| JoxerTheDeityPirate 06.04.2010 14:35 |
so,the biggest non-secret is finally released into the void and the UK will vote in a months time for a new parliament. Today Golden Brown went to Buck House and asked Brian May to dissolve the corrupt bunch of thieving bastards and go to the public to vote them all back in again [those that didnt get caught in the expenses scandal anyway] to be honest I'm rather glad its not like the US elections which seem to start as soon as the last one ends but,what do you think will happen? will we be stuck with the 'one eyed scottish git' [thankyou Mr Clarkson for that] or will Thatcher's bastard offspring take over or will it be a 'hung' parliament? either way,I think its gonna be a close run thing.I may even watch the live debates on the tv just to see if any of the 3 candidates do a 'Nixon'. |
| brENsKi 06.04.2010 17:10 |
the whole thing is a no-brainer isn't it.... smug-tory-c*nts - will rob us all to line the pockets of their rich friends lib-dems - look good on paper -they can promise the earth - cos they never get enough votes -so you're wasting a vote. bnp - thugs and unintelligent twats - make US white supremecist rednecks sound coherent ukip - the acceptable face of racism (lol) - might as well vote for what's left of screaming lord such's party labour- thieves - as corrupt as the early90s tories, unelectable, incompetent.....i usually pick an underdog - so will probably vote for them for the hell of it |
| tcc 07.04.2010 06:13 |
Pretending that I am a UK resident, I might vote for Labour. The scandals got uncovered during their term but it shows that the party does not cover up weaknesses. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.04.2010 06:25 |
tcc wrote: Pretending that I am a UK resident, I might vote for Labour. The scandals got uncovered during their term but it shows that the party does not cover up weaknesses.plus it was mostly the conservatives that were caight with their fingers in the cookie jar or the duck house :-p |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.04.2010 06:27 |
brENsKi wrote: the whole thing is a no-brainer isn't it.... smug-tory-c*nts - will rob us all to line the pockets of their rich friends lib-dems - look good on paper -they can promise the earth - cos they never get enough votes -so you're wasting a vote. bnp - thugs and unintelligent twats - make US white supremecist rednecks sound coherent ukip - the acceptable face of racism (lol) - might as well vote for what's left of screaming lord such's party labour- thieves - as corrupt as the early90s tories, unelectable, incompetent.....i usually pick an underdog - so will probably vote for them for the hell of itif the Tories want to win and get a governing majority then they need to win seats down here in my neck of the woods [cornwall] from the Lib-Dems and by the looks of it they don't look likely too,so my money is on a hung parliament |
| Holly2003 07.04.2010 06:33 |
I'm a natural Labour Party voter I suppose, but I'm having a hard time mustering any enthusiasm for them. Currently about 1/3 of my gross pay goes to the Govt. in direct or NI tax, which would be just about acceptable if I thought the Givt. was doing anything useful with that money. Instead, Labour have used it to bail out the banking industry. The alternative is the Tories, who are closer to the bankers than Labour, or the Lib-Dems whose policies seems to change depending on whatever is flavour of the month. Life was easier back in Norn Iron: you voted unionist or nationalist, and that was usually decided for you before you were born :) |
| Mr Mercury 07.04.2010 10:38 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:tcc wrote: Pretending that I am a UK resident, I might vote for Labour. The scandals got uncovered during their term but it shows that the party does not cover up weaknesses.plus it was mostly the conservatives that were caight with their fingers in the cookie jar or the duck house :-p Dont forget the Moat. And dont forget that poor Tory bastard who will have to travel to work amongst all the "common" folk on the train......... |
| GratefulFan 07.04.2010 10:38 |
At least you folks get to have an election. We're stuck in some kind of horrible Conservative purgatory (it's not quite Conservative hell because it's a minority government) where the PM prorogues parliament whenever he feels like it and the opposition is too weak to risk doing anything about it. So we skate along, and the government quietly inserts weird conservative idealogy into the fabric of society under guises that are politically hard to publicly discredit. Being 'tough on crime' and jazz like that. Meh. I was reading some UK election coverage online last night, specifically about the core messaging of the two main candidates, and one thing that struck me was Cameron running on 'hope and change' and something else I don't remember. Hope and change was of course Obama's shtick and it speaks I think to how Obama is still quite positively regarded in Europe. As a mantra it's been significantly discredited on this side of the Atlantic, and I don't think we'll see it used here for some time. Anyway, I love a good election and I'll be following closely. May the best thing happen. |
| GratefulFan 07.04.2010 10:40 |
Holly2003 wrote: I'm a natural Labour Party voter I suppose, but I'm having a hard time mustering any enthusiasm for them. Currently about 1/3 of my gross pay goes to the Govt. in direct or NI tax, which would be just about acceptable if I thought the Givt. was doing anything useful with that money. Instead, Labour have used it to bail out the banking industry. The alternative is the Tories, who are closer to the bankers than Labour, or the Lib-Dems whose policies seems to change depending on whatever is flavour of the month. Life was easier back in Norn Iron: you voted unionist or nationalist, and that was usually decided for you before you were born :) I've had those precise thoughts myself. The waste can be pretty staggering. |
| Mr Mercury 07.04.2010 11:06 |
I will tell you why I hate David "Smarmite" Cameron. Whenever some Tory person has won some by-election, you dont get to see that person because the minute the TV camera's turn up, Smarmeron's ugly face is in the way. To add insult to injury for the poor minion, who probably trod the streets canvassing for votes, he (or she) is shoved to the back while "Smarmeron" is whittling on about how "he" won..... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.04.2010 16:54 |
Mr Mercury wrote: I will tell you why I hate David "Smarmite" Cameron. Whenever some Tory person has won some by-election, you dont get to see that person because the minute the TV camera's turn up, Smarmeron's ugly face is in the way. To add insult to injury for the poor minion, who probably trod the streets canvassing for votes, he (or she) is shoved to the back while "Smarmeron" is whittling on about how "he" won.....you see him today doing an 'Obama' with his sleeves rolled up to his elbows.He's copying Obama hoping that no one susses him as the smug toff twat he is!? |
| Mr Mercury 08.04.2010 13:57 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:Mr Mercury wrote: I will tell you why I hate David "Smarmite" Cameron. Whenever some Tory person has won some by-election, you dont get to see that person because the minute the TV camera's turn up, Smarmeron's ugly face is in the way. To add insult to injury for the poor minion, who probably trod the streets canvassing for votes, he (or she) is shoved to the back while "Smarmeron" is whittling on about how "he" won.....you see him today doing an 'Obama' with his sleeves rolled up to his elbows.He's copying Obama hoping that no one susses him as the smug toff twat he is!? Feck me... Smarmeron has recruited Michael "your only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" Caine to his campaign.... |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.04.2010 16:44 |
I may not be British, but I think Lib-Dem has been looking pretty good these last five, six years. |
| ILoveQueen20 10.04.2010 09:45 |
Fuck the goverment what a bunch of bastards (as my father would say) I'd rather labour didn'nt get in this time but whoever gets in....we're screwed anyway. I find it hilarious On the Jeremy vine show (UK BBC 2 radio show) When all these politician's argue with each other, thats basically what they do & Jeremy can't get them to shutup! its hilarious! xD & You hear/see them all jeering & booing in the house of lords at each other I mean jesus..... |
| LittleSilhouetto 10.04.2010 16:23 |
If you close your eyes and listen to Cameron and Clegg, they sound exactly the same. I can't tell their voices apart on the radio. |
| Winter Land Man 14.04.2010 04:08 |
Vote, or you don't have a reason to bitch. Poltics are like Phil Spector - full of big wigs! "Ice cream by night, sun cream by day!" |
| mooghead 15.04.2010 07:59 |
How can anyone who has lived in the UK for the past 13 years seriously think about keeping Labour in at the next election? How can you think 'they were ok, more of that please!' Yes, Cameron is the tories achiles heel (William Hague would storm the election if he was still leader) but vote for who has the best policies. Brown screwed the country when he was chancellor and carried on screwing it as PM. And lets be honest, voting for anyone other that blue or red is a waste, with the exception of very few parts of the country. Its no longer a case of 'Labour for the working class' and 'Conservative for the wealthy', the lines are now too blurred. I will be voting conservative, if only just as a protest vote against labour. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 15.04.2010 09:13 |
mooghead wrote: How can anyone who has lived in the UK for the past 13 years seriously think about keeping Labour in at the next election? How can you think 'they were ok, more of that please!' Yes, Cameron is the tories achiles heel (William Hague would storm the election if he was still leader) but vote for who has the best policies. Brown screwed the country when he was chancellor and carried on screwing it as PM. And lets be honest, voting for anyone other that blue or red is a waste, with the exception of very few parts of the country. Its no longer a case of 'Labour for the working class' and 'Conservative for the wealthy', the lines are now too blurred. I will be voting conservative, if only just as a protest vote against labour. how about the ones who were living in the UK 25 years ago when Thatcher virtually destroyed this great nation of ours by selling off all the business' and crippling the unions?.perhaps we dont want a return to the dark days of Toryism and the screwing of the 'average joe' under them? watch public spending and the NHS get screwed by the tories if they get in. your third point of just voting blue or red is also misconstrued as the Libdems have a VERY big part to play in this election,especially if its a hung parliament [which it looks like being]. the libdems also have very strong support in the 'celtic' areas of the country [where i live] which the tories and labour do not. |
| mooghead 15.04.2010 12:23 |
I agree, its a hung parliament probably. |
| brENsKi 15.04.2010 13:37 |
they should be fucking-well hung |
| Mr Mercury 15.04.2010 14:15 |
Joxerthedietypirate Wrote: your third point of just voting blue or red is also misconstrued as the Libdems have a VERY big part to play in this election,especially if its a hung parliament [which it looks like being]. the libdems also have very strong support in the 'celtic' areas of the country [where i live] which the tories and labour do not. I agree with you Joxer. Sorry Mooghead, but that comment "voting for anyone other that blue or red is a waste" is a nonsense in itself because if enough people voted then it not only would not be a waste, it would also point out to the politicians that it is the general public who will have the final say in the country. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 15.04.2010 15:54 |
i dont want to appear as a tory basher,ok too late,but.. did anyone else see the start of the live debate on ITV tonight? i havent seen a startled creature like Cameron's face since Flopsy the bunny got caught in the headlights of an oncoming car.it was pure FEAR :-P if you missed it it was as the leaders were being introduced,watch the eyes :-D |
| Mr Mercury 15.04.2010 17:50 |
Joxerthedietypirate Wrote: "i dont want to appear as a tory basher,ok too late,but.. did anyone else see the start of the live debate on ITV tonight? i havent seen a startled creature like Cameron's face since Flopsy the bunny got caught in the headlights of an oncoming car.it was pure FEAR :-P if you missed it it was as the leaders were being introduced,watch the eyes :-D " That was the best bit........... Funny as heck that was :) |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 16.04.2010 04:04 |
^and who would of thought that Compo would come out of the shadows and show that he was the best out of the 3 of them at orating and communicating with the audience and the public as a whole? 51% of Sky's viewers thought that the Lib Dem leader was the better man. not just a 2 horse race now :-D this is the best election for many a year as they've finally realised that its the PUBLIC that has the final say |
| Mr Mercury 16.04.2010 05:59 |
I actually thought Compo did really well. He seemed the more honest out of the lot of them. I loved Smarmeron's clanger - he apparently met a 40 year old man, who had been in the Navy for 30 years. Classic. :) |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 16.04.2010 10:51 |
^haha yes,it wasnt just me who said "you what?" when he came out with that beauty.cant beat a good ol' tory "press-ganging" .i hope the poor lad got permission from his mother before he joined the navy :-p |
| Mr Mercury 21.04.2010 10:04 |
Joxer dear chap........ was this you who did the dastardly deed to Smarmeron??? link |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 21.04.2010 10:59 |
^ha ha ha! i had a feeling i would be incriminated in the wonderful deed but alas it was not me :-[ i'm saving my eggs for the head of the Gourmet Gnome known as Anthony Worrel Thompson who will be outside my front door this coming Saturday for Porthleven's annual food festival ;-D |
| Mr Mercury 21.04.2010 16:07 |
^ I take it Antony Whatsisname would be as welcome in your house as Smarmeron would be in mine?? lol :) |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 22.04.2010 05:02 |
Mr Mercury wrote: ^ I take it Antony Whatsisname would be as welcome in your house as Smarmeron would be in mine?? lol :) he criticised the good ol' Cornish pasty [not that ginsters shite] on tv and then comes here every year to show us how to cook :-p but this year he is RIGHT OUTSIDE my front door,be the first time ive ever brought a ginsters pasty and put it to good use :-D my throwing arm is well trained this year for a head count :-D |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.04.2010 06:24 |
mooghead wrote: How can anyone who has lived in the UK for the past 13 years seriously think about keeping Labour in at the next election? How can you think 'they were ok, more of that please!' Yes, Cameron is the tories achiles heel (William Hague would storm the election if he was still leader) but vote for who has the best policies. Brown screwed the country when he was chancellor and carried on screwing it as PM. And lets be honest, voting for anyone other that blue or red is a waste, with the exception of very few parts of the country. Its no longer a case of 'Labour for the working class' and 'Conservative for the wealthy', the lines are now too blurred. I will be voting conservative, if only just as a protest vote against labour. So, by analogy, you're voting Hitler to keep Chamberlain out of office? I've read the Tory-program - let me just say that if they get into power, the British will be looking with envy to Greece. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.04.2010 06:24 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Joxerthedietypirate Wrote: your third point of just voting blue or red is also misconstrued as the Libdems have a VERY big part to play in this election,especially if its a hung parliament [which it looks like being]. the libdems also have very strong support in the 'celtic' areas of the country [where i live] which the tories and labour do not. I agree with you Joxer. Sorry Mooghead, but that comment "voting for anyone other that blue or red is a waste" is a nonsense in itself because if enough people voted then it not only would not be a waste, it would also point out to the politicians that it is the general public who will have the final say in the country. Can't add anything to that. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.04.2010 06:26 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Joxerthedietypirate Wrote: your third point of just voting blue or red is also misconstrued as the Libdems have a VERY big part to play in this election,especially if its a hung parliament [which it looks like being]. the libdems also have very strong support in the 'celtic' areas of the country [where i live] which the tories and labour do not. I agree with you Joxer. Sorry Mooghead, but that comment "voting for anyone other that blue or red is a waste" is a nonsense in itself because if enough people voted then it not only would not be a waste, it would also point out to the politicians that it is the general public who will have the final say in the country. Can't add anything to that. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 28.04.2010 09:38 |
Gordon Brown to elctorate in the street: "hello,nice to meet you" Gordon Brown getting in his car and forgetting his mic was on after speaking to electorate: "stupid bigot" well done Gordon,just give the Tories extra votes you twat! |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 28.04.2010 09:40 |
link |
| tcc 28.04.2010 10:07 |
Now I understand why Tony Blair took so long to pass the baton to G Brown. |
| Mr Mercury 28.04.2010 10:40 |
Oh well..... as they say up here in Scotland...... his arse is out the window now.... Bye Flash.... you only have 8 days to save the Labour party now.... |
| Mr Mercury 28.04.2010 10:50 |
Arse out the window.... part 2 SNP have lost the right to be included in the last leaders debate on TV link |
| Holly2003 28.04.2010 13:22 |
What goes on in David Cameron's head? link |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 29.04.2010 02:50 |
Gordon is a moron :-D link |
| Mr Mercury 29.04.2010 12:55 |
Arse out the window part 3 link Labour is doing really well in this campaign....... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 29.04.2010 13:40 |
arse out of window part 4 link labour candidate for where i live doesn't even live in Cornwall :-p |
| Mr Mercury 01.05.2010 06:49 |
Arse out of window part 5 link Well done Hazel Blears......... |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 03.05.2010 16:13 |
I don't blame Gordon Brown for calling that woman bigotted. I think she was a bit. Cameron is going to win :( I can't stand him. |
| Mr Mercury 04.05.2010 08:10 |
It just gets worse for Gordie boy........ link |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 04.05.2010 09:14 |
^ i had a feeling you would post that :-D i bet he wasn't all that pleased with 3 members his government advising voters to tactically vote for the Lib Dems to keep the tories out of Number 10.something i was already going to do anyway btw :-p |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 04.05.2010 09:16 |
Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't blame Gordon Brown for calling that woman bigotted. I think she was a bit. Cameron is going to win :( I can't stand him. reply: still looks as if its going to be a 'hung parliament' though which will mean that Cameron will not get his own way even if the tories are the biggest party. i'm quite looking forward to the Lib Dems having a vital say in what gets passed in the next government :-D |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.05.2010 10:32 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't blame Gordon Brown for calling that woman bigotted. I think she was a bit. Cameron is going to win :( I can't stand him. reply: still looks as if its going to be a 'hung parliament' though which will mean that Cameron will not get his own way even if the tories are the biggest party. i'm quite looking forward to the Lib Dems having a vital say in what gets passed in the next government :-D I completely agree! I think that tactical voting (i.e. voting Lib Dem in a marginal constituency where the race is between Tory and Lib Dem when you'd rather vote Labour, but know they don't stand a chance. Or the other way around, of course) is a great idea, and will give the United Kingdom the most democratic and balanced goverment she has had in ages. |
| Mr Mercury 04.05.2010 13:35 |
Joxer, I just had to post that. It was too good an oppo to miss :) |
| Mr Mercury 05.05.2010 13:21 |
Heres another lot who, thankfully, just cant get their act together link |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 06.05.2010 06:10 |
hope everyone who can vote does so today,make it count! :-D |
| GratefulFan 06.05.2010 06:42 |
Happy election day UK. :) May the best thing happen, whatever it is. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 06.05.2010 22:19 |
farewell Limpet Biscuit :-p |
| Mr Mercury 07.05.2010 04:53 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: farewell Limpet Biscuit :-p Lol And it looks like its farewell Gordy boy............ Nick Clegg appears to be backing Smarmeron.... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.05.2010 05:27 |
it's not running smoothly is it? :-p for all our Colonials trying to follow whats happening here in the UK i shall try my best to explain: the Tories won but not by enough so by the constitution the Labour Party are still in charge BUT.. because it is a Hung Parliament,the Labour Party don't have enough seats to run the country so need the Lib Dems are needed by them to form a government,however... the Lib Dems dont want to talk to Golden Brown and want the Tories to govern in some form,this is gonna rumble on for a while yet! HOWEVER... as i write this it's just been announced that David Cameron is going to make a statement to the world at 2.30pm UK time so lets wait and see. on a seperate note,i managed to end up on local radio asking about all this and not getting a definative answer and we are STILL waiting for the St Ives result [where i live] due to the fact we are waiting for the votes from the Scilly Isles to come over on the boat :-p right,now thats sorted i am going to bed :-p |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.05.2010 05:42 |
Mr Mercury wrote: JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: farewell Limpet Biscuit :-p Lol And it looks like its farewell Gordy boy............ Nick Clegg appears to be backing Smarmeron.... Nope. The Tories refuse any change in the electoral process, and Lib Dem have stated that this is a point they will not compromize on. Moreover, Labour is willing to concede much more to Lib Dem than the Tories do. They'd be fools if they'd opt for Cameron - it would decimate them next time there are elections, because they would be unable to distinguish themselves in conservative government. Moreover, the Tories are anti-Europe while Lib Dem is pro-Europe (and pro-Euro). |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.05.2010 05:52 |
^ and this is where it starts getting tricky as even with a pact with the Lib Dems the Labour Party still would'nt have enough seats for an overall majority to run the country :-p [326 seats needed] |
| YourValentine 07.05.2010 07:47 |
I have a question for the English people (voters) here: Don't you find the majority voting system terribly unfair? The Labour party won 29 % of the votes and gets 250+ seats while the Liberals got 23% and only 54 + seats!! Shouldn't each vote count the same in a democracy? And what do you think about the many voters who were denied their right to vote last night because the queues at the polling stations were too long or the ballot papers went out? Unbelievable for an old democracy like the UK... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.05.2010 08:32 |
^on the subject of people being locked out at 10pm and thus not being able to vote: i have no sympathy with them,the polling booths were open for 15 HOURS and so they had plenty of time to cast a vote instead of leaving it to the last minute. on the subject of the votes and seats won: this is the problem that now faces us,as you rightly point out the Lib Dems get nearly 7M votes and yet only get 55 seats [as i write].and Labour get 255 seats and 8M votes.one of the deals being proposed now is the subject of proportional representation.the tories are totally against this but Labour are willing to offer the Lib Dems a deal thus keeping Gordon Brown in power. on a side note it looks as if my vote is going to have a big impact on how the coalitions are formed as if we become Tory here in the St Ives area of Cornwall then it pushes their majority up but if the Lib Dems keep the seat then Labour have the upper hand.our votes are still being counted as i type. either way its all very fascinating :-D dont be surprised if we do all of this again within the next 6 months and have another general election :-p |
| Mr Mercury 07.05.2010 09:01 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: ^on the subject of people being locked out at 10pm and thus not being able to vote: i have no sympathy with them,the polling booths were open for 15 HOURS and so they had plenty of time to cast a vote instead of leaving it to the last minute.Also, they could have voted by post had they bothered to register as soon as the election was announced. So like you Joxer, I have no sympathy for them. JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: on the subject of the votes and seats won: this is the problem that now faces us,as you rightly point out the Lib Dems get nearly 7M votes and yet only get 55 seats [as i write].and Labour get 255 seats and 8M votes.one of the deals being proposed now is the subject of proportional representation.the tories are totally against this but Labour are willing to offer the Lib Dems a deal thus keeping Gordon Brown in power. on a side note it looks as if my vote is going to have a big impact on how the coalitions are formed as if we become Tory here in the St Ives area of Cornwall then it pushes their majority up but if the Lib Dems keep the seat then Labour have the upper hand.our votes are still being counted as i type. either way its all very fascinating :-D dont be surprised if we do all of this again within the next 6 months and have another general election :-pAs I type this, The Tories have 302 seats. Labour have 257 seats, Lib Dems have 56 seats and the others have 28. which means that more people have voted against the Tories!!! Laughable imo..... |
| YourValentine 07.05.2010 09:22 |
When I first saw the numbers : The Tories winning roughly 100 seats and Labour losing as much I thought that the right thing would be a Tory Prime Minister but when I look at the percentage, it's not so clear and a coalition against the Tories would be just as legitimate in my opinion, what do you English voters think? |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.05.2010 09:22 |
^yep the tories are stating that 10 million voted for them but ignore the fact that 20 million didnt! and i am also wondering this little nitbit: how can the Tories claim to be in charge of the UK when they only have 9 seats in the whole of Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland combined? St Ives just been announced: STILL LIB DEM COUNTRY here in my part of Pastyland :-D |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.05.2010 09:27 |
YourValentine wrote: When I first saw the numbers : The Tories winning roughly 100 seats and Labour losing as much I thought that the right thing would be a Tory Prime Minister but when I look at the percentage, it's not so clear and a coalition against the Tories would be just as legitimate in my opinion, what do you English voters think? reply: yeah this is the thing,no one won over-all control so therefore Gordon Brown didnt lose so he is legitimatley the Prime Minister still. however,if he cannot form a hung government with the help of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems then he is a lame duck and will be forced to resign and the Queen will then ask David Cameron to form a government with the aid of the Lib Dems.all in all the ball is now firmly in the court of the Lib Dems and who they want to share their bed with :-p for a more thorough going over i suggest you have a little google at what happened in 1974 here in the UK with Ted Heath and Harold Wilson as its virtually the same thing again |
| GratefulFan 07.05.2010 11:25 |
Interesting times for sure. It certainly does take you nice people a looooong time to count votes. What's up with that? :) |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.05.2010 11:54 |
GratefulFan wrote: Interesting times for sure. It certainly does take you nice people a looooong time to count votes. What's up with that? :) in the case of the St Ives votes here in Cornwall,my constituency also includes the Isles Of Scilly and so their ballot papers had to be collected from all the islands after 10pm when the polling stations shut which meant that they couldnt be delivered to the mainland in Penzance until the morning.which meant the delay in the result being announced until almost 14 hours later. other places like Sunderland up North were able to announce the outcome within an hour of the closing. |
| brENsKi 07.05.2010 13:36 |
there are three key points to come out of this election: 1. how did Cameron go from "landslide" february to "minority government" by May? 2. how did the Lib-Dems lose all the momentum they gained after the first live debate? did they ever really gain that much momentum? 3. how bad are labour at tactics? they missed a serious trick - tactically. Ok so you have some MPs who were embroiled in the "expenses scandal" - so what do you do with them? - easy - you stand them down and also stand down the candidates running in unwinnable "Tory" seats. Then you interchange them so "nice clean new guy runs in the safe seat, and sleaze-monger runs in the "unwinnable seat". this effectively gives you a clean face in your "safe seat" and "cannon fodder" in the unwinnable one. were "safe" MPs like Jacqui Smith really so arrogant as to think they couldn't lose? down the road from me in Bromsgrove - the biggest sleaze-merchant of the lot - Julie Kirkbride - stepped down and - strangely enough, the fresh clean "new candidate" amanged to hold the tory majority. how naive were labour? - or were they just stupid? |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2010 01:02 |
YourValentine wrote: "I have a question for the English people (voters) here: Don't you find the majority voting system terribly unfair? The Labour party won 29 % of the votes and gets 250+ seats while the Liberals got 23% and only 54 + seats!! Shouldn't each vote count the same in a democracy? And what do you think about the many voters who were denied their right to vote last night because the queues at the polling stations were too long or the ballot papers went out? Unbelievable for an old democracy like the UK..." We use the same parliamentary system in Canada - constitutional monarchy. The green party got about 7% of the votes in the last election, and they didn't get a seat in parliament (they've never had one). On the other hand, the Bloq Quebecois (a party that represents the interest of only one of our 10 provinces, Quebec) got about 10% of the votes, and they have 49 seats. Democracy at work.. A few years ago the people of Canada had a chance to change the voting system to allow for more proportional representation (i.e. not making it just about seats, but the number of votes as well), but it was voted down about 60% to 40%. But the people of Canada as a whole are very ignorant on matters of politics and the parliamentary/voting system, so this wasn't a surprise. Like the current situation in UK, there was a chance a couple years ago that Canada's three opposition parties could have formed a coalition, but our prime minister denounced it as "unconstitutional"... and 1/3 of the population still supports him. I envy the people of Britain for understanding how the system works, and the politicians for adhering to it in all circumstances. |
| Holly2003 08.05.2010 02:52 |
Believe it or not, Northern Ireland dabbled with PR a while back. Sadly, it didn't make a huge difference as there wasn't a properly-functioning Assemby in place. I'm all for it: hopefully the Lib-Dems, who I voted for, will be able to negotiate a new voting system with the Conservatives in a new Govt. However, Cameron is opposed to it as it will radically shift the balance of power in the UK away from the Conservatives and Labour. |
| GratefulFan 08.05.2010 07:29 |
Sir GH wrote: A few years ago the people of Canada had a chance to change the voting system to allow for more proportional representation (i.e. not making it just about seats, but the number of votes as well), but it was voted down about 60% to 40%. But the people of Canada as a whole are very ignorant on matters of politics and the parliamentary/voting system, so this wasn't a surprise. Like the current situation in UK, there was a chance a couple years ago that Canada's three opposition parties could have formed a coalition, but our prime minister denounced it as "unconstitutional"... and 1/3 of the population still supports him. I envy the people of Britain for understanding how the system works, and the politicians for adhering to it in all circumstances. ====================================================== I was going to make these same points yesterday but have been uber swamped, so thanks for all that typing. :) People in general definitely didn't understand what was being proposed when proportional voting was voted down in Ontario (I don't recall the question being put federally? Maybe I'm wrong). My mother is a very smart woman who consumes a lot of media and even she had things wrong at fundamental levels. Thought that meant that parties could slide in whoever they wanted, so you were voting into a black box essentially. Not true of course, as lists had to be made public prior to election day. She also had some perception that it was good for the GTA and bad for everybody else. So the information campaign clearly failed if it failed somebody like my mom. I have spent a great number of life moments rolling my eys at Stephen Harper and quietly despairing over some piece of his underhanded bullshit or other, but never had I actually seethed until that stunt with the 'unconstitutional' coalition. Our PM and his party are willing to actively encourage ingorance, hell CAUSE ignorance, about something so fundamental to our democracy, for short term political gain. And then he prorogues parliament (twice!) to make it all go away. And, in general, most people are okay with that? Kind of unbeliveable. |
| GratefulFan 08.05.2010 08:21 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Interesting times for sure. It certainly does take you nice people a looooong time to count votes. What's up with that? :) in the case of the St Ives votes here in Cornwall,my constituency also includes the Isles Of Scilly and so their ballot papers had to be collected from all the islands after 10pm when the polling stations shut which meant that they couldnt be delivered to the mainland in Penzance until the morning.which meant the delay in the result being announced until almost 14 hours later. other places like Sunderland up North were able to announce the outcome within an hour of the closing. ================================================ I love that Penzance is a real place. I didn't know that. LOL @ me. This was the first time I actively watched UK results/returns in real time. I always do so for Can/US, but usually just catch the overall UK result the next day. I was surprised at a couple of things because I expected you to be just like us (because we're supposed to be just like you) and the seemingly interminable wait for seat results was confusing, as was the somewhat low key coverage at bbc.co.uk. It seemed one could click on election coverage or a story on puff pastry or something pretty much equally. Here, front pages are often given over almost entirely to real time numbers and developments. The video feed at bbc did look and sound like every other election night talking head feed though. So that felt like home. The first surprise was the immediate annoucement of overall seat projections based on the exit polls. Here exit polls are used by media seat by seat in conjunction with real numbers to eventually call a candidate elected when a sufficient percentage of the vote has been counted to make it a reasonable assumption. So within a very short time of polls closing we having 'leading or elected' numbers rolling and start to see seats assigned in the win columns quite quickly. Adding to the perception of fast results is the fact that we're dealing with 5 time zones. When polls close locally, there are hard results from somewhere east. It's not unusual at all to be able to call a national result within and hour and a half of the commencement of coverage in Ontario because of the population distribution in Canada. I was still up at 2 am local time with a work project and the UK wasn't half sorted even then at 7 in the morning the next day GMT. So I was surprised. It was an enjoyable and informative experience watching a little closer this time because I learned a lot of things. |
| YourValentine 08.05.2010 08:50 |
The majority voting system is really old fashioned. It's even worse in the United States where the electoral college adds to the mis-representation because it has never changed since the 19th century. As a result the votes of citizens in the smaller Eastern states count up to seven times as much as a vote in California because the smaller states are totally over-represented. Coalition governments are the rule in most European countries who have a proportional voting system and not a majority vote. I think that coalitions are not always a good solution because often the urgent problems are not addressed when the parties within the coalition cannot agree. A one-party government is certainly more efficient - if they want to. On the other hand all democratic parties must learn to compromise and to be able to work together in a system where one-party government is very rare. Certainly true representation by vote is more important than easy government for the parties - after all the government is there for the people and not the other way round. We have a 5% minumum rule - it says that a party is only voted into the parliament when they win at least 5% of the votes. This rule comes from the 1920s when the first democratic parliament was virtually inoperable with all the small parties. It's really funny that the voting system in Germany was implemented under British and American (and French) supervision after WW2 but is really very different and much fairer imo. |
| bitesthedust 08.05.2010 14:59 |
|
| Holly2003 08.05.2010 15:14 |
bitesthedust wrote: Having sat and watched most of the Election coverage since Friday, I think I have understood what this Proportional Representation lark is about - it seems to be based upon seats gained dependant upon a parties percentage of the votes cast. Therefore, this is what I have concluded - under PR we would have something like this - I appreciate one seat is still to be declared, and I've rounded up the figures to reach 650, but work with me here! CON - 36.1% of the vote - 650 seats in parliament - 235 total seats LAB - 29% - 189 seats LIB - 23% - 149 seats OTH - 11.9% - 77 seats So under this system we would still have a hung parliament - with the Tories being 91 short of a majority - more than likely every election would result no overall control, and we would possibly have continued Labour-Lib Dem coalitions. And that would reflect the will of the people. Where's the logic in one party having total control when they only get around a third of the votes cast by the nation? In a PR system the views of the majority of the population will be reflected in the make-up of parliament and the individual's voice will have more of a say. When voting on proposed legislation, the people's views will carry more weight: at the moment, it's possible for a party which only gets 1/3 of the votes to pass a whole slew of unpopular legislation. It got so bad in the 1980s that we had basically an elected dictatorship, with extreme right wing views foisted upon 60+ percent of the population who never voted for Thatcher. That wont happen in a PR-elected parliament. |
| bitesthedust 09.05.2010 10:16 |
Holly2003 wrote: bitesthedust wrote: Having sat and watched most of the Election coverage since Friday, I think I have understood what this Proportional Representation lark is about - it seems to be based upon seats gained dependant upon a parties percentage of the votes cast. Therefore, this is what I have concluded - under PR we would have something like this - I appreciate one seat is still to be declared, and I've rounded up the figures to reach 650, but work with me here! CON - 36.1% of the vote - 650 seats in parliament - 235 total seats LAB - 29% - 189 seats LIB - 23% - 149 seats OTH - 11.9% - 77 seats So under this system we would still have a hung parliament - with the Tories being 91 short of a majority - more than likely every election would result no overall control, and we would possibly have continued Labour-Lib Dem coalitions. And that would reflect the will of the people. Where's the logic in one party having total control when they only get around a third of the votes cast by the nation? In a PR system the views of the majority of the population will be reflected in the make-up of parliament and the individual's voice will have more of a say. When voting on proposed legislation, the people's views will carry more weight: at the moment, it's possible for a party which only gets 1/3 of the votes to pass a whole slew of unpopular legislation. It got so bad in the 1980s that we had basically an elected dictatorship, with extreme right wing views foisted upon 60+ percent of the population who never voted for Thatcher. That wont happen in a PR-elected parliament. Just for the record - if the 1997 election had been conducted under PR - this is what would have happened: LAB - 43.2% of the vote - 659 seats in parliament - 285 total seats CON - 30.7% - 202 seats LIB - 16.8% - 111 seats OTH - 9.3% - 61 seats Whilst I appreciate the argument for PR and take on board your argument - again, even in 1997 when Labour won with a landslide majority, with this they would have been 45 seats short (330 needed then for a majority). It is a fact that only over a third of the population have voted Conservative in 2010, but under half voted for Labour in 1997. If this system was put into practice, how would it be determined which candidates were awarded the seats? Let's assume it would be decided based upon the amount of votes gained, or the scale of the majority in their constituency. Therefore we would have a situation where an MP would win in his/her area but would not gain a seat in the House Of Commons because he/she did not either receive enough votes or win with a sufficient majority, and thus that constituency would not have a voice representing them in parliament! |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 10.05.2010 11:28 |
link Golden Brown is packing his bags.. |
| Mr Mercury 10.05.2010 18:36 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: Golden Brown is packing his bags..And there is a good chance that Cleggy has told InCompo to go as he is more interested in playing with Foggy........ |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 11.05.2010 03:08 |
Mr Mercury wrote: JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: Golden Brown is packing his bags.. And there is a good chance that Cleggy has told InCompo to go as he is more interested in playing with Foggy........ and if Harriet Harmon takes over does that make her Nora? :-p i think a LibLab pact is now very much on the table and we may just get a fairer voting system out of it too. i for one have problems with the Tories running a UK Parliament when they only won 8 seats outside of England,that for me doesnt seem right but a Lib Lab pact with the aid/hindrance of a DUP/SNP/Plaid Cymondown alliance will see more representation for the whole of the UK as a whole |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 11.05.2010 15:00 |
so,i go to the shop with a labour government and come home an hour later to a tory one! :-p |
| tcc 11.05.2010 21:31 |
Good luck with your new coalition government :-) |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 13.05.2010 10:53 |
GratefulFan wrote: Sir GH wrote: A few years ago the people of Canada had a chance to change the voting system to allow for more proportional representation (i.e. not making it just about seats, but the number of votes as well), but it was voted down about 60% to 40%. But the people of Canada as a whole are very ignorant on matters of politics and the parliamentary/voting system, so this wasn't a surprise. Like the current situation in UK, there was a chance a couple years ago that Canada's three opposition parties could have formed a coalition, but our prime minister denounced it as "unconstitutional"... and 1/3 of the population still supports him. I envy the people of Britain for understanding how the system works, and the politicians for adhering to it in all circumstances. ====================================================== I was going to make these same points yesterday but have been uber swamped, so thanks for all that typing. :) People in general definitely didn't understand what was being proposed when proportional voting was voted down in Ontario (I don't recall the question being put federally? Maybe I'm wrong). My mother is a very smart woman who consumes a lot of media and even she had things wrong at fundamental levels. Thought that meant that parties could slide in whoever they wanted, so you were voting into a black box essentially. Not true of course, as lists had to be made public prior to election day. She also had some perception that it was good for the GTA and bad for everybody else. So the information campaign clearly failed if it failed somebody like my mom. I have spent a great number of life moments rolling my eys at Stephen Harper and quietly despairing over some piece of his underhanded bullshit or other, but never had I actually seethed until that stunt with the 'unconstitutional' coalition. Our PM and his party are willing to actively encourage ingorance, hell CAUSE ignorance, about something so fundamental to our democracy, for short term political gain. And then he prorogues parliament (twice!) to make it all go away. And, in general, most people are okay with that? Kind of unbeliveable. ============================================================================================= LoL ...I never voted for Harper ever....Mr. majority government himself!! Last I heard, there's still a piece of his nose stuck up G.W. Bush's ass! |
