Use this instead - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/elect...ts/default.stm
Much better! :)
Printable View
Use this instead - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/elect...ts/default.stm
Much better! :)
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
First Past the Post.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.
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.
Can't happen right now, look at the figures, Lib-Lab would be less than Con-DUP.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
You're flogging a dead horse at this point, even if the gap doesn't further widen, Labour can't form a government.
Go Tories!!
The results have absolutely no effect on me, but I'm with them in spirit. :nice:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
woot!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
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?
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.
Except you have 306+8= 316 for the Cons and DUP. To this you must add the largest party and largest vote status.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
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.
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.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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.
How did the conservatives actually get votes then? :creep:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Nice to see Green's get an MP, and possibly even get a 2nd one soon as well.
Well, I hope you're wrong, because otherwise it's another four years of misery for the urban poor and government dependancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Morally right my foot. No use if they're a practical failure.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You are aware that the Electoral College is only used for Presidential elections? And you can't proportionally represent a president.
For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?Quote:
Whatever happens, Labour's corrupt and irregular Constitutional arrangement is what needs to be changed.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The Greens gaining an MP is astounding, truly astounding.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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?
They are most likely going to get another, Gina Dowding, Fleetwood & Lancaster constituency. Posters by them everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I'll check the final results tomorrow. It's obvious I need to relax and get some sleep. Sorry again CR.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Anyhoo, back to the UK...
the lib-dems lack the party discipline to make that an easy occurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Says a very nervous Tory.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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. ~;)
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.
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:
It is an interesting point, although I'm not so sure about the links to a lack of revolutionary zeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.
Hmm, or not:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Quote:
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.
i think not:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:
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.
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 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...
[Appologies for the double post]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-election-2010
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
That's why we don't have an English Parliament, it isn't in the interests in Labour.
I didn't go to bed until I knew I was going to wake up to a hanging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
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.
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.
I agree, but you missed one thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
If Scotland became independant Labour would be wiped out in Westminster, down below 160 seats, if they're lucky.
Hah! Scotland and England are united because a Scottish King inherrited the English thrown.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Scotland, in particular, needs to grow up.
lol couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
21 seats left to announce, will the Cons get another thirteen to hit 310 and probably equal the lib/lab total?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.....)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...........
tory's can't get more than 308 now according to the beeb.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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!
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.
Cameron is open to agreement with LD, egg on JAG's face if it happens.
Cameron is now offering the Lib-Dems a Coalition, or another arrangement.
Damn you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
True. However they want to legalise the drugs they're smoking, so summat to look forwards to. :smoking:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
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.
The problems when the USA stopped selling steel and oil to Japan - it was the embargo that was viewed as a hostile act.
~:smoking:
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 (nationaly)...Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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, and I don't see a nuclear deterrent being that usefull against small groups that hide among large civilian populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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