blonde poker forum

I've just moved house and to make sure I can vote in the elections, I've had to complete an electoral registration form.  It got me wondering, do many people not even care that they have a vote?  There are people who say that it doesn't make a difference if they vote or not, but is that a valid statement?  Anyway, I believe that an ad on Facebook is going to be asking all UK users if they're registered to vote and if not they'll be directing them to www.aboutmyvote.co.uk (http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk). 

Question is, do most people actually care?

lolz. most fatally flawed poll ever

I have no interest in politics, and am pretty clueless on the subject.  I have never voted and am unlikely to this time.

I don't mind people moaning about politicians and politics, but if they fail to use their vote and still moan, their opinion is invalid imo.

Never missed making my vote, never intend to.

facebook and electoral commission in deal to get all 23m fb users voting!? lol.

+1

spam spam spam spam

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113749985304255

:D

It would be if you had to listen to the different arguments from the parties, then go down to the polling station and make your vote.  But even lazy sods who can't be arsed voting, or don't want to vote, can still click an option on a forum poll.

Proberly..

and apart from that flaw option 6 is a subset of option 5

I am voting, have been delivering leaflets, canvassing and have 2 posters going up in the garden supporting one of the candidates. We are a marginal seat and every vote counts.

I love election time.

Hmmm I know you pretty well from this forum, and would have no clue which side you supported strongly enough to get so involved.

If I had to bet, I would just go for Lib Dem, followed closely by Tory with Labour bringing up the rear.

Doubt you are UKIP or Green.

marginals are good - I live in a very safe seat unfortunately!

Really?  I'd go for Tory.

Might be very wrong though.

Also true, and yet I hope the intelligence of the members of blonde can interpret the difference between the two for the purposes of this poll.

Yes always vote, sent off for a postal vote as I won't be in the country when the election takes place. I live in a very safe Tory seat, but always vote irrespective.

gg :D

I don't vote and never have done.

Unless someone comes up with something groundbreaking that I believe will make a radical change to this country then I will continue to do the same.

They all do pretty much the same job, taxes will always have to be paid by some means or another. Hospitals and schools will always be run one way or another. Some bits are good, some are bad from all parties but overall they both do a decent enough job for me.

As I said if one of them makes a move that is truly radical which may actually make a long term difference then I'll be in there like a shot. Unfortunately the only radical parties are the ones who can't win so there's no point.

If the tories or labour make a radical move then I shall vote. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen so it looks like once again I'll just forget about it.

I am in a safe seat, but still canvassing/delivering leaflets. I love elections, election nights and all the statistics and lists. Yes!

My MP is a complete cougar, but that is by the by lol

I'm with Tighty. I love election night. Studied politics at university and I can understand why there's a lot of voter apathy at the moment. I am also in a safe seat which makes bothering to turn up to vote even more pointless. Something needs to be done about the electoral system so every single vote counts.

I understand the apathy completely (they're all as bad as each other etc etc) but I've always used my vote, always been interested and all the rest


This one is particulry interesting because of the possibility of a hung parliament, and the unknown of the night itself compared to an election where a big majority is a foregone conclusion eg 1983, 2001, 2005

I think apathy towards voting is a real shame. Our soldiers are losing their lives in Afghanistan every day fighting to give those people the right to vote, ergo freedom, yet many in this country are so complacent about their own liberty they don't even bother. I think all people should vote irrespective of the area they live in because exercising that right is +1 for democracy.

I always vote but it doesn't matter who I vote for the conservatives will win the seat for my constituency. So I can understand why people don't want to waste their time and vote. Electoral reform is essential. Only problem is it can lead to co-alition governments which isn't really what anyone voted for in the first place.

So in conclusion......

why do people always assume everyone wants to live in a democracy?

Because it's difficult to oppose the concept that having a choice is better than having no choice

Pfft - no one went for raving monster loony party?

The Stick a Hosepipe up Yer Arse party would get loads of votes.

The good ideas always come too late.

Live in a "safe" seat  but will be voting, just hoping there's a left of Labour candidate again to register a protest.

+1 to this kind of thing, and also Election Night Drinking games ftw ;D

Hmmmm...... Not quite a democracy though is it.

Do we really have a choice on the major things that affect our lives?

There's plenty of things that we don't have a choice in, the main one being that we are forced to pay taxes.

We don't have an opt out policy on tax and then be left to fend for ourselves.

I'm not allowed to buy 20kg of heroin and snort myself to death on it.

Tell me what choices you get to make? Are they really through choice are is it just that you've become part of the system that claims to be a democracy and people just accept?

I'm not knocking this btw. I'll happily go on paying my taxes and living my happy life as part of the rat race but I think if we look deeply there isn't a whole lot of free will going on in this or any other democratic country.

Voting isn't freedom.

We do really have a choice. One of the major things that affect our lives in this country is immigration. People have become disillusioned with the level of immigration and have thus started lodging protest votes with the BNP. This has prompted the major parties to rethink their strategy about immigaration and pledge quotas in the future.

On the subject of tax you have a very clear choice this election regarding NI contributions.

Apparently you can do that. Someone I know is trying...

And not being able to vote is? Voting is a fundamental right of democracy which is a system offering citizens the most freedom.

Haven't read the thread yet only the OP, will catch up though.

IMO voting should be compulsory, if you don't want to vote or there is no suitable candidate you should go and spoil your paper. Voting apathy is the friend of the extremist, small turnouts add more weight to the votes of committed followers of parties that would not have a look in otherwise.

I'd imagine the BNP, SNP, and other assorted minor parties with committed followers will be hoping that a lot of Tory, Labour, and floating voters stay at home.

Isn't voting compulsory in Australia?  I remember someone posting about it previously...

Yes, it is compulsory in Australia although the penalties for not voting aren't much of a deterrent.

http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm

What politicians say is equal to what they do

   I am 66 and never missed a vote. Unfottunately, not one has been meaningful. I have stayed in five different constituences in this time----everyone solid labour. Bring on the Single Transferable Vote-----in my dreams.

Jut a thought. Does anyone ever consider the politics of a town before making a decision as to whether to move there?

It's really annoying. Everywhere I've lived has been an ultra safe seat.

Tories, then Labour, now Tories again.

It is ridiculously unfair that my vote is less valuable than someone's in a marginal seat.

Proportional Representation is the only answer.

Whilst I like to think of myself as a faux anarchist because Flux of Pink Indians were, actually I've quite enjoyed voting from time to time - not everytime I've had a chance, but now and then.

In General Elections I have a 100% record in that I've never voted for a winning party. Voted labour when young when they were getting stuffed and switched to Tory when Tony Blair took over.

In local elections I have always voted based on the 'only' rule. If there was only one woman on the ballot, one asian maybe, one one armed person - they'd get my vote.

Whilst I understand the sentiment about how critical it is to use your vote I look at all politicians with such cynicism now that I really can't muster up the energy to vote this time. May change my mind between now and then as, like a few others have said, I enjoy the whole election process because it should be important and reminds me of when I was young and could give a flying one.

He wins all that money last weekend, and it goes to his head ;)

that'll be the lib dem candidate then


Australia and others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting


this

Immigration is the main policy that if one of the majors did something radical I would look at voting. That and clamping down on spongers. Not just talking about it but actually doing it!!

What is the choice we have with regards to NI contributions?

Is one of them completely getting rid of it and making the health service completely private and abolishing state pensions?

Or will one of them be about 50p a week cheaper?

I said radical not meaningless....

We don't have a choice. We can decide how we want to pay our taxes and whether it's disguised as NI contributions or VAT or income tax but whatever happens everybody will be paying tax. Nobody has a genuine choice to not pay tax and where's the democracy in that?

Love the next four weeks!!.

Election night is unmissable, especially at 10pm with the exit polls :D

So. Who was still up for Portillo?  Will remember that moment forever - a real feeling that things, indeed, were going to get better.

David Mellor getting kicked out was the bestest ever.

Ah yes - he of the Chelsea strip

Or more to the point - there should be an option to vote for "No Suitable Candidate"

The only election I've known of with that option was the Student Union elections at university, they organised it really well and the option was very sensibly and pithily named; but it's too long ago for me to rememember the details :(

It's not Democracy it's Representative Democracy - you're only voting for the people to represent your views. If none of the candidates represent your views then it reinforces the need for a "no suitable candidate" option.

But in the absence of that then it's not entirely unreasonable to choose not to vote.

As the son of a Labour Party member I was indoctrinated at an early age - I remember helping at the 1970 election (running Electoral Register numbers of the people who'd been to vote up to the Committee rooms) and even had a Woodrow Wyatt (who went on to be a tory - I should've known then) poster on my wall - aged 6!!! I've been a member myself since the age of 15, but only active until my early 20s. A saying my Dad used to use which I've often quoted myself is 'I'd vote for a donkey so long as they painted it red'. This time it's going to be tested.

In common with most people I'm sure, the expenses scandal has sickened me and that, together with a growing, age-related cynicism (experience?) has led to me resigning my membership. At last year's local elections, I went to vote but spoiled my paper with 'none of the above'. I might well do the same this time. But I will definitely exercise my democratic right.

spoiling paper >>>>>>> crossing 'no suitable candidate' box imo

yep and damn right too

Why?

The reason I'd say the other way round is because there are plenty of people who really are so stupid that they accidentally spoil their vote, so this way it's clear how many people are actually protesting. It also gives a clearer focus to those people who might otherwise vote for a minority party as a protest - hence further clarifying exactly how many people are actively protesting.

well, I suppose there would be nothing to stop me spoiling the paper anyway even of there was that option.  I just think if i ever got the point where I really wanted to express my frustration with the choice of candidates I'd want to use some flowery language  rather than check a box :D

Probably best for you to leave any matches or lighter fluid at home then :D

remember someone telling me years ago you get good tax free money working for the day in a polling station, can't see anything about it on my council's website, anyone done it or know where to get info?

 

Radical policies are generally unpopular so the major parties will never offer what you want. Yet you still have choice at the ballot. If immigration is your main concern you can vote BNP, if it's the environment you can vote Green, if it's Europe you can vote UKIP. But if you want radical policy you will need to look at the minor parties. Like I said the BNP vote has pressured the government to introduce a points system for immigration now and to pledge quotas for next term. So the way you use your vote contributes to forming policy even if the candidate doesn't win.

Is the tax choice meaningless? OK it'll probably only mean a couple of hundred a year to each individual but multiply that by the working population and you get an extra 20 billion or so to invest in public services or not. If the Conservatives landslide due to their tax cutting policy it will force other major parties to raise re-raise those issues just like immigration. So your vote will help form future political direction. In reality what's meaningless is having an opinion and not actually voting.

26 people saying yes definately? ffs havent you guys heard of exepctional circumstances
likecrossing teh road the day before  (or day before getting your postal vote)
and being in a coma after tripping over the kerb
yes if possible is a much better option knowing my luck i will get tripped
by a candidate doing a canvess

I'm not sure I agree with this. I prefer to vote for the party that will, I hope, have a chance of forming a government and represent my views on a radical issue better than the other parties. Although I understand the reasons why some people will want to vote BNP in my constituency, they have no hope in hell of getting in. It is a wasted vote imo.

Sending a message is ok if my party is going to get in anyway, but in my constituency all votes count, its going to be close, and a vote for a minority party is a vote lost which may make all the difference. I'd rather vote for an individual who might be in parliament and get my voice heard that way.

this is an option in ukraine. about 4% chose it in this years presidential election

I wish it was like in aussie where you have to vote by law.

Election nights are just awesome. Recently, BBC Parliament have taken to reshowing complete election night coverage again - I once spent a whole bank holiday Monday (14 hours) watching the 1979 election results show. Robin Day really was a boorish oaf.

However, this year (and this really hasn't been reported much) it's going to be completely ruined. Normally, everyone starts counting as soon as they get the ballot papers in from 10pm, with the exception of Northern Ireland and a few seats with hard to reach places (Highlands of Scotland, the constituency in Cornwall that contains the Scilly Isles). This means we generally know who's won by 3am-4am. It also means if there's a change of government, the removal vans pull up outside Downing Steet first thing Friday morning, the new guy goes to the Palace mid-morning and gets inside Number 10 by lunchtime - a brilliant demonstration of democracy in action.

This time, however, it has been noticed it is far cheaper to hire people to count ballot papers between 9am-3pm on Friday than from 10pm-4am on a Thursday night. Therefore over 200 constituencies are sealing their ballot boxes until 9am on Friday morning. Given it might be close this year (my bets on the number of Tory seats hopes otherwise) it means we may not know who's won until Friday afternoon so if you're at work then tough shit, you can't watch it all happen.

Sigh that is crap, staying up and watching it all unfold over a 5-6 hour period is incred TV.

wow this is brill news for those that aint at work we will get the results coming in all night then all day too makes for an intresting 15 hours +

you guys not heard of throwing sickies or trying to get a days leave?

Sure do need to take a sickie to watch anything. It is just going to be too drawn out to be as interesting this time, we are pretty going to know the state of play by 3am but there probably is going to be no confirmation until the next day. I think the way has worked in the past that you could stay up to 4am-5am and pretty much see the lot.

what i am hoping for is that the places where the counting goes ahead will be the safer seats where there isnt much to worry about and they all race to be the first to declare
and all the marginals that decide the election and there is possibilties of recounts (hence the lets do this on the cheaper hourly rate) will be in the morning

so during the night we will see the results come in but the important ones will happen later

was in 1993 that the exit pollsters got it wrong and predicted after teh polls had closed a labour victory only as the resuts came in later and later went from a hung parliment to a tory win

one of the best election nights i can remember

with the 200 odd seats being counted late and presumable alot of these will be close it could be intresting the whole way

92' you are thinking of, first election I remember watching. I remember having a tick off sheet of labours target seats that night from the radio times, you knew the pollsters had got it wrong when the Conservatives held Basildon.

There is usually a comedy race for the first deceleration....under an hour?...wonder if that's still on?

If you look up the word "sad" in the dictionary, there's a little picture of AndrewT.

Needs to get out more. ;o)

I have voted Tory all my life even tho they had no chance of getting in where I was brought up and no chance of getting in where I live now.

This year I could not possible vote for a party that has David Cameron as its figurehead, a party that has no worthwhile policies other than disagree with the other lot and use as many catchphrases as possible. Who could vote for a party thats only good point is the other party are doing a bad job?

The other reason for not voting is that none of the twats are worth voting for and if my daughter ever comes home and tells me she wants to be involved in politics I will try to talk her into being a prostitute instead to lessen the amount of shame she brings on the family.

Jobs are divvied out to local council staff, so I suppose that makes it tax free as they're funded from taxes?

ah this guy's mum was a councilor, he was getting over £200 for the (long) day IIRC and i'm sure he said it was tax free. was a long time ago tho i might be mistaken.

bexley and sidcup used to give the ballot counting jobs to local 6th form and college students. doubt they paid much

Never voted and don't intend to.

I'm still registered at where my folks' live in Stone which was a super safe Tory seat even in '97 where Bill Cash is the MP. The guy is a loon on some of his views (imo) but he takes his local duties way more seriously than most and does actually try and help people and holds regular surgeries. But it does make my vote useless!


I did it at the last election, you do 6am to 6pm and I made about £120 then did some vote counting the next morning for a few hours for another £80 or so quid. The latter was pretty funny as all the party bigwigs are watching you like hawks on every ballot. If there was ever one you weren't sure about (or if someone else wasn't sure about) you'd put it on a seperate pile and then the local council officer would announce whether the ballot was spoiled or not, the basis being a clear intent of a vote for a party. Usually it's pretty obvious, so if someone put a cross next to all parties but one and ticked that last one, that would count as a vote. Occasionally there were some very amusing spoilt ballots. After you've done, I think, three elections you can be a Presiding Officer which is what my Dad is doing this year, it just pays an extra £100 or so on the election day and you have to look after the votes and take them to place where they're to be counted at the end of the day.

You should probably call up your local council Byron, usually you have to go to one meeting/training thing before being told which area you'd be sent.

gordon brown sent me a letter, pretty good of him.

did he spell your name right?

Was it an application for a summer job at your company?

I've been thinking about this a lot and I'm really tempted with the protest vote thing.

There's no way the BNP would get in where I live so a vote for them as you say is just giving the major parties a nudge that one more person thinks that at least some BNP policies are worth while.

Unfortunately as I come from a mixed race background I feel I would struggle to put a tick in the BNP box.

Bit of a dilemma but this really has got me thinking.

Can I also change my vote in the blonde ballot from definitely not to probably not please.....

MRLP ftw or a protest vote IMHO

do you have a UKIP candidate? their stance on immigation is pretty hardlined too.

If there was a viable protest vote the main parties would really have to reconsider there position. Unfortunately ATM there are few alternatives available and therefore you get voter apathy from many and therefore low turnouts. Just think what would happen if these people had a worthwhile option to vote for even if it was just to register their disapproval of the main parties. A protest vote for the BNP does not appeal to most (which is a good thing) and the independent alternatives are to small that most people are to apathetic to brother these option.

I would love a single policy candidate who's only pledge is to make their peers more accountable and whistle blow on things like "self elected" expenses policies which in any other working environment would be laughed at being ridiculous. It would be nice if the MP's had learned from the expenses scandal but you only have to listen to them to see many of them still think they have done nothing wrong as they cite "it was within the rules". Well the rules are wrong and you voted for the rules. Even those that have been exposed are now just siting tight and just waiting to retire and receive huge pensions. I normally believe you should use your vote but fear apathy may get the better of me this time.

Shame Heather Brooke wasn't standing for election. I would even move to her area just to vote for her. Her or Mark Thomas  ;D

Lol

If you vote BNP or UKIP Mr Russell I will have to disown you.

I wont be voting because their is no one I could vote for and walk out with my head held high. I wont be voting on this thread either because i cant be arsed. Very different reasons. ;)

bring back Martin Bell!

Oh man!! If only I'd known it was that simple to get rid of you I'd have been at the ballot boxes last time.

Seriously though if you look at the BNP's policies they actually sound pretty good. If it wasn't for the hidden agenda that they don't do such a great job of advertising they genuinely would have my vote.

Obviously some of their policies such as compulsory national service or you lose your right to vote aren't generally banded about for all to see.

It's a shame that if they were to gain power they would see the country in ruins within a decade otherwise I might just give them my tick.

Or cross if you don't want to risk it being a spoilt paper.

Tactical voting is going to play a big role in this election and all the major parties are already urging people to vote tactically in marginal seats. In fact our unfair electoral system encourages tactical voting. So I think people should forget about the romantic idea of voting for an inspirational leader who they can support with pride. They come along very seldomly in politics. The election, like politics itself is about manipulation, so you should be voting for a realistic preferred outcome even if your vote isn't for the candidate you would support in an ideal world, or voting to highlight the issues that are important to you. I mean if people felt really strongly about the environment and support for the Green Party increased...environmental issues would be high on the agenda next term....even though the Green Party will never run the country...so that isn't a wasted vote.

Apathy towards voting because there isn't anyone who tackles the issues radically enough who can realistically run the country means there will never be anybody who tackles the issues radically enough who can realistically run the country. The major parties will always plump for the middle ground unless they sense vote winning policy lies elsewhere. And how they gonna sense that if people with views stay at home?

im really surprised that Mantis has got involved in the politics/election thread

Well there hasn't been much doing on PHA lately to keep me busy. Last time I went on there I read some crazy ass thread called LOL at river card after chat which I didn't understand and quickly logged out again ;)

Many LOLs on this thread. ;)

For marmite lovers / haters lol

I'm voting for the Hate Party... what about you?


YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8mPFxcXOXY

never tasted stuff but i am still voting the love party now

Here's the love parties response :-

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCbuRb47q2c

I need to make a protest vote. Where is the 'it's ok' party?

@Ironside

I'm sure it's similar to bovril if boiled in water. But on a bit of bread, no thanks lol

just found this handy little tool for the floating voter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm#subject=immigration&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem

Oooh - thats good. Like it. Interesting idea from the Lib Dems on blanking out names on job applications to reduce discrimination - I introduced this when I was recruiting for an analyst when I worked in the city. Worked very well until the one I chose had his final interview and my boss told me I couldn't employ him because he was black. Sigh. Those were the days........

i would, is the simple answer

LOL, I will definitely be voting in this election after seeing some of the stuff cracking off here in Thailand at the moment. Red shirts, please do not invade the airport again so I can get the fuck out of here tomorrow..........

Tactical Voting - You got to love the Lib Dems.

I live in a safe Tory seat, Labour never even bother to campaign and the Lib Dems spend half their time telling us that "Labour can't win here so vote tactically".

After the election those same Lib Dem will forget all those 'tactical' votes and claim that X% of the country voted for them!

Just heard the libdems on the radio

Legalise cannabis - I like
Bring home troops - I like
Increase tax- Good plan

Poor people pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than rich people?

Have i missed something or is the statement above a complete pile of shite?

Not shite, I love the idea of Amsterdam style coffee shops in Ipswich.

Lol no legalising Cannabis completely would be immense!

Im on about the fact she thinks people who earn £15k pay more tax proportionally than those who earn £150k

I knew that's what you meant, I'm just to stoned to care  ;ashamed;

Good times

No idea what was said, do you have a link?

One thing that I was wondering about the Lib Dem MPs, were there a far smaller percentage of them involved in the expenses scandal than the other parties or not?  I'd suspect that it was the case (but could be completely wrong).  Anyone know?

It's misleadingly worded. Income in tax is not the same as income tax.

The calculation takes into account all tax, not just income tax and national insurance, but also council tax, road tax, VAT on utilities, food and argos furniture. Special duty in addition to the VAT on booze, fags and petrol.

It's a nice pithy statement, but the way the numbers work, it's always going to be true that poor people pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than rich people, even if the lib dems got in.

That is unless you want to charge "rich people" an income tax rate of 90%+. Check selected countries in the continent of Africa to see how this works.

I think the best thing that could happen is we get a hung parliament and we all vote in by text to pick a dream team to get the country out of the mess it's in.

Portfolio	Labour	Conservatives	Lib Dems
Prime Minister	Gordon Brown MP	David Cameron MP	Nick Clegg MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer	Alistair Darling MP	George Osborne MP	Dr Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs	David Miliband MP	William Hague MP	Edward Davey MP
Secretary of State for Justice	Jack Straw MP	Dominic Grieve QC MP	David Howarth MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department	Alan Johnson MP	Chris Grayling MP	Chris Huhne MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs	Hilary Benn MP	Nick Herbert MP	Tim Farron MP
Secretary of State for International Development	Douglas Alexander MP	Andrew Mitchell MP	Michael Moore MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government	John Denham MP	Caroline Spelman MP	Julia Goldsworthy MP
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families	Ed Balls MP	Michael Gove MP	David Laws MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change	Ed Miliband MP	Greg Clark MP	Simon Hughes MP
Secretary of State for Health	Andrew Burnham MP	Andrew Lansley CBE MP	Norman Lamb MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions	Yvette Cooper MP	Theresa May MP	Prof. Steve Webb MP
Secretary of State for Defence	Bob Ainsworth MP	Dr. Liam Fox MP	Nick Harvey MP
Secretary of State for Transport	The Lord Adonis PC	Theresa Villiers MP	Norman Baker MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport	Ben Bradshaw MP	Jeremy Hunt MP	Don Foster MP

Possibly others in contention aswell, but sorting the three main parties was easy.

Anyone got any preferences ?

Got to have Ken Clarke in there imo.

Is a hung parliamnet really the best option when we are in a period where we really need a strong government to address many complex issues and make big decisions if we are to address the economic problems ?.

I just don't feel any of the contenders have what it takes to get things sorted.  Now, if they were forced to have to all work together, instead of just having a go at each other, we might get things moving in the right direction.

They'd just have bigger arguments and nothing would get done.

The last time there was a hung parliment in this country in 74' they called another election later the same year to sort it out.

Yeah, this - they wouldn't be forced to work together at all, which means the main parties would just work against each other as they always do

The most likely outcome is another election in Autumn, failing that one or two of the smaller parties would give one of the main parties a working majority in exchange for a policy or two that they'd never get through if they didn't have the leverage.

But overall, I don't think there'll be a hung parliament anyway.

Useful visual representation.

(http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/tigmong/mpsexpenses.jpg)

Smaller percentage is defo true, but whether to throw the word far in there depends on whether you like the libdems or not.
Personally I think it's a bit hypocritical of them to try and make so much meat out of the expenses scandal in their campaign literature. It's not like they're squeaky clean and let's not forget one of the mediumly dark yellow dots is Nick Clegg who had to pay back a grand that he spent getting his garden done.

Another area where Libdems don't fair so well on expenses is if you look at the average expenses claimed per MP in the year 2008/2009. This is real term expenses both legit and dodgy.

£151,000 each for Libdem MPs compared to £146,500 for Labour and £138,000 for the Torys.
(To be fair, this might be a lot to do with London based MPs needing less in travel expenses and there being less libdems in London, I dunno tbh)
Personally I think the numbers are close enough to make no real difference, it's just that the LibDems are disingenous to campaign on the other parties claiming lots of expenses when it's them who are claiming the most.

Nice charts, you must of spent hours doing that  ;D

The others % is bigger than you would have thought. Is there is breakdown for this group. Was it the Welsh or Scots who nicked the most  ;D

I think the positions are flexible. For example I'd want to keep both the foreign secretary and the shadow foreign secretary in my mosh up cabinet. Would keep Milliband as foreign secretary and give Hague some other gig.

Chart courtesy of the beeb

Not sure about the breakdown in the others. They do look naughty

re: the pretty coloured circle. that's telling us how many have repaid. is that the same as the number who overclaimed or are there mps who fiddled the exs but haven't paid any back so look like good boys on the chart?

Someone hacked Longy's account ?

Which is exactly why UK is in grave danger of demoted credit status,

Chart as far as I could tell was MPs who were ordered to pay back expenses in the Thomas Legg enquiry thing.

Total number of 389 MPs ordered to pay something back in February this year. Reduced to 372 after a dozen or so succsesful appeals. Not sure if there are 372 or 389 shady dots.

What I'm not sure it includes would be MPs who may have decided to voluntarily pay back expenses after the scandal broke in the media last year but before the Legg enquiry thing this year ordered them to do so. (If indeed any of them did this, were able to do this etc)

Is it just me or is anyone else beginning to feel a frisson of excitement as the leaders' live debate approaches?











 ;marks;

Gordon Brown is a lying scumbag...ty...

its boring.. I thought it would be good viewing..

fk me its Cos!

'Why don't you just solve the financial crisis by having a spin up at PLO?'

Nick Clegg FTW

Done OK but still won't win shit..........

Doesn't have to win - just has to stop either of the other two winning, then he gets some say in things.

Have to say this thing has been far better than I thought - I assumed the restrictive rules would lead to it being really boring but there's a lot more of them talking to each other than you normally get in the US presidential debates.

Isn't that how we got into the mess...HBOS stake Greekstein online

That was going to happen anyway........

Wish the SNP would STFU.........

This.

Great night for Nick Clegg.

The other two are his to lose now. I can't see Brown or Cameron taking him on because in so doing they risk looking like they are scraping for second place.

Bad night for David Cameron.

It's not that he did particularly badly, but Nick Clegg did the job and Gordon Brown confounded expectations. It's a zero sum game so he's the loser of the night.


Great debate I thought, compared to what everybody was expecting. There was a decent amount of substance, it was low on stunts and superficiality, the structure worked well, and it seems to be provoking a lot of chatter on my facebook (very low sample size tho - I have no friends :) ).
I'd really love the cynics who were all predicting record low turnouts at this election following the expenses scandal to have to eat their words. I'm now quite optimistic that these TV debates are going to be a good thing for British democracy.

Was funny to hear the instant reaction from representatives of Plaid Cymru, SNP and UKIP on the radio. They all came out with well written 'reactions' along the lines of, "it was dull, they're all the same and we've heard it all before".
It was rather obvious that they'd prepared their spiel beforehand. Tilts me a little when people dress up their preconceptions as to how they think something is going to go and pretend it's an ever so well spoken instant reaction. Plaid Cymru lady in particular was 'found out' imo.
Can't bosh her too much, it's politics and it's a game. Just not a game she played particularly well tonight

I don't think it was a bad night for Cameron as such, he just didn't do as well as everyone thought he would, and Clegg outshone them both by doing unexpectedly well. Cameron still did better then Brown which is what really matters. Be interesting to see some polls in the next day or two after the dust settles to see if it translates into many more votes for Clegg. In the last week I have gone from a non voter, to a conservative voter, to giving Clegg my ear for the next few weeks to see if he can convince me to change my mind.

One swallow doesn't makes a summer.....but before the debate, it was looking difficult for the Tories to breakthough in the polls for the magically 326 seats,.....and now a hung parliament surely looks more likely than ever.

As high as 4/1 some time ago,....7/4 before the debate, its now 11/8.

I'm somewhat surprised everyone (51% apparently) said Clegg did well. Not sure I was watching the same debate? I saw a bloke who looked a little uncomfortable, reading out his prepared answers to the camera, mostly, which frankly made me cringe, then when it came to the "debate" part, .... read his statement out again. Didn't really see him engaging with the other two much, unlike Cameron/Brown, who needled each other reasonably well.

Personally I thought Cameron did the best of the three. He seemed to do the best at actually debating, although I thought he missed some fairly open goals that Brown set him up for. Seemed to let Brown get away with spouting shite too often. "Taking 6B out the economy? Yes Gordon, let people and businesses spend it as opposed to you nicking it and shoving it up your arse".

I guess I'm biased though - fairly natural tory voter, given I actually work for a living, in the private sector.

 :tikay:

I think Clegg came across well probably because the other two were at each other that gave him a free ride so he didn't get so much grief. That said he did come across as more composed than the others, and despite what you say they all had their prepared BS they all gave in equal measure.

And yes I am biased too and am a natural tory voter.........

I think David Cameron did just fine. It was quite a difficult position for him with Brown attacking him on his left making werid and flat jokes about the campaign posters. With Brown going for Cameron it was a dream position for Clegg to just take a step back and use the old parties always bickering line. I think Clegg must have told us he was from Sheffield and thus not part of the sullied Westminster politics half a dozen times. With people looking for change Clegg was in the box seat to shine and snap polls will reflect that but I thought he was a bit lightweight. Cameron was credible and looked like the PM in waiting and I think he'll get better and better as the campaign progresses. Brown was awful and was so desperate to pander to Clegg in anticipation of a hung parliament.

Apparently talking to the camera is a good thing... don't ask me why though.

I think Clegg's lack of engagement would be scored as a plus, instead of getting involved in petty bickering he just gave his thoughts.

UKIP please STFU now.........

I am a controversative

The way Clegg kept mentioning the names of the people who asked the questions annoyed me. Yes, we get it, you're remembering names and engaging with them. Fine. Now stop saying their names for the 50th time!

I watched this as someone who has no idea about politics.

Brown came across as best to me. Seemed to generally know what he was talking about.

Cameron annoyed me, and seemed to continually dodge questions he didn't want to answer.

Clegg seemed ok but nothing he actually said seemed to stand out.

WTF were you watching?

clarified for you :)

Are you sure you knew which one was Brown?  ;hide; ;marks;

I'll answer that one for him as he is clearly drunk at the moment. NOOOOOOOOOO

Opinion seems to be split about talking to the camera, some of the media liked it and some didn't - I think that might reflect the general public as well.

Clegg was always favourite to 'win' the debate because he was the least known to start with, and people are less likely to have preconceived ideas to prejudice their view.

It was all a bit pointless really. Cameron lost a bit because he was the favourite beforehand so he could only lose out, Brown was exactly like you'd expect him to be (so he lost a bit as well) and Clegg didn't screw it up so he gained - most journalists could have written their reports on it beforehand (and as their journalists, they probably did).

Did anyone watch the after debate programme which showed a small sample of people reactions who were floating voters?  It was the one with the coloured lines going up and down as the debate went on showing if they found something engaging. They loved when Clegg complained about the other 2 sounding the same, liked Camerons take on immigration and didn't seem to react to anything Brown said.

They said Brown didn't connect - I thought he did ok but didn't set the worl d alight as he's always going to be in a defensive position. I thought Clegg did well but will never get enough votes to win the election. I like Cameron.

Just tried this http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/party-matcher (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/party-matcher)

It matches your views to the party that represents your views the most. I scored 58% with labour, 58% conservative and 58% with the liberal democrats....

[ ] That was helpful 

I got 64% Lib dems,56% Labour & 49% Conservative

Guess I should vote lib dems then :).Also I always find it interesting when people say I would vote for such and such but they wont get enough votes to win,what if half the country thought that way and thus the best candidate didn't win,I know you didn't say that as much Dingdell but just made me think of that situation.

Agree with you totally. Fk tactical voting and go with who you like best.

I'm not voting libdem, but that's not because I don't think they'll get in, it's coz I want to melt them.

I LOL'd

I know exactly what you mean - don't know if there is any research on 'who would you vote for if you could be bothered to get off your arse?' . It would be interesting to know what the can't be bothered voter would vote and if that would make the difference.

Clegg did win but I feel he has teh least to lose and everything to gain. All this consensus politics is bollocks tho

Thought Cameron looked uncomfortable in places and was using anicdotes right, left and centre. Bit contrived for me.

To be honest I enjoyed the show but there wasn't a clear winner/loser for me.

Looking forward to the next two

Just watched this and found it quite refreshing.

a) Because they weren' allowed to bang on to long on any individual response

b) There was far less tit for tat knocking than there could have been and would have been if you wind the clock back a bit to complete cocks like Blair

must confess I didnt watch it mainly because the debate was strictly structured as to what could and couldnt be discussed beforehand so as not to cause particular embarrassment.

that said its a start

66% labour 63% libdem 61% torie

not really conclusive so probs a good job I'm not voting

I had real trouble with some of the questions though, I have no idea what academy status is, or an eco town and some of the others were complete wtf

70% lib dem 65% labour 41% conservative.

Gatso, there was a link in the academy status question that took you straight to the wiki page explaining it - helped me answer the question anyway.

I try not to click on links that are unlikely to contain porn

These are not really debates, they are well rehearsed staged commercials that tell us nothing apart from how well 3 leaders can remember whats been fed to them, all nervous and boring.

Brown is on a loser before he starts because he is a very good politician who lacks any personality, that's fine by me I don't want to see my MP being interviewed for cheap thrills I just want him to do a job hes paid to do.

People basing who they vote for on these "debates" is so lol.

How did the debates tell us nothing? I learnt that Nick Clegg is the only candidate who wants to scrap Trident. That's a pretty major issue. We learnt David Cameron is the only candidate pledging to cap immigration, another major issue. There was a clear difference in taxation policy, in fact there were clear differences across the board. Yeah, we know Brown lacks personality but personality and charisma is kinda important when you're sitting around the negotiating table, leading a team, or generally engaging with people, as a PM is required to do.

Brown is a loser before he starts because his record in the job is total dogshit and that's the bottom line.

Liberal 69%   Labour 65% Conservative 58%

FML I'm a Liberal, lol.

Still not sure where my vote will be going but it will be one of the three main parties, not that it really matters in my constituency.

errr you don't have to watch the debates to learn these things you know


"People basing who they vote for on these "debates" is so lol.", basically the debates will work on floating voters who are interested enough to vote but not interested enough to find out about the difference between the parties unless it's spoon fed to them.

Opinion poll released this evening - Labour 28%, Conservatives 33%, Lib Dems 30%.

Yet, because of the way our electoral system works - if you translate these figures to actual seats in a General Election, Labour win and are the biggest party (albeit in a hung parliament).

Betting tip - lump on the Tories now. The Lib Dem bounce won't last and you'll never get a  better price on the Tories.

The last group is me, I probably wouldn't vote unless I'm spoonfed as I'm too lazy to start reading manifestos etc. There are apparently 10 million in the UK like me...........

Funnily enough I only just read this about the debate in a blog


in which case, ok, fair enough seems about right :)

If you take away all the safe seats, and those voters in marginals that know which way they are going to vote,.....apparently its as few as 100,000 undecided voters in marginals that will decide the election!

Ha as most of you aware I am no fan on the Conservatives, but I have always liked Ken Clarke as a politician. He is my local mp as well.

I have a big poster in my front garden supporting my local candidate. This morning I saw, from my bedroom window, an individual walk past and rip part of it down. I couldn't get dressed and out there quick enough to have a go at him.

I take comfort in the fact he must think my candiate is a threat, but can only believe he doesn't agree with free speech and a democratic process. Obv no such thing as a fair fight.

On Sky news today I heard Nick Clegg say "The two old parties" around 500 times in 7 minutes

http://parliament.telegraph.co.uk/mpsexpenses/home

Breakdown by party and by MP.

Charles Kennedy really took the piss...

Labour 75%   Liberal 69% Conservative 55%

Although it's obviously a blunt tool, it's flawed in a number of ways.  For example, it asked if I support/oppose reforming the Human Rights Act, but of course doesn't ask if I think its power should be greatly reduced or conversely strengthened in certain areas - so it must be making assumptions as to the reasoning behind my answers.

Lib Dem 71% Labour 69% Conservative 38% for me. No great surprise tbh

News of the world today, obv a tez paper but im a pretty tez person which is why i will mostly be sporting a comedy love bite this week.

'Many people can compare the choices this election to choosing between, electric chair, lethal injection or gas chamber, they all have the same disastarous result.'

Made me lol

48% Conservative, 46% Lib Dems, 41% Labour

'I support or oppose downgrading cannabis from a ‘class B’ to ‘class C’ drug'

Legalise it!

Do you reckon the lad sat between us last night at DTD was liberal?  I'd guess not... :D

Daily Mail declares war on the Lib Dems lol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/index.html

I love the main picture they've chosen for the page as well:

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-1267658-0937D6F3000005DC-271_308x185.jpg)

Think they're suggesting the Lib Dems are the party for chav yoovs.

lol Daily Mail.

+1

Taken outside DTD during the break at the last BB ?

almost :D

(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2127/166/40/519132558/n519132558_2398278_5922.jpg)

Omigod - that's actually quite scary!!

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

I read someone in the telegraph appealing to UKIP to stand aside to stop the europhile LDs get in too.

haha brilliant!

For the geeks amongst us

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/

A similar site was set up for the last us election and was spot on, here are some links to their views on the upcoming uk election http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/United%20Kingdom .

I am off to find some good valoooooooo bets.

That Dan and Dan thing is genius.

time for a youtube of them, me thinks

Very interesting, as that's about what the spreads are saying,.....just can't believe Clegg would have the nerve to support Labour and gain "some power", even though Labour would be well short on votes and seats.

All the comments after these debates tilt me up no end. My man was great yours was shit, each party's man saying the same about their candidate, don't know why they let them speak if they are going to be so predictable.

Yeah, all the immediate post debate spin is a bit lol imo. Nothing wrong with taking time to reflect and analyze properly.

I still like the debates themselves, and have time for sober commentary the next day.

Cameron made ground tonight with an improved and assured performance. Clegg appears to be a one trick pony who's playing the change from old politics card to death. The Lib Dems have an equal footing in these debates and I don't really see Clegg using that time to showcase liberal policies. I think he lacks depth and conviction. Brown is a disaster.

Will you be voting conservative by chance?

Cameron did OK yesterday, Clegg still came across as a reasonable politician. I thought the points Brown and Cameron, especially Brown, made on Trident were confused at best. They are of course right that you can't postpone the decision..it takes a while to get new subs and all that made and in operation. But Brown saying "Get real!" three or four times in a row to Clegg just came across as bullying and he didn't make a decent point with it at all. If Trident is that essential I would have hoped for Brown to make a better case for it. Cameron did much better on this point although his little; "I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Gordon" joke was a bit odd, especially when they had just agreed that working together on the big issues was essential.

I switched off when they started on immigration as it just always gets on my tits the way this subject is discussed by politicians.. I bet ya any money that Cameron would not have said "They said only 13000 Poles would come over and instead there were hundreds of thousands!" if the Poles had been allowed to vote in the National elections.

p.s. Did anyone else have a little giggle at Cameron, trying to reassure an 84 year old woman about the changes he's got planned for 2016...

Good luck to her seeing the benefits of that!

I dunno, I thought Brown's constant "Get real" to a naive Clegg hit the nail on the head. Clegg seems to think he can scrap Trident and still sit down with world leaders and negotiate on an equal footing. He also thinks we should stand up for ourselves more with America? I don't think a nonnuclear UK lead by Nick Clegg is going to carry much weight with Sarkozy, Obama etc. Clegg seems to be a bit of an ideologist and I do think he should get real. I mean he would give all current illegal immigrants amnesty to solve future illegal immigration, lol ok.

So you are saying Sarkozy and Obama are going to turn around and say if you don't agree with us we will start pointing nuclear weapons at you, lol! Last time I looked this isn't the middle of the cold war and France/US weren't a nuclear threat to Britain.

Clegg also isn't suggesting being non-nuclear simply looking at a different Nuclear deterrent for the UK which isn't outdated/as expensive.

Wow. How am I saying that? I'm saying that nuclear Britian is currently a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and an integral part of global negotiations because of our status as one of the big five nuclear powers. Without that status we don't have the same credibility to negotiate about world affairs with other major powers. Just because we're not in the same nuclear club as Sarkozy, Obama, etc I don't think they their point weapons at us lol, I just think they wouldn't think we're very important anymore. So Clegg wants to be nuclear but doesn't know how yet? He wants to defend us but can't say how? Like I said, pretty naive.

Yeah e didn't explain this very well. I am guessing their plan is to say "OK, when you've been here illegally for X amount of years, let's have a one time amnesty and after that we can really deal with the issue. Let's not ignore the illegal people that are already here and working" which seems a fair point...in fact, it was a point made by the, considered to be, more right wing LPF in Holland. You have to deal with the existing illegal immigrants as well as deal with the borders...that makes sense, no?

Yeah, Germany and Japan don't have any global status either.

The problem is they really need to be on subs.

have just got this off wikipedia

Country    Warheads active/total*                    Year of first test                           CTBT status

United States    2,626 / 9,400[3]                       1945 ("Trinity")                        Signatory
Russia (4,650 / 12,000[3]                                      1949 ("RDS-1")                          Ratifier
United Kingdom    <160 / 185[3]                               1952 ("Hurricane")                          Ratifier
France    ~300 / 300[3]                                       1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")                 Ratifier
China    ~180 / 240[3]                                       1964 ("596")                                  Signatory

Now I'm not up to date with all the nuclear issues but why on Earth are all the numbers of weopons needed?

surely if any were going to be used there would only need 1 or 2 max?

How much each year does it cost to maintain the current Arsenal?

tbh I cant ever see a situation where an Britsh PM would actually ever push the button am sure the yanks would get in 1st

Yeah, illegal immigrants are a problem and a complex issue. But I don't see how Clegg saying he doesn't have an answer to that issue other than to wash his hands of it and start again is supposed to inspire much confidence in his ability to tackle other complex issues as PM. Labour's legacy of weak immigration policy is one million illegals in this country and a global reputation for being a soft touch. I don't see how telling everybody they can stay is supposed to address either the numbers or that reputation. Conservative immigration caps and swift deportation for illegals seems more effective on both counts. I think the liberal amnesty policy can only be a net economic loss for us at a time when the UK can ill afford to be so generous.

As for global status, Britain has always punched above it's weight on the international stage but I don't think we would retain that status in this changing world if we became Switzerland.

They still just make a big bang, when it comes down to it. Russia/US are big countries with lots of cities and military targets. You want to take them all out, you need a lot of nukes. You'd need several just to thoroughly do Moscow.

There was an idea during the cold war that if you could launch with short enough notice, you might be able to hit the other guy's launch sites before they launched and stop many getting through. Hence the escalation of numbers (just to make sure), and the spread on to planes and subs, rather than fixed launch sites. Current numbers are actually pretty small, historically. Peak US warheads was about 30000, IIRC.

On the amnesty issue. Other European countries have tried it and it isn't that effective, Italy have had 9 one time illegal immigrant amnestys. I don't know for sure that it's not the way to go, but all this "out of the hands of criminal fangs and into the hands of the taxpayer" stuff is unconvincing rhetoric for me.

Agree with above poster on nuclear detterent. It needs to be on subs, the deterrent is only effective if it's absolutely definite that opponent has no fold equity. If you're scraping that and moving to something that doesn't do the job as well, might as well have nothing at all.
I've more sympathy for the arguments of those who want to scrap trident and replace with a big load of nothing, than those who would scrap it and still spend money on something that's not nearly as good.

Juicy fruit is cheaper than trident.

Sandy

Driving through Luton last night I realised that the Conservatives have shot themselves in the foot with the poster of Gordon Brown grinning with a slogan that reads "I released x1000 prisoners early, vote me in and I'll do it again"  In Luton this can only mean a 100% majority vote for labour as all the locals look forward to a shorter stay inside imo.

Everyone who intends on voting don't forget!

I'm off out now to vote tactically...

Everyone intending on driving to the shops to buy biscuits make sure you remember to drive to the shops to buy biscuits. If you don't buy biscuits you can't complain when you have a cup of tea.

I'm off out to buy jaffa cakes.

Wtf ??? They're not biscuits dude!

lol, cracking scrap between the BNP guy and some Asian chaps...

Voted at 7am this morning, there was a queue. So far lots of polling stations in my area reporting high turnout.

Going now,but only doing the general not locals.

Kenneth Clarke's Barmy Army!

If Jaffa Cakes are your only option to have with your tea where you live then that's fine - go for the Jaffa Cakes, even though they aren't biscuits.

;)

When biscuits go off they become soft, when cakes go off they become hard. If you leave a jaffa cake out for a day or so it will become hard!

CAKE!

FFS I didnt vote in the locals as Im moving in 3 weeks so really couldnt see the point,only for some spotty kid to go on and on about its my democratic right to vote and that by not voting i am wasting my chance to secure which party I want to govern.

 I kept telling him that i was moving so will only vote in the general and Feck me he starts following up the road carrying on with his rhetoric blah blah blah .Only when i got to the crossing did i turn round and gave him the wide eyed stare did he turn toe and went back.

oops

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8664260.stm

(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-sjc1/hs607.snc3/31981_417511889574_60959924574_5451137_8375879_n.jpg)

I blame Brussels. 

lol - I'm nicking this!

Who are you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/06/portillo-moment-ed-balls-tonight


LOL


Alongside Andrew Neil on This week he is unparalled.

"My name is now synonymous with eating a bucketload of shit in public."

'going to vote for the UKIP, since I found their flyer in my garden this morning....'

some people always think the grass is greener on the other side

Good to see they're not pushing recycling as a policy.

FYP :)

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfiqegMuvuw

Has that changed anyone's mind?

lib dems have my vote, ive got no idea why tho.

One of my brothers voted BNP lol

Neil has also been excellent on The Politics Show during the election.....he really tore into Douglas Alexander the other day regarding the yes/no/maybe tactical vote call...I thought there was going to be a fight lol.

Daily Mail headline "Britain flocks to Polls" - nearly a complete reversal of its usual headline..

lol wp