Clegg wakes up and realises he needs PR which Lab will give him.

woot!

Except you have 306+8= 316 for the Cons and DUP. To this you must add the largest party and largest vote status.

So, unless you want your Labour government along with a revolt, you won't get it. Cameron only has to defeat Brown once, and they can't do a Referendum on PR in less than two weeks.

More elections.

Anyway, why do you want the Laqbour party in power? The country in damn near bankrupt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's another issue, anyway, the English have resoundingly voted down Labour. Whatever happens, Labour's corrupt and irregular Constitutional arrangement is what needs to be changed.

[naut]

I remember being laughed out of the room when I mentioned the likelihood that Labour and LD shared core constituencies. Everybody said that LD would take away Tory votes due to the southern play that they shared, but that seems not to have happened for some reason.
:yes:

[JAG]

Why do I want Labour? errrrrrr, maybe because I am a Labour member and have been campaigning for them in this election? Plus they are morally and politically right?

Anyway, why you think the DUP automatically support the Tories I have no idea, the DUP contest the seats they win AGAINST the Tory party in NI... The DUP will vote on a issue by issue basis, however the Lab's and LD's can form a coalition and their NI parties DO accept the whip and thus should be counted as members of Lab and LD's, completely different to the DUP.

[Beskar]

When it came down to it people cared more about local candidates and policies than parties and "presidential" personalities.


How did the conservatives actually get votes then? :creep:


Nice to see Green's get an MP, and possibly even get a 2nd one soon as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do I want Labour? errrrrrr, maybe because I am a Labour member and have been campaigning for them in this election? Plus they are morally and politically right?

Anyway, why you think the DUP automatically support the Tories I have no idea, the DUP contest the seats they win AGAINST the Tory party in NI... The DUP will vote on a issue by issue basis, however the Lab's and LD's can form a coalition and their NI parties DO accept the whip and thus should be counted as members of Lab and LD's, completely different to the DUP.

Well, I hope you're wrong, because otherwise it's another four years of misery for the urban poor and government dependancy.

Morally right my foot. No use if they're a practical failure.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know who you are JAG, but I really hope your analysis is right. I may be an American, but the UK election is critical not just toward future policy of my countries biggest ally but also a judgment on the future of PR in England. One more country that switches away from first past the post (which the US uses as well) to PR or a single transferable vote is more ammo for Americans here to make the push against the traditionalists in favor of the Electoral College.

:inquisitive:

You are aware that the Electoral College is only used for Presidential elections? And you can't proportionally represent a president.


Whatever happens, Labour's corrupt and irregular Constitutional arrangement is what needs to be changed.

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

[Beskar]

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

He is effectively saying that Labour have a corrupt arrangment, because where they do the best (The North), they all vote Labour/Libdem/etc and not Conservative. Is it equal to complaining that the Bible Belt always vote Republican.

[CountArach]

The Greens gaining an MP is astounding, truly astounding.

[a completely inoffensive name]

:inquisitive:You are aware that the Electoral College is only used for Presidential elections? And you can't proportionally represent a president.

Sigh. Yes, I'm not an idiot. The Electoral College still uses the First Past the Post system, in that who ever gets the most votes in the state, whether it be 45, 40 or even 30 percent gets the entire state. It's a broken system that has allowed people who have not won the popular vote to win the presidency, most recently in 2000. My point is that if Britain gets rid of the First Past the Post it will be easier to push for removing the Electoral College since it implements the same thing on the state level (with the exception of...Nebraska and Maine I think). It doesn't even matter if it is replaced with PR or anything else, I just want to see that system gone. PR is just my favorite voting setup so I always prefer to talk about that, although yes I guess it would be not applicable for the presidency, a simple majority vote with maybe a single transferable vote would do for that.

Do you really think im that dumb CR? Or do you just get a kick out of asking people a question as if they have no clue about what they are talking about?

[Beskar]

The Greens gaining an MP is astounding, truly astounding.

They are most likely going to get another, Gina Dowding, Fleetwood & Lancaster constituency. Posters by them everywhere.

[CountArach]

They are most likely going to get another, Gina Dowding, Fleetwood & Lancaster constituency. Posters by them everywhere.
I doubt it - the Tories have far too high a vote share there to overcome. The Greens need a 25/25/25/25 situation in order to stand a chance, such as happened in the seat they won. They don't have enough voters to be able to win anything beyond that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sigh. Yes, I'm not an idiot. The Electoral College still uses the First Past the Post system, in that who ever gets the most votes in the state, whether it be 45, 40 or even 30 percent gets the entire state. It's a broken system that has allowed people who have not won the popular vote to win the presidency, most recently in 2000. My point is that if Britain gets rid of the First Past the Post it will be easier to push for removing the Electoral College since it implements the same thing on the state level (with the exception of...Nebraska and Maine I think). It doesn't even matter if it is replaced with PR or anything else, I just want to see that system gone. PR is just my favorite voting setup so I always prefer to talk about that, although yes I guess it would be not applicable for the presidency, a simple majority vote with maybe a single transferable vote would do for that.

Do you really think im that dumb CR? Or do you just get a kick out of asking people a question as if they have no clue about what they are talking about?

Calm down. I figured you knew about it, I was wondering why you thought that way, and trying to explain the situation to all the British reading this thread.

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.


Anyway, it seems that the Tories won't get a majority, but from the numbers on the BBC, it'll be very hard for Labor and the Lib-Dems to get a majority together.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Calm down. I figured you knew about it, I was wondering why you thought that way, and trying to explain the situation to all the British reading this thread.

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.


Anyway, it seems that the Tories won't get a majority, but from the numbers on the BBC, it'll be very hard for Labor and the Lib-Dems to get a majority together.

CR

Yeah, that last post seemed a bit harsh. Sorry, CR. Hmmm, I would have to disagree with you about the electoral college working as designed. I was planning on making a thread about the electoral college, I'll do that tomorrow.

I'll check the final results tomorrow. It's obvious I need to relax and get some sleep. Sorry again CR.

[drone]

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.
Actually, the "winner take all" method most states use means presidential candidates focus on battleground states, and ignore the obvious red/blue states for the most part. There are districts in Texas that Dems could win, and districts in Cali and New York that the GOP could win, but what's the point with the current system? If states moved to the Maine/Neb system, presidential candidates would be more active throughout the country during the campaign, and it would even out the rural/urban divide.

Anyhoo, back to the UK...

[Furunculus]

Nope you are wrong. On the BBC projected figures - C 306, L 262, LD 55 - that gives L + LD 317 + 3 NI seats which sit with Labour and +1 which is the same in respect for the LD's and you have 321. 4 Sinn Fein DO NOT SIT in the Parliament and therefore realistically you need a majority of 323/4 NOT 326. So with 321 in the bag you really don't think Labour will twist the arm of the newly elected Green party MP, which are to the left of both LD and Labour and to not get things passed by abstations - I don't think so. Coalition here we come, providing Clegg wakes up and realises he needs PR which Lab will give him.

woot!
the lib-dems lack the party discipline to make that an easy occurance.

[JAG]

Says a very nervous Tory.

[Furunculus]

true.

i was certainly wrong about the collapse of the labour vote, i thought the lib-dems would be hoovering up labour votes left right and centre.

[JAG]

I think the campaign showed that the Labour core vote is, at it's very bottom 28%. Hell it was stress tested enough by Foot in '83! Labour's core vote will not go below 28% and I hoped come the last final push we would get a few more % than that, it turns out that we will probably get just 1% more and thus lose nearly 100 seats. Still worse things could have happened - a Tory majority for instance. Still a coalition must happen between the Libs and Lab, I don't think the Lib Dem party would forgive Clegg if he tried to stop that happening.

[Furunculus]

i don't think the country will ever forgive the liberals if they:
1. prop up labour in power
2. go back on their promise to support the mandate of the country, which the tory's convincingly won in votes and seats

it would be exactly the kind of opportunism that Clagg has tried to persuade the electorate that the Lib-Dems are free of.

[JAG]

i don't think the country will ever forgive the liberals if they:
1. prop up labour in power
2. go back on their promise to support the mandate of the country, which the tory's convincingly won in votes and seats

it would be exactly the kind of opportunism that Clagg has tried to persuade the electorate that the Lib-Dems are free of.

But the problem is his party will never forgive him if offered PR he turns it down for those reasons. Indeed I think if he was offered PR and turned it down, he would not be Lib Dem leader for long.

Plus your point #2 is flatly wrong, he said whoever got most votes / seats had the first OPPORTUNITY, not that they had the promise of the Lib Dems support, nothing like that at all. He merely pointed out his opinion which isn't even what is constitutional anyway, so its a mute point. But as I said, Lib dems will never support the Tories and if offered PR they will have to accept it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, I wake up to discover Gordon Brown is still in Downing Street. :shocked:

It is confirmed that it is formally a hung parliament. Her Majesty has said that she won't see anyone until after lunch, but the civil service mandarins are now able to be released with their contingency plans. I see no prospect of Brown resigning yet.

[Tellos Athenaios]

2. go back on their promise to support the mandate of the country, which the tory's convincingly won in votes and seats

But that is precisely the point: the Tories don't have that. They have about a third of the electorate in terms of popular vote, never mind now that they have far more in terms of the seats even if it still isn't a majority in terms of seat count. Nobody in his or her right mind can possibly claim that amounts to a `clear majority' or `mandate of the country' or `popular support' or any other sort of moral high ground based on which such a party should be given preferential treatment in the race for government.

As far as the Lib Dems are concerned; Clegg must now make good on his promise to his party, that he can stand up for their ideas and put those into working government/law practice. If PR is worth so much to the Lib Dems and he is offered that, then he has little choice: he can hardly say at next election when Lib Dems loose out on yet another 5 to 10% of the seats based on what amounts to little more than institutionalised rounding errors: “But c'mon: was I to give up my dislike of X just 'cause it means our party would be twice as big as a result?”. And after such an election in which Labour, despite everything, still manages to be twice as big as the Lib Dems (basically); I really don't think his party is going to swallow that line. If they do, they deserve another 10000 years out of power. ~;)

[Banquo's Ghost]

One of the most extraordinary patterns of this oddest of elections has illustrated why the British have never had a revolution worth the name. After all the sleaze and corruption and disillusion, incumbency appears to have been an advantage for those in marginal seats.

Where the sitting MP stepped down in favour of new blood, the voters nonetheless punished the party. Where they clung on, they kept their seat!

Most odd.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Nick Clegg has just executed Gordon Brown. He has reiterated his earlier assertion that the party with the most votes and seats has the right to try and form a government and it is the national interest that should take precedence over party concerns. In other words, Cameron should be able to try first, which means Brown ought to resign.

That was a pretty statesmanlike statement. Stout fellow. :bow:

[al Roumi]

One of the most extraordinary patterns of this oddest of elections has illustrated why the British have never had a revolution worth the name. After all the sleaze and corruption and disillusion, incumbency appears to have been an advantage for those in marginal seats.

Where the sitting MP stepped down in favour of new blood, the voters nonetheless punished the party. Where they clung on, they kept their seat!

Most odd.

It is an interesting point, although I'm not so sure about the links to a lack of revolutionary zeal.

My take on it is that those MPs who chose to stay on were 1) confirmed of local support after (or unscathed by) the expenses, 2) people voted for their MP as an individual - not their party, 3) others (i.e the now imaginary Clegg swing) voted the most secure way to keep the Tories out.

Edit:
Where there was a new party candidate, voters must have considered it a more open competition than between a known quantity (incumbent & their party) and the opposition.

What amazes me is that any working class person can be fooled by the conservatives that a millionaire playboy like Zac Goldsmith is going to do anything to further their interestes. Amusingly, he found it neccessary to remind people (perhaps himself mostly) in his speech that he would work in the interests of the constituency, lol.

[naut]

Some of the LD's hate Brown, especially their leader Clegg, however they will bite the bullet and they hate the Tories more - much more. Plus with a chance to get PR under Labour and no PR under the Tories, you know which was they will go.
Hmm, or not:


Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg says he sticks to his view that the party with most votes and seats - the Conservatives - should seek to form a government.

[Furunculus]

But the problem is his party will never forgive him if offered PR he turns it down for those reasons. Indeed I think if he was offered PR and turned it down, he would not be Lib Dem leader for long.

Plus your point #2 is flatly wrong, he said whoever got most votes / seats had the first OPPORTUNITY, not that they had the promise of the Lib Dems support, nothing like that at all. He merely pointed out his opinion which isn't even what is constitutional anyway, so its a mute point. But as I said, Lib dems will never support the Tories and if offered PR they will have to accept it.

i think not:


1056 Lord Ashdown says Clegg is a man of "honour and integrity". He says that Clegg has proven by keeping his word (that he would support the party that won the most votes) he is worthy of public trust even though it was not necessarily in the party interest to do so. He challenges Cameron to act in the interest of the country rather than his party.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of the 26 undecided's i have located on the telegraph election map have found 11 safe cons, 9 safe labs, and three safe labs, with two labs that will probably fall to the cons, which makes the remaining seats an even split between the cons and lib/lab at 13 a piece.

would put the cons on 304 using current numbers.

[al Roumi]

Yeah, they were talking about this on the BBC last night. Clegg's opinion is all very nice but the constitution (ha!) states that Brown gets the first move.

I hope it's not just my wishful thinking making me think Clegg is maneuvering to get the best bargain -he has for the last few hours been lined up by the media as a part of Labour's coalition, with no previous word from him...

Edit:

George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times, tells BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/) World Service: "I think the Tories will talk to Nick Clegg. I don't think they'll be prepared to offer a deal on electoral reform because, for the Conservative Party, they see that as a way of excluding themselves from power for a generation."

Can Clegg yet achieve his party's goal of introducing proportional representation by playing patsy to either party? Are Labour looking more likely to offer that (they are in greater need!)?

It would be quite an achievement for the Libs to get that given the massive let down they've had in votes...

[al Roumi]

[Appologies for the double post]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2010/may/07/steve-bell-general-election-2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

Blair introduced regional parliaments/assmblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not England. In Westminster Labout has used Scottish MP's to pass laws that only affect England. This has now reached crisis point, because in England the Tories are well ahead with both votes and seats. If we had an English Parliament Labour would be mostly locked out of the demographic and economic core of the country.

That's why we don't have an English Parliament, it isn't in the interests in Labour.


Well, I wake up to discover Gordon Brown is still in Downing Street. :shocked:

It is confirmed that it is formally a hung parliament. Her Majesty has said that she won't see anyone until after lunch, but the civil service mandarins are now able to be released with their contingency plans. I see no prospect of Brown resigning yet.

I didn't go to bed until I knew I was going to wake up to a hanging.


Yeah, they were talking about this on the BBC last night. Clegg's opinion is all very nice but the constitution (ha!) states that Brown gets the first move.

I hope it's not just my wishful thinking making me think Clegg is maneuvering to get the best bargain -he has for the last few hours been lined up by the media as a part of Labour's coalition, with no previous word from him...

Edit:

George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times, tells BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/) World Service: "I think the Tories will talk to Nick Clegg. I don't think they'll be prepared to offer a deal on electoral reform because, for the Conservative Party, they see that as a way of excluding themselves from power for a generation."

Can Clegg yet achieve his party's goal of introducing proportional representation by playing patsy to either party? Are Labour looking more likely to offer that (they are in greater need!)?

It would be quite an achievement for the Libs to get that given the massive let down they've had in votes...

Clegg is definatley manauvering, but I hope he doesn't get PR, STV I wouldn't mind, but PR gives too much power to parties.

[tibilicus]

Pretty extraordinary result. Labour have already put numerous proposals on the table for Clegg so in his announcement at about 2:30 Cameron is going to have to respond. In all honest I don't think this result is good for the country, not one bit. If the Tories form a government the Scots will argue that a party with only one seat in Scotland can't possibly represent the interests of the Scottish people and we will probably see a referendum on Independence rushed through Holyrood.

On the other hand, if Labour seeks to form a government they will need to get not just the Lib Dems but other minor parties onside. Expect demands in the way of money from the Scots and the Northern Irish if this is the case, despite the fact with our current economic mess we can't afford to maintain the current grants Stormont and Holyrood currently get. Even if a coalition is formed, I don't see it lasting. Expect another election in the not to distant future.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Weeeeee!. Win some and lose some, JAG.

Also, the electoral college is NOT broken. The system was never intended to bring the popular vote winner to the presidency, in fact I find it odd that people are bombarded with the message that every vote equals 1 national vote in that election because it doesn't. the EC ensures that we share one government, instead of having cities determine every single election to the chagrin of 90% of the rest of the country. In a 2 party system this isn't a bad thing, local and congressional representation is a different story.

It would be interesting to see a devolution of power to an English parliament if that is what is desired. The unfairness becomes more glaring day by day. Due to the fact that you live in a modern democracy, you shouldn't have to pay for the destructive power grabs of your ancestors - at least not indefinitely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty extraordinary result. Labour have already put numerous proposals on the table for Clegg so in his announcement at about 2:30 Cameron is going to have to respond. In all honest I don't think this result is good for the country, not one bit. If the Tories form a government the Scots will argue that a party with only one seat in Scotland can't possibly represent the interests of the Scottish people and we will probably see a referendum on Independence rushed through Holyrood.

On the other hand, if Labour seeks to form a government they will need to get not just the Lib Dems but other minor parties onside. Expect demands in the way of money from the Scots and the Northern Irish if this is the case, despite the fact with our current economic mess we can't afford to maintain the current grants Stormont and Holyrood currently get. Even if a coalition is formed, I don't see it lasting. Expect another election in the not to distant future.

I agree, but you missed one thing.

If Scotland became independant Labour would be wiped out in Westminster, down below 160 seats, if they're lucky.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be interesting to see a devolution of power to an English parliament if that is what is desired. The unfairness becomes more glaring day by day. Due to the fact that you live in a modern democracy, you shouldn't have to pay for the destructive power grabs of your ancestors - at least not indefinitely.

Hah! Scotland and England are united because a Scottish King inherrited the English thrown.

Scotland, in particular, needs to grow up.

[Furunculus]

Hah! Scotland and England are united because a Scottish King inherrited the English thrown.

Scotland, in particular, needs to grow up.

lol couldn't agree more.

21 seats left to announce, will the Cons get another thirteen to hit 310 and probably equal the lib/lab total?

[tibilicus]

Any thoughts on whether the Liberals will actually take the Conservative whip? This is really hard to guess, Labour need the Liberals, SNP and possibly Welsh support to form a government. Both the Scots and the Welsh demands for money is ridiculous, particularity the Welsh who already have money thrown at them.

I really can't call which way this is going to go, in the mean time I expect minor panic from the markets, a very worrying situation.

[Furunculus]

i think its unlikely there would be a coalition, there might be some form of cooperative agreement however.

the closer the tory's get to a parity with lib/lab combined votes the less they need a formal coalition, they may try to wing it on a minority government.

[tibilicus]

i think its unlikely there would be a coalition, there might be some form of cooperative agreement however.

the closer the tory's get to a parity with lib/lab combined votes the less they need a formal coalition, they may try to wing it on a minority government.

Doesn't that require around 310 seats plus a helping hand from the DUP? Providing Sinn fein decide not to turn up.

[Furunculus]

yup, 17 left to declare and the Cons really need eleven of them to match the likely lib-lab total of 310, with the 8 DPU seats as a backup against the other minor parties.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1. Regarding a "hung" Parliament (as an American of Irish descent, it's hard for me to think of Englishmen using that adjective, but whatever....):

Setting aside tradition, is there any possibility that Brown could now lead a coalition government comprised of pretty much everybody except the Tories in order to keep the Tories out of power? Clegg's statement certainly doesn't seem to make that likely, but machinations can happen when power is at stake (see U.S. healthcare bill voting shenanigans).


2. Regarding the Electoral College in USA elections. The founders designed it expressly to prevent the popular election of the President. Each state -- and remember that the Federal government was originally conceived as the shared umbrella for the several states and NOT as the focus of all governance -- would select their electors in whatever fashion they deemed fit and those electors would vote for the President. Currently, all but two use a winner-take-all first past the post approach while two select electors by first past the post within a congressional district with the two "senatorial" electors from those states going to the first past the post state-wide.

Right now, that means we have candidate concentrating on "battleground" states to the exclusion of areas where the vote is pretty well set. The battlegrounds shift a bit as voting in particular states edges one way or the other.

Were all states to adopt the model in use in Maine and Nebraska, there would be a lot of smaller "battlegrounds" and campaigns would become much MORE time intensive and expensive, though there would be a lot more Candidate interaction and 3rd parties would have more electoral college "traction." With this approach, you could very likely see an election settled in the HoR or settled in the Electoral College only after a 3rd party whose votes weren't mandated by their state's laws were "bought off" by one of the big two.

Were all states dropped from the equation and a national popular vote instituted, the time involvement required for campaigning would drop, though costs would probably stay about the same. Sadly, I think CR is correct in that campaigning would be restricted to major areas with highly concentrated populations and the campaign would be a mediated process even more so then at present. In addition, for the next 30-40 years or so, the GOP would be screened out of the Presidency entirely. Turning out the vote in the 30 biggest urban areas and their close-in suburbs would be everything and "country mouse" voters (who vote heavily for GOP) would be almost irrelevant.

As usual, I am on the wrong side of this. I want us to be, as much as possible, the several states. Mostly, the vote is for us to scrap states in favor of one government running everything. The popular election of Presidents will occur in my lifetime (well, I hope to hit 80 something, so.....)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Any thoughts on whether the Liberals will actually take the Conservative whip? This is really hard to guess, Labour need the Liberals, SNP and possibly Welsh support to form a government. Both the Scots and the Welsh demands for money is ridiculous, particularity the Welsh who already have money thrown at them.

I really can't call which way this is going to go, in the mean time I expect minor panic from the markets, a very worrying situation.

One possibility is defection, something that has not yet come up. Given that Clegg has not done as well as expected he might be able to hoover up a few Right-wing Lib-Dems.

[Furunculus]

One possibility is defection, something that has not yet come up. Given that Clegg has not done as well as expected he might be able to hoover up a few Right-wing Lib-Dems.

good point.

13 seats to declare with Cons on 301, can get 9 of the 13 undeclared?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

good point.

13 seats to declare with Cons on 301, can get 9 of the 13 undeclared?

So only 25 short, and less in practice, because Sin Fein don't sit. So only 23 short. Labour can barely form a government if everyone goes to them.

[Furunculus]

lib dems got cheltenham, a big tory target, so lib-lab are on 310 and the Cons on 301, with twelve still to declare...........

[Furunculus]

tory's can't get more than 308 now according to the beeb.

[Vladimir]

This is almost as exciting as the French election. The French are much more, colourful.

No offense intended guys but I'm glad the Lib Dems lost seats. They're a bigger threat to Britain than the BNP. Most people seem to know the BNP while the Lib Dems would drag you to hell in a golden carriage. A more conservative policy (more conservative than recent policy) seems like the best course for Britain in the short term.

[al Roumi]

This is almost as exciting as the French election. The French are much more, colourful.

No offense intended guys but I'm glad the Lib Dems lost seats. They're a bigger threat to Britain than the BNP. Most people seem to know the BNP while the Lib Dems would drag you to hell in a golden carriage. A more conservative policy (more conservative than recent policy) seems like the best course for Britain in the short term.

Right. Thanks. bye!

Edit: Sorry, I'm getting a little raw and don't quite know how to respond to the "libs worse than BNP", perhaps you would ellucidate your reasoning... And quite which of the Lib policies you think would lead to doom? Especially more so than Lab or Con, nevermind the BNP!

[Furunculus]

well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP.

[naut]

Cameron is open to agreement with LD, egg on JAG's face if it happens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cameron is now offering the Lib-Dems a Coalition, or another arrangement.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cameron is open to agreement with LD, egg on JAG's face if it happens.

Damn you!

[InsaneApache]

True. However they want to legalise the drugs they're smoking, so summat to look forwards to. :smoking:

[Vladimir]

Right. Thanks. bye!

Edit: Sorry, I'm getting a little raw and don't quite know how to respond to the "libs worse than BNP", perhaps you would ellucidate your reasoning... And quite which of the Lib policies you think would lead to doom? Especially more so than Lab or Con, nevermind the BNP!

I know this is an emotionally charged time but this is what I'm talking about. The BNP are already labeled "baddies" by almost everyone. You need to hoist a couple of them on a pedestal, like a living museum, and make sure they never leave the spotlight. People are much more likely to forget than accept.

The Libs policies will hurt Britain in the long run. The most insidious thing about it is that they'll make you feel good as they're doing it. Think of fireside chats during the Great Depression. Did they help anything? No. They made people feel good about their situation while we sold steel and oil to the Japanese war machine.

The BNP are known malefactors. I don't believe they have any real influence.

[rory_20_uk]

The problems when the USA stopped selling steel and oil to Japan - it was the embargo that was viewed as a hostile act.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

I know this is an emotionally charged time but this is what I'm talking about. The BNP are already labeled "baddies" by almost everyone. You need to hoist a couple of them on a pedestal, like a living museum, and make sure they never leave the spotlight. People are much more likely to forget than accept.

Indeed, and thankfully the good people of Barking ignored them. That said, i'm worried enough by the half-a million people who did vote BNP (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/)(nationaly)...


The Libs policies will hurt Britain in the long run. The most insidious thing about it is that they'll make you feel good as they're doing it. Think of fireside chats during the Great Depression. Did they help anything? No. They made people feel good about their situation while we sold steel and oil to the Japanese war machine.

I still have no clue what you are talking about wrt the Libs. Unless you think Nick Clegg is a direct reincarnation of Lloyd George, which would be silly.

I think you might be getting confused with Labour or another party. The estimated (by analysts, not parties -as none have ventured to comment on actual policy here) ratio of tax/cuts accross the 3 major parties was such that Lib would sit between labour (highest spending to cuts) and conservative (highest cuts to spending).

I completely fail to see why the Libs are "insiduous". The reason they enjoyed a popularity bubble pre election was probably due to the media attention and the fact that they sounded as sensible as the other parties, if not "new" and at least less bruised from the limelight of politics in the last 20yrs.

Now, what on earth do fireside chats during the Great Depression have to do with this? If it's a historical chip on the shoulder, I believe the Tories might furnish a few more of those, having been around for the longest...

[Furunculus]

I still have no clue what you are talking about wrt the Libs. Unless you think Nick Clegg is a direct reincarnation of Lloyd George, which would be silly.

I think you might be getting confused with Labour or another party. The estimated (by analysts, not parties -as none have ventured to comment on actual policy here) ratio of tax/cuts accross the 3 major parties was such that Lib would sit between labour (highest spending to cuts) and conservative (highest cuts to spending).

I completely fail to see why the Libs are "insiduous". The reason they enjoyed a popularity bubble pre election was probably due to the media attention and the fact that they sounded as sensible as the other parties, if not "new" and at least less bruised from the limelight of politics in the last 20yrs.

Now, what on earth do fireside chats during the Great Depression have to do with this? If it's a historical chip on the shoulder, I believe the Tories might furnish a few more of those, having been around for the longest...

to repeat; "well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP."

[Vladimir]

I still have no clue what you are talking about wrt the Libs. Unless you think Nick Clegg is a direct reincarnation of Lloyd George, which would be silly.

I think you might be getting confused with Labour or another party. The estimated (by analysts, not parties -as none have ventured to comment on actual policy here) ratio of tax/cuts accross the 3 major parties was such that Lib would sit between labour (highest spending to cuts) and conservative (highest cuts to spending).

I completely fail to see why the Libs are "insiduous". The reason they enjoyed a popularity bubble pre election was probably due to the media attention and the fact that they sounded as sensible as the other parties, if not "new" and at least less bruised from the limelight of politics in the last 20yrs.

Now, what on earth do fireside chats during the Great Depression have to do with this? If it's a historical chip on the shoulder, I believe the Tories might furnish a few more of those, having been around for the longest...


to repeat; "well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP."

I'm viewing this election from the sidelines but have an opinion similar to Furunculus. I wouldn't say "retarded" or use too many specifics but what I've heard from them is that they're trying to push bad policy to an idealistic electorate.

[al Roumi]

to repeat; "well, the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is utterly retarded, and thus could be considered an existential threat in advance of that posed by the BNP."

Seeing as we are discussing politics here I should perhaps declare that I'm all for a discussion on scrapping Trident. From the little I know, there are no projected state led threats to the UK (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/national_security.aspx), and I don't see a nuclear deterrent being that usefull against small groups that hide among large civilian populations.


I'm viewing this election from the sidelines but have an opinion similar to Furunculus. I wouldn't say "retarded" or use too many specifics but what I've heard from them is that they're trying to push bad policy to an idealistic electorate.

God man, it's like getting blood from a stone, which are the bad policies -which you've also called insiduous, hurtful and a threat to the UK? How are they so? Would you care to demonstrate a non-idealistic electorate??? Also, perhaps you'd like to explain how the Libs appear any worse than the other 2 main parties?

[LittleGrizzly]

I really do not like the sound of a lib dem tory coalition, I could only be supportive of such a thing if the libs could push through a decent few policys of thier own, if they joined in coalition with the tory's without getting much out of it I would never vote lib dem again in my lifetime. I am probably an anti tory voter before anything else....

Edit: getting rid of trident would be prudent at this time, apart from fictional wars in the minds of armchair generals with China and Russia they are useless, what we nee is better equipment for the troops we send out rather than some useless weapon we would probably only consider using once the end is nigh anyway

[Banquo's Ghost]

1. Regarding a "hung" Parliament (as an American of Irish descent, it's hard for me to think of Englishmen using that adjective, but whatever....):

The concept of a hung Parliament is the same as a hung jury - ie a group unable to reach a decision, liable to be dismissed by the judge in favour of a new trial. It reflects that British tradition for preferring strong majority governments rather than coalitions. It is also rather accurate as to the likely outcome of the election - another election in a few months' time.


Setting aside tradition, is there any possibility that Brown could now lead a coalition government comprised of pretty much everybody except the Tories in order to keep the Tories out of power? Clegg's statement certainly doesn't seem to make that likely, but machinations can happen when power is at stake (see U.S. healthcare bill voting shenanigans).


The constitutional position is quite clear: Brown is Prime Minister until he isn't. (I know, but remember, this is the country that invented cricket :beam:). In other words, he can hang on until the Queen's Speech on May 25th. If he can go to Her Majesty and claim that he can command the confidence of Parliament, he has the right to try and form a government.

In practice, he would need the entire rank of smaller parties to join a coalition and still barely have a majority. The Liberal Democrats have already shot this fox anyway.

Brown will have to resign shortly. He is, however, the kind of man without any sense of personal honour that might actually put the Queen in the position where she is finally the one to tell him to go. Nonetheless, I have this delicious vision of Her Majesty crushing his last fingernail with her stiletto heel and watching him plummet to the abyss of obscurity.

[Furunculus]

Seeing as we are discussing politics here I should perhaps declare that I'm all for a discussion on scrapping Trident. From the little I know, there are no projected state led threats to the UK (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/national_security.aspx), and I don't see a nuclear deterrent being that usefull against small groups that hide among large civilian populations.


Edit: getting rid of trident would be prudent at this time, apart from fictional wars in the minds of armchair generals with China and Russia they are useless, what we nee is better equipment for the troops we send out rather than some useless weapon we would probably only consider using once the end is nigh anyway


keeping trident is THE most obvious and sensible choice available.

it is a political tool in addition to be being a military one, and it is part of the reason why we retain a security council seat, which is by definition a good thing; you either have the influence to shape the world in your image, or you have to accept that you must adapt to a world shaped by others.
keeping the deterrent is also the ultimate insurance, that along with our island status, that utterly prevents existential military threats to the british isles, and allow us not to maintain the large standing armies common on the continent.
if you are going to keep a deterrent then it has to be trident, because nothing else is as effective and cheaper.

the lib-dems are also disinterested in maintaining the ability for sovereign and strategic power projection, and another key ability that allows security council membership alongside the deterrent, and as we determined above Great Power status is a useful thing that ANY and EVERY nation should aspire to.

the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is retarded.

[al Roumi]

keeping trident is THE most obvious and sensible choice available.

it is a political tool in addition to be being a military one, and it is part of the reason why we retain a security council seat, which is by definition a good thing; you either have the influence to shape the world in your image, or you have to accept that you must adapt to a world shaped by others.
keeping the deterrent is also the ultimate insurance, that along with our island status, that utterly prevents existential military threats to the british isles, and allow us not to maintain the large standing armies common on the continent.
if you are going to keep a deterrent then it has to be trident, because nothing else is as effective and cheaper.

the lib-dems are also disinterested in maintaining the ability for sovereign and strategic power projection, and another key ability that allows security council membership alongside the deterrent, and as we determined above Great Power status is a useful thing that ANY and EVERY nation should aspire to.

the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is retarded.

1. Deterrent to whom?
2. The Security council is long due reform. Diplomaticaly, the UK is already more of a multilateral/coalition than bilateral player.
3. You are living in a dream world about "great power" status, were the Argies' to set a new claim on the Malvenas (:wink:) the UK would be powerless to resist it.
4. If military power is what shapes the world, then it is in America's image -not the UKs.

[Furunculus]

1. Deterrent to whom?
2. The Security council is long due reform. Diplomaticaly, the UK is already more of a multilateral/coalition than bilateral player.
3. You are living in a dream world about "great power" status, were the Argies' to set a new claim on the Malvenas (:wink:) the UK would be powerless to resist it.
4. If military power is what shapes the world, then it is in America's image -not the UKs.

1. it is a tool for political influence, it has utility in advance of the purely military
2. sure, and we'll still be among the top ten provided we want the role
3. Capability + Will = Influence - to think otherwise is ridiculous
4. Hard-power, Soft-power, Economic-power are all important, but strategic power projection is an essential capability for a UNSC member, given that the SC needs to be able to coerce malefactors.

[al Roumi]

1. it is a tool for political influence, it has utility in advance of the purely military
How about a cost based analysis of the influence it provides against that which could be achieved through other (perhaps more socially and economically constructive) means?


2. sure, and we'll still be among the top ten provided we want the role
Hopefully, but it will (or ought to be) for more than the British expeditionary appetite.


3. Capability + Will = Influence - to think otherwise is ridiculous
My point exactly, we don't have the "capability" to match our "will".


4. Hard-power, Soft-power, Economic-power are all important, but strategic power projection is an essential capability for a UNSC member, given that the SC needs to be able to coerce malefactors.
Not so sure about this, is possession of a nuclear detterrent an entrance requriement to the Security council -if so, where are the Israeli, Indian and Pakistani seats? Secondly, if millitary capacity and "Global Policing" more generally are requirement and raison-d'etre, when have Russia or China ever "coerced" malefactors though military means?

Edit: China and (in practice) Russia fundamentaly resist any attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of other states. Not a great Policeman if you won't go into someone's house...

[Furunculus]

How about a cost based analysis of the influence it provides against that which could be achieved through other (perhaps more socially and economically constructive) means?

Hopefully, but it will (or ought to be) for more than the British expeditionary appetite.

My point exactly, we don't have the "capability" to match our "will".

Not so sure about this, is possession of a nuclear detterrent an entrance requriement to the Security council -if so, where are the Israeli, Indian and Pakistani seats? Secondly, if millitary capacity and "Global Policing" more generally are requirement and raison-d'etre, when have Russia or China ever "coerced" malefactors though military means?

Edit: China and (in practice) Russia fundamentaly resist any attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of other states. Not a great Policeman if you won't go into someone's house...
Fine, as long as you include its military utility in the cost/benefit analysis, i.e. the fact that we should want much greater conventional forces to make up for the security deficit introduced by ditching the deterrent. £1.5b/year for such an insurance policy is peanuts.

Sorry, don't understand that one..........?

Yes we do, read the RUSI FDR papers, then come back to me and say that.

Hard-power in addition to soft-power and economic power, we don't have a billion strong population to beef up our mandate, so we work in other ways.

It is the westphalian principle, and rightly so, but we have security council resolutions to enforce compliance, and compliance is enforced by threat.

[Beskar]

Blair introduced regional parliaments/assmblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not England. In Westminster Labout has used Scottish MP's to pass laws that only affect England. This has now reached crisis point, because in England the Tories are well ahead with both votes and seats. If we had an English Parliament Labour would be mostly locked out of the demographic and economic core of the country.

That's why we don't have an English Parliament, it isn't in the interests in Labour.

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

[LittleGrizzly]

I have heard the security council seat brought up a few times... so I have a question...

Can Britian have its security council seat taken from it ?
Who has the power and will to take Britian's seat ? (We are lapsdogs for the Americans and not really all that dissimlair to the french, so would Russia and China rush to take our seat away... without the Americans or the French surely they couldn't...)
Why would they take Britians seat ? (It wouldn't seem to be in the interests of the French or the Americans)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Final prediction from me:

Cons 325
Lab 200
Lib 90
Cons 285
Lab 255
LibDem 85Actual result: Cons 306
Lab 258
LibDem 57


Seats wrongly predicted:
Cons: Fur 19, LVI 21
Lab: Fur 58, LVI 3
LibDem: Fur 33, LVI 28


Total misses:
Furunculus 110, Louis 52. :knight:

[al Roumi]

Fine, as long as you include its military utility in the cost/benefit analysis, i.e. the fact that we should want much greater conventional forces to make up for the security deficit introduced by ditching the deterrent. £1.5b/year for such an insurance policy is peanuts.
Great! lets do the maths.


Sorry, don't understand that one..........?.
If the UK is to keep its Council seat, it will -and should- be for more than it's predilection for millitary expeditions.


Yes we do, read the RUSI FDR papers, then come back to me and say that..
Ah yes, a "strategic raiding force" based on naval power and short conflicts - because recent experience suggests its possible to get in and out of somewhere quickly... That will for going it alone is also something I'd personaly vote to diminish.


Hard-power in addition to soft-power and economic power, we don't have a billion strong population to beef up our mandate, so we work in other ways..
Indeed, hence the only vague benefits of a deterrent nowadays.


It is the westphalian principle, and rightly so, but we have security council resolutions to enforce compliance, and compliance is enforced by threat.
Yes but I don't think we (or anyone) ever even seriously threaten to deploy Nukes.

[gaelic cowboy]

So lads which Conservative highflyers are going to miss out on a cabinet seat due to Cameron having to offer them to the Lib Dems. Should make for some hilarious television over the next few days as certain furious Tories cop to the fact they are still out of the tent. Certain high profile names may be the price needed to be paid to head off electoral reform any party has a price Cam just needs to there one.




Oh and on a side note only one Unionist MP left in Belfast cue serious handwringing in DUP/UUP centrals respectively. Only for the fact that the SDLP rejected Sinn Fein's proposal to run unopposed nationalist candidates Nigel Dodds would have lost too. I expect Dodds will oust Robinson soon enough from Stormont too and thats no harm if you ask me.

[drone]

As usual, I am on the wrong side of this. I want us to be, as much as possible, the several states. Mostly, the vote is for us to scrap states in favor of one government running everything. The popular election of Presidents will occur in my lifetime (well, I hope to hit 80 something, so.....)
I'm not so sure it will happen. It will require an amendment, and the support for that amendment will be nil in the states with smaller populations. Just the kind of situation you and I approve of. :bow:


Brown will have to resign shortly. He is, however, the kind of man without any sense of personal honour that might actually put the Queen in the position where she is finally the one to tell him to go. Nonetheless, I have this delicious vision of Her Majesty crushing his last fingernail with her stiletto heel and watching him plummet to the abyss of obscurity.
Please, please, please let the BBC televise this event. :yes:

[Furunculus]

Great! lets do the maths.

If the UK is to keep its Council seat, it will -and should- be for more than it's predilection for millitary expeditions.

Ah yes, a "strategic raiding force" based on naval power and short conflicts - because recent experience suggests its possible to get in and out of somewhere quickly... That will for going it alone is also something I'd personaly vote to diminish.

Indeed, hence the only vague benefits of a deterrent nowadays.

Yes but I don't think we (or anyone) ever even seriously threaten to deploy Nukes.
you first, crack on..................

true, but you still need security council members who can and will project strategic force at need.

what you describe is COIN, that would be geared towards the Global Guardian doctrine, which if labour follow the IPPR report is what they will opt for, there is no indication that the Cons would go the same route.

no, we are still a great power by all three of the traditional metrics, the deterrent only reinforces that fact.

no one has ever suggested that the security council would attempt to coerce a malefactor by threatening nuclear Armageddon, which is why strategic power projection is essential.

[Furunculus]

So lads which Conservative highflyers are going to miss out on a cabinet seat due to Cameron having to offer them to the Lib Dems. Should make for some hilarious television over the next few days as certain furious Tories cop to the fact they are still out of the tent. Certain high profile names may be the price needed to be paid to head off electoral reform any party has a price Cam just needs to there one.

as long as their is a firm decision by the time the markets open on monday morning i don't care what the deal is, as long as it sticks to camerons red-lines on defence, and europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

If that is true then their would have been a nation-wide referrendum, "Do you want local-parliaments" and it would have been binding on all three Kingdoms, the Principality, and the Duchy. There wasn't because the project was a sop to Labour voters, hence Wales a Scotland first, then London, then the North.

Anyway, manufacturing and mining etc. weren't just in the North, it was also in the South West (copper, tin, and ships), Wales, (coal), the Midlands, (cars).

You just demonstrated a very regionalised view of the Thatcher years.

[gaelic cowboy]

as long as their is a firm decision by the time the markets open on monday morning i don't care what the deal is, as long as it sticks to camerons red-lines on defence, and europe.

So your fine with binning FPTP I thought that was sacrosanct for the Tory party and yourself too yes no. I would think Cons would be wary of opening up the system the Lib Dems have a popular percentage of 23% that could be a serious mistake for Cameron for the next election.

If I was Cameron I would offer some really major briefs to Lib Dems along with obviously the deputy prime minster job in return for giving them extra influence they drop electoral reform. The beauty of this if you give them some major but horrible cabinet briefs like health for instance the Cons dont get the blame for some of the decisions.

Of course STV style PR could help the two big parties just as much as the smaller ones we have had STV for years and we only ever have conservative parties in coalition with the Irish labour party.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

I think the problem with your argument here is that if the north did indeed get screwed over, this would be due to the fact that the Tory MP's were fairly elected, and represent the views of the country as a whole. In contrast to this, the issue raised by PVC (the West Lothian Question as we call it) relates to inequalities which are codified into the constitutional settlement itself. When Scottish MP's can vote on specifically English issues, and the reverse isn't true, then you have created two classes of MP's.

All the solutions to this, whether English votes on English laws, or an English Parliament, have their flaws (look what happened to the West Indian Federation with Jamaica, the same situation would happen when a regional parliament is more powerful than the state one).

IMO we should scrap devolution and replace it with more meaningful localy government. It kept the Union strong in the past with Victorian liberalism and all that, why not now? The North East devolution referendum you referred to is not the solution, and it was only ever intended to promote economic development in the region, not provide an answer to the major constitutional issues.

[Beskar]

The North East devolution referendum you referred to is not the solution, and it was only ever intended to promote economic development in the region, not provide an answer to the major constitutional issues.

It does both, as it would be the MP's in those areas which decide on the policies, not those from Scotland or London (other than in the Scottish/London areas, which is obvious)

[al Roumi]

you first, crack on..................

true, but you still need security council members who can and will project strategic force at need.

what you describe is COIN, that would be geared towards the Global Guardian doctrine, which if labour follow the IPPR report is what they will opt for, there is no indication that the Cons would go the same route.

no, we are still a great power by all three of the traditional metrics, the deterrent only reinforces that fact.

no one has ever suggested that the security council would attempt to coerce a malefactor by threatening nuclear Armageddon, which is why strategic power projection is essential.

We are taklking about Trident, or a nuclear deterent. Not all those points above are dependent on the UK possessing one.

Australia, for example, maximises it's contribution in "coalitions of the willing" by focusing on its comparative advantage in a composite force. Perhaps the UK's capability could better complement the US' in this way than as a mini me?

AFAIK our options internationaly are either to stick our heads int he sand as France did until Sarkozy, or continue to play patsy to whoever sits in the Oval office.

Edit: Good weekend all, we'll see how the politicos sort themselves out...

[Beskar]

Anyway, manufacturing and mining etc. weren't just in the North, it was also in the South West (copper, tin, and ships), Wales, (coal), the Midlands, (cars).

You just demonstrated a very regionalised view of the Thatcher years.

Midlands is classed as the North with the North/South divide is at the Watford Gap. In terms of Great Britain, Wales and Scotland are lumped with the North.

Only place different is the South-West, which want their own assembly/parliament anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism

[Strike For The South]

So now the queen rules.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It does both, as it would be the MP's in those areas which decide on the policies, not those from Scotland or London (other than in the Scottish/London areas, which is obvious)

Well, the interesting thing about the resounding 4:1 no vote is that a lot of people voted no on the grounds that it would have no real power, and was just creating more pointless politicians. A sentiment which has probably only increased today.

I think it is all a non-issue. With the decline of the welfare state and its centralised nature, combined with bottom-up regionalism through the expansion of power of government offices. Heck check the budgets for the regional development agencies since 1999.

All this nonse about demanding representation for your region/city/street/backyard is, well... just that, nonsense. A strong local government is much more useful than populist demands for autonomy for arbitrary regions just because people got upset that their party of choice isn't sitting in Westminster.

Ugh... that is a major issue here, with people talking about a boost for independence of the Tories win. *gah*

[Subotan]

What's the difference between Nick Griffin and a Bus?

A Bus has seats

[InsaneApache]

So now the queen rules.

Indeed. It looks like Madge will have to send the Blues and Royals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues_and_Royals) into No. 10 to prise our Ex- Great Leaders fingers off the door jam.

Three cheers for Brenda.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Midlands is classed as the North with the North/South divide is at the Watford Gap. In terms of Great Britain, Wales and Scotland are lumped with the North.

Only place different is the South-West, which want their own assembly/parliament anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism

This is only one understanding of our political geography, and if you look at the Electoral Map by that standard the "North" has plenty of Tories, so they wouldn't be dissadvantaged.

Anyway, the Cornish are a seperate issue from the South West/Wessex, because of the historic Stanary Parliament.

[Vladimir]

Indeed. It looks like Madge will have to send the Blues and Royals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues_and_Royals) into No. 10 to prise our Ex- Great Leaders fingers off the door jam.

Three cheers for Brenda.

Awesome! Please do. :yes:

[tibilicus]

I think we might see a loose Con/Lib "National Government" as opposed to a conventional coalition government. This will probably require a concession on electoral reform from the Conservatives. This situation seems ideal for both parties as the Lib Dems wont have to be attached to the accountability of Conservative policy, something its party members will see as desirable. As long as Clegg agrees the Lib Dems wont block the Queens Speech or initiate a loss of supply the Conservatives can probably legislate for now, although another election will be needed not to far into the future.

I think Brown's hopes of hanging on are unrealistic now. The Welsh want £300 million, that's about £100 million per MP and I don't want to think what the other parties will demand, minus the SDLP who already take the Labour whip.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed. It looks like Madge will have to send the Blues and Royals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues_and_Royals) into No. 10 to prise our Ex- Great Leaders fingers off the door jam.

Three cheers for Brenda.

Better to use riflemen for nasty work like that, the Guards don't like to get blood on their pretty uniforms.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So now the queen rules.

As the Doctor Who series predicted in The Beast Below.

[InsaneApache]

Better to use riflemen for nasty work like that, the Guards don't like to get blood on their pretty uniforms.

No. You're right. McRuin isn't able stand up to the Brownies, therefore step up a notch and send the cubs in. Woggle firmly in hand! :stunned:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, after thinking about it for a quite I've determined that at this point I am happy with either outcome (lib/lab or lib/con) because if:

A. lib/lab happens, the voting reforms have a good chance to move through which makes the US one of the very, very few developed countries to use FPTP and it provides a more solid basis on making some changes here which I desperately want.

B. lib/con happens, voting reforms might not happen since cons dont want to kill their strength under current system but after looking at this with a clear head it seems that the tories are what the UK needs right now in terms of fiscal spending and I will be happy that the UK will not fall into the same pit that greece has fallen under. Also, if the tories mange to get the deficit and massive debt under control then it serves as a good example in America to promote a more active government, and proves it can be run responsibly and economically sound and that systems such as a national health care system can be implemented with government not imploding under debt pressure or mismanagement. Overall, the UK can serve as the US liberals example of an involved government that runs properly and in the best interest of the people. That is of course if the Tories do their job right and doesnt resort to going all Margaret Thatcher everywhere to kill the debt.

Overall, A is a sure thing while B is more uncertain but B is a lot better then A since I put the well being and financial security of UK and its citizens over my ideological goals and ambitions and hopes.

[Furunculus]

So your fine with binning FPTP I thought that was sacrosanct for the Tory party and yourself too yes no. I would think Cons would be wary of opening up the system the Lib Dems have a popular percentage of 23% that could be a serious mistake for Cameron for the next election.

If I was Cameron I would offer some really major briefs to Lib Dems along with obviously the deputy prime minster job in return for giving them extra influence they drop electoral reform. The beauty of this if you give them some major but horrible cabinet briefs like health for instance the Cons dont get the blame for some of the decisions.

Of course STV style PR could help the two big parties just as much as the smaller ones we have had STV for years and we only ever have conservative parties in coalition with the Irish labour party.

i am separate from the tory party, i have no tribal allegiance to the tory party as I am just a right-winger who votes were his views are best represented, and while the tory's like FPTP in particular, i merely like adversarial and decisive politics so I am open to things like STV whilst being skeptical that the change would actually makes things better. I see nothing wrong with the current system and am even more wary of change for the sake of change after thirteen disasterous years of labour tinkering.

i can see the attraction in that, but then i am sure the Lib-Dems can see the peril equally easily, but Cameron doesn't have to offer PR he just has to offer a referendum on it, and sit back quite confidently while the motion is voted down by the electorate.

if we had PR introduced I wouldn't care, as I am right-wing not a tory, and I would laugh my mammary glands off while dozens of UKIP MP's were voted into parliament, england is fundamentally right-wing which PR would accentuate rather than attenuate.

[Furunculus]

I have heard the security council seat brought up a few times... so I have a question...

Can Britian have its security council seat taken from it ?
Who has the power and will to take Britian's seat ? (We are lapsdogs for the Americans and not really all that dissimlair to the french, so would Russia and China rush to take our seat away... without the Americans or the French surely they couldn't...)
Why would they take Britians seat ? (It wouldn't seem to be in the interests of the French or the Americans)

the UNSC is headed for reform, whether we keep our seat depends on whether we remain:
1. Independent, (if the Lib-Dems get their way on europe then we would be european, not British, so our vote would become a european one, possibly merged with Frances)
2. Capable, (if the Lib-Dems get their way on Defence then we would not be able to project strategic power, so we would have nothing to offer a reformed UN)
3. Willpower, (if the Lib-Dems get their way then we will become a bunch of salad munching lotus eaters, so we would be less useful to other SC members like america)

It's not that it could be taken away, just that we would have no bargaining power to persuade other powerful nations to back our attempt to keep it, and rightly so as we would not be offering anything of use.

[Furunculus]

Actual result: Cons 306
Lab 258
LibDem 57


Seats wrongly predicted:
Cons: Fur 19, LVI 21
Lab: Fur 58, LVI 3
LibDem: Fur 33, LVI 28


Total misses:
Furunculus 110, Louis 52. :knight:

my congratulations Louis, you win this time.......................... *shakes fist*




All this nonse about demanding representation for your region/city/street/backyard is, well... just that, nonsense. A strong local government is much more useful than populist demands for autonomy for arbitrary regions just because people got upset that their party of choice isn't sitting in Westminster.

Ugh... that is a major issue here, with people talking about a boost for independence of the Tories win. *gah*

agreed here, we really do not want or need a third tier of government, give me Daniel Hannan's The Plan.

[Furunculus]

a. We are taklking about Trident, or a nuclear deterent. Not all those points above are dependent on the UK possessing one.

b. Australia, for example, maximises it's contribution in "coalitions of the willing" by focusing on its comparative advantage in a composite force. Perhaps the UK's capability could better complement the US' in this way than as a mini me?

c. AFAIK our options internationaly are either to stick our heads int he sand as France did until Sarkozy, or continue to play patsy to whoever sits in the Oval office.


a. no, but it is a mistake only to see the deterrent as a military tool, rightly or wrongly it reinforces our SC position which is a political advantage.

b. all marvellous, but australia is not a Great Power and is unable to conduct strategic power projection, and thus it does not command influence at an international level, most obviously at the SC. the whole point of the SDR 98 was to be a plug-in adjunct to american forces, our literal aim was to match the quality 100% and the quantity by 15% so that we could demand the second in command position, and thus strategic input into the operation.

the problem of not being taken seriously is adequately described here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,688424,00.html

Since the United Nations had issued a mandate for Afghanistan, Germany took part in the mission, which was intended to secure the country’s reconstruction, with a clear conscience.

Now war has broken out again and the Germans are playing a peripheral role in the conflict. They are not consulted by the US when the strategy changes. They are presented with a fait accompli because they don’t carry political weight, neither in the confrontation with Afghan President Hamid Karzai nor in negotiations with the Taliban. That is rather meager for a country that would like to see itself as an important mid-sized power.

The distant war has come home to Germany, and, after the period of fleeing from reality, it is now high time that Germans talk openly about war and death.

c. no, our options are perfectly crystallised by the five doctrines in the RUSI paper linked in my sig:

RUSI commissioned a report to ask two questions:

1. Is it still desirable and appropriate for the UK to wish to act as a Great Power?

2. If it is desirable to remain a Great Power, how can this be achieved?

Question #1 was satisfactorily answered with the following motives:

a) Thucydides wisdom – all nations seek power for reasons of fear, interest and honour

b) The Strategic Bargain – where we work with partners to ensure collective security

c) National Obligations – Uninterrupted access to economic recourse & Defence of the Realm

d) Military Aid to Civilian Authorities – a resource to resort to in times of natural disaster

Question #2 looked at the various options that can be taken in light of the failure of the SDR vision, and in recognition of the current financial situation which makes the SDR an unachievable dream.

a) The Global Guardian Doctrine – i.e. we maintain our ability to mount large scale theatre level operations out-of-area, examples of which would be Desert Storm and Afghanistan, including protracted COIN operations.

This is a Great Power Status

It meets motives a, b, part of c and d.

b) The Strategic Raiding Doctrine – i.e. we maintain our ability to mount medium scale assaults via amphibious/naval capability in conjunction with rapid-reaction/expeditionary forces, examples of which would be the Falklands Conflict and Sierra Leone.

This is a Great Power Status

It meets motives a, b, c, and d.

c) The Contributory Doctrine - i.e. we maintain a reduced military that whilst broadly capable, and able to contribute usefully to international operations, would lose any possibility for national autonomy for intervention operations, because we would be dependent on other nations for the capabilities it had surrendered. We would be in a similar position to Germany or Poland; able to provide brigade level combat units or specialist functions to multinational operations.

This is NOT a Great Power Status

It meets motives b and d, as well as part of c.

d) The Gendarmerie Doctrine - i.e. we lose all ambition to high intensity warfare outside of our own national borders, and capable only of providing light weight peace-keeping forces for multinational operations. We would be in a similar position to Belgium or Denmark.

This is NOT a Great Power Status

It meets motives d, as well as part of c.

e) The Little Britain Doctrine – We abandon all but home defence, we would remain in a similar position to Ireland.

This is NOT a Great Power Status

It meets motive d.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, after thinking about it for a quite I've determined that at this point I am happy with either outcome (lib/lab or lib/con) because if:

A. lib/lab happens, the voting reforms have a good chance to move through which makes the US one of the very, very few developed countries to use FPTP and it provides a more solid basis on making some changes here which I desperately want.

B. lib/con happens, voting reforms might not happen since cons dont want to kill their strength under current system but after looking at this with a clear head it seems that the tories are what the UK needs right now in terms of fiscal spending and I will be happy that the UK will not fall into the same pit that greece has fallen under. Also, if the tories mange to get the deficit and massive debt under control then it serves as a good example in America to promote a more active government, and proves it can be run responsibly and economically sound and that systems such as a national health care system can be implemented with government not imploding under debt pressure or mismanagement. Overall, the UK can serve as the US liberals example of an involved government that runs properly and in the best interest of the people. That is of course if the Tories do their job right and doesnt resort to going all Margaret Thatcher everywhere to kill the debt.

Overall, A is a sure thing while B is more uncertain but B is a lot better then A since I put the well being and financial security of UK and its citizens over my ideological goals and ambitions and hopes.

Electoral reform is not relevant right now, it won't help the country.

Defecit first, please.

[tibilicus]

If I was Cameron I would offer Clegg the "National Government solution" I mentioned earlier. Agree to a referendum on the electoral system but advocate STV rather than PR, on the agreement that the Tory party is allowed to campaign against electoral change. As mentioned above by PVC though, this really shouldn't be a priority. If we suffer a run on the pound we're effectively done for. How about we sort out our effective bankruptcy and then talk about electoral reform?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If I was Cameron I would offer Clegg the "National Government solution" I mentioned earlier. Agree to a referendum on the electoral system but advocate STV rather than PR, on the agreement that the Tory party is allowed to campaign against electoral change. As mentioned above by PVC though, this really shouldn't be a priority. If we suffer a run on the pound we're effectively done for. How about we sort out our effective bankruptcy and then talk about electoral reform?

Quite, that's why I think Cameron is actually right about a cross-part committe. That's a big step forward, for a Conservative leader to say that. The Lib-Dems would benefit from equal-sized constituancies as well as the Conservatives, they would get maybe another 5 seats out of that just on Thursday's results.

[Beskar]

Being honest, David Cameron should accept a referendum as the end of the day, it might not even pass with the voters. Make it for like 2 years-ish in the next ward elections/european elections or whatever. In return, Cameron gets to pretty much do everything as if gets a majority.

If Cons do these key issues, I'll tolerant and accept them in power.

Alternatively, if they don't, I can accept a Lab-Libdem coalition not under Brown.

STV is a very big issue, everyone I know of has commented on it being a needed change. The thing is, STV pretty much removes tactical first voting. This will give people more opportunity to vote for the parties they actually want, instead of constantly voting either Conservative or Labour to counter the other.


edit: On another note, I know from experience that the majority of people don't vote local. One of the Labour MP's in the North West is utter :daisy: and he keeps getting re-elected. Gordon Marsden, for Blackpool South. He doesn't even live or bother with Blackpool. He lives in Brighton, known for frequenting the gaybars there, with numerous scandels and stories. Only time he comes up to Blackpool is when he tries to hijack some one elses PR stunt for personal gain.

[Subotan]

Furunculus dislikes the Liberal Democrats; I must agree with them :laugh4:

[Idaho]

Interesting election. No real momentum behind any of the parties. No real desertion of Labour, no real motivation to vote Liberal, no sizeable increase in the share of vote for the Tories.

I think Cameron will appeal to Clegg's personal ambition. Offer him a cabinet job if he sells out his party. Clegg will claim that this will show the Liberal's are credible in government and will benefit them in the long term. Meanwhile the promise of a commission on electoral reform will keep the party dangling while Cameron tries to shore up political opinion for a second stab at an election during some kind of honeymoon bubble.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus dislikes the Liberal Democrats; I must agree with them :laugh4:

if that is how you want to define the criteria by which you judge politics.................. be my guest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Being honest, David Cameron should accept a referendum as the end of the day, it might not even pass with the voters. Make it for like 2 years-ish in the next ward elections/european elections or whatever. In return, Cameron gets to pretty much do everything as if gets a majority.

If Cons do these key issues, I'll tolerant and accept them in power.

Alternatively, if they don't, I can accept a Lab-Libdem coalition not under Brown.

STV is a very big issue, everyone I know of has commented on it being a needed change. The thing is, STV pretty much removes tactical first voting. This will give people more opportunity to vote for the parties they actually want, instead of constantly voting either Conservative or Labour to counter the other.

I actually agree that we need electoral reform, I'm not entirely sold on STV, I think it depends how it is implemented. You must agree, surely, that we also need (as Mr Cameron said yesterday) that we need to make sure constituancies are all the same size.

However, if Clegg wants to act "in the National Interest" then PR/STV should not be deal breakers for him. Britain might benefit from electoral reform but it needs/i] stable government [i]now. The markets re-open on Monday, so Clegg needs to do the deal tomorrow if he wants any respect from me.

If in ayear Clegg decides Cameron is stringing him along on electoral reform he can have one of his members bring a Private Bill on changing the voting system, and push it through with Labour. Then he can topple Cameron and trigger an election.

HOWEVER, these are things for the future.

[Beskar]

I actually agree that we need electoral reform, I'm not entirely sold on STV, I think it depends how it is implemented. You must agree, surely, that we also need (as Mr Cameron said yesterday) that we need to make sure constituancies are all the same size.

I also agree on that, doing it based on registered voters/population for best results. This is something I said earlier in the topic.

Cameron should just simply agree on seriously implementing changes such as STV. Then he has a couple of years anyway to go through all the details and the costs. No one will attack him for not having it done tomorrow, they would fully understand that such a change needs to be done the right way. Then, through this period, have Nick Clegg as the "overseer" or whatever, so if it doesn't happen Cameron cannot take responsibility for it not occuring.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I also agree on that, doing it based on registered voters for best results.

That's about as good an idea as the Poll Tax, unless you make it a criminal offence not to be registered.

[Beskar]

That's about as good an idea as the Poll Tax, unless you make it a criminal offence not to be registered.

Not sure how to take your comment. If I remember correctly, you was a large advocate for the poll tax, saying about how poor grandma in her mansion has to pay far more than a family in a small house who uses the services far more.

So that means you either geniunely think it is a great idea, or you are being sarcastic. But knowing your views on the subject of poll tax, it doesn't make sense, as when people say things sarcastically, they compare it with a view they disagree with, as thus "That's about as good an idea as restoring the Feudal Rights to the Monarchy". Then again, you might agree with that statement when it comes to Gordon Brown as PM.

[Subotan]

if that is how you want to define the criteria by which you judge politics.................. be my guest.
I was being tongue-in-cheek :wink:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not sure how to take your comment. If I remember correctly, you was a large advocate for the poll tax, saying about how poor grandma in her mansion has to pay far more than a family in a small house who uses the services far more.

So that means you either geniunely think it is a great idea, or you are being sarcastic. But knowing your views on the subject of poll tax, it doesn't make sense, as when people say things sarcastically, they compare it with a view they disagree with, as thus "That's about as good an idea as restoring the Feudal Rights to the Monarchy". Then again, you might agree with that statement when it comes to Gordon Brown as PM.

You need to link the two halves of my statement. Both your suggestion and the Poll Tax only work if you make not registering to vote a criminal offence. What I said about the Poll Taxt was that in theory it was a good idea, to use the electoral roll to count adults in a house and tax accordingly, but it failed because registering is optional.

[Idaho]

I actually agree that we need electoral reform, I'm not entirely sold on STV, I think it depends how it is implemented. You must agree, surely, that we also need (as Mr Cameron said yesterday) that we need to make sure constituancies are all the same size.

However, if Clegg wants to act "in the National Interest" then PR/STV should not be deal breakers for him. Britain might benefit from electoral reform but it needs/i] stable government [i]now. The markets re-open on Monday, so Clegg needs to do the deal tomorrow if he wants any respect from me.

If in ayear Clegg decides Cameron is stringing him along on electoral reform he can have one of his members bring a Private Bill on changing the voting system, and push it through with Labour. Then he can topple Cameron and trigger an election.

HOWEVER, these are things for the future.

I'm (pleasantly) surprised how open to the idea of PR you are PVC. I (wrongly) assumed that you would take a very Tory (in the traditional sense) stance on the idea.

Perhaps I am wrong in my bet with my good lady wife. She thinks there will be some kind of change in the next 2 years but I am sceptical.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm (pleasantly) surprised how open to the idea of PR you are PVC. I (wrongly) assumed that you would take a very Tory (in the traditional sense) stance on the idea.

Perhaps I am wrong in my bet with my good lady wife. She thinks there will be some kind of change in the next 2 years but I am sceptical.

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Germany's system try to tackle the problem of too much party and not enough individual in a PR system?

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

Should the electoral system ever be arranged to keep specific parties out of power?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Germany's system try to tackle the problem of too much party and not enough individual in a PR system?

Germany uses a Mixed Member Proportional system. However, this never translated as succesfully into British politics, where it is used for the Scottish Parliament. While in Germany people don't really see any distinction between the constituency or party list MP's (hence the individual v party bit), here in Scotland (and elsewhere, eg New Zealand), party list MP's tend to get all the glamour issues and constituency MP's are left with all the boring local stuff.

Plus there is the issue of shadowing, with party list MP's placing a lot of pressure on their constituency counterparts.

[tibilicus]

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

I think PR would actually be more generous to parties like the BNP. If you set the quota at something like 8,000 votes (possibly to high?) the BNP would still win relatively few seats plus, unless it's an inner city working class area, I can't see anyone putting the BNP high up as they rank their candidates in order of preference.

[Idaho]

I like FPTP because it gives power to local constituancies, not parties. We have definately seen some of that in this election, where odious characters have lost (relatively) safe seats. I dislike PR because it gives all the power to the Party, something which especially favours Labour, with it's high level of internal control.

Put simply, I believe you should vote for a person; which is what I did.

However, in this day and age all the parties have too large a media presence, so that tactical voting has become (sadly) all too common. Ironically, if all the people who claimed to be Lib-Dem actually voted Lib Dem there would probably be far more Liberal MP's.

So, in this squalid situation I can see the advantage of STV. However, it would have to be implemented very carefully, and with safeguards to prevent parties like the BNP from gaining significant numbers in Westminster.

I do believe there is an argument for saying that you have to score a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for the STV.

I agree that a party list style PR would give too much power to the parties. And some form of local link seems suitable. Although perhaps we should properly reform Parliament and have straight PR for the commons, and then have a representative style Lords. With Lord X of Winchester, actually being the representative for that constituency (he/she can have the title for as long as they are elected). The Commons being about national policy, and the Lords being about local concerns, individual grievences, as well as having an oversight role on the commons.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wonder where JAG went?

[Furunculus]

drowning his sorrows.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What I find particularly amusing is the sight of Conservatives who have worked up a froth demanding that the people of Britain must have a referendum on Europe, because they must be allowed to decide how they are governed - are simultaneously worked up into a froth about refusing the people of Britain a referendum on Electoral Reform, because they can't be allowed to decide how they are governed.

:laugh4::

[Beskar]

What I find particularly amusing is the sight of Conservatives who have worked up a froth demanding that the people of Britain must have a referendum on Europe, because they must be allowed to decide how they are governed - are simultaneously worked up into a froth about refusing the people of Britain a referendum on Electoral Reform, because they can't be allowed to decide how they are governed.

:laugh4::

Self-interest, it is the Conservative way.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Self-interest, it is the Conservative way.

:laugh4:

Yes, of course, I forgot. All the other parties are Sainted Martyrs. :dizzy2: