Title: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 09:12:39 PM ok who is up all night for the reults coming in and who is watching what channel
i am going to start the night off now with the new sky HD channel dont know why HD is going to be of use would be good if people watching on other channels post when the different exit polls etc came in Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 06, 2010, 09:14:31 PM Fine choice Sir! Sky News HD for me too.
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 06, 2010, 09:18:35 PM does peter snow still have his swimg ometer? always remeber that as a kid
and on sky for now but will hop about Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 06, 2010, 09:37:28 PM ffs how many more counting stations???????????? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Title: Re: results Post by: Graham C on May 06, 2010, 09:40:52 PM Going to watch some of it, prob give HD a go, but I do like the BBC graphics.
Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 06, 2010, 09:41:17 PM i am going to start the night off now with the new sky HD channel dont know why HD is going to be of use You are a truly brave man in risking seeing Kay Burley in HD. Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 06, 2010, 09:42:39 PM i am going to start the night off now with the new sky HD channel dont know why HD is going to be of use You are a truly brave man in risking seeing Kay Burley in HD. ban Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 09:51:40 PM Avoid the Alternative Election thing on Channel 4. Utter dirge. Had to switch off after 10 minutes, really bad.
Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 06, 2010, 09:52:34 PM Anybody wanna join me in guessing some % & seats?
Con 37% LibD 28% Lab 25% Others 10% Cons 6 seat overall majority Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 06, 2010, 09:53:23 PM BTW Iron, there's only one exit poll jointly commissioned by BBC/ITV/Sky
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 09:55:05 PM Anybody wanna join me in guessing some % & seats? Con 37% LibD 28% Lab 25% Others 10% Cons 6 seat overall majority I would expect the LD vote to be lower than polled and the other 2 to be higher Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 06, 2010, 09:59:51 PM Aren't Labour usually lower than they poll?
Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 06, 2010, 10:02:07 PM Anybody wanna join me in guessing some % & seats? Con 37% LibD 28% Lab 25% Others 10% Cons 6 seat overall majority I would expect the LD vote to be lower than polled and the other 2 to be higher I reckon this too, some people will probably think at the last minute they don't really have a chance as per usual as go back to lab/cons. Title: Re: results Post by: Dewi_cool on May 06, 2010, 10:03:10 PM I'm up all night unless the brandy takes over. i'm predicting a local plaid cymru victory, and a late swing to labour to make it really interesting.
Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 06, 2010, 10:03:30 PM Aren't Labour usually lower than they poll? Yes - the golden rule of polls is that if you have a group of them the one which has the lowest vote for Labour is likely to be the most accurate. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 10:05:29 PM Anybody wanna join me in guessing some % & seats? Con 37% LibD 28% Lab 25% Others 10% Cons 6 seat overall majority I would expect the LD vote to be lower than polled and the other 2 to be higher I reckon this too, some people will probably think at the last minute they don't really have a chance as per usual as go back to lab/cons. Also a lot of their 'bounce' came from people who said they weren't going to vote but they'd been 'inspired' I'm guessing a fair few won't bother - although if the turnout goes up significantly then so could the Lib Dem vote for that reason Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 06, 2010, 10:09:22 PM Lib Dems lose three seats???
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 10:10:10 PM Or stay about the same - all in all the exit poll is within the bounds of what I'd expect
Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 10:12:23 PM Where's the voting from the Sunderland jury?
Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 06, 2010, 10:12:34 PM Just shows how many people will vote to keep the Tories out, irrespective of how much of a bunch of clowns they're voting for.
Title: Re: results Post by: LeedsRhodesy on May 06, 2010, 10:12:58 PM right ok going to watch this tonight do you need 326 to win?? and if nobody gets to 326 it will be a hung parliament?? Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 10:13:00 PM i have visions on 1992 when polls were out of sync
i think tories will get 330 and LD 70 Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 10:13:34 PM Just shows how many people will vote to keep the Tories out, irrespective of how much of a bunch of clowns they're voting for. "Choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a bad thing. The cliche makes it sound bad, but it's a good thing. You get less evil" - Noam Chomsky Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 06, 2010, 10:14:17 PM Just shows how many people will vote to keep the Tories out, irrespective of how much of a bunch of clowns they're voting for. I voted to keep labour out......... Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 06, 2010, 10:15:06 PM oi wheres the health and safety?? you shouldnt run whilst carrying boxes
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 10:16:50 PM if poll is correct lib/lab pact would struggle to make a government
i am still going to suggest than the toires will hold a majority and libs wont be as bad as it looks Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 10:18:36 PM lol it's true what they're saying, but very funny how much the success in the polls was being lauded before but now they're all talking up the margins of error and how they have gone wrong in the past
Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 06, 2010, 10:19:11 PM I would have thought as the leader of the largest party, Maj would give Cameron first dibs at forming a government.
Title: Re: results Post by: KarmaDope on May 06, 2010, 10:20:56 PM Nice gaffe, BBC Website. Something we need to know here?
""The country hasn't turned overwhelming towards the Conservatives," says deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman, giving her thoughts on our exit poll. It predicts that the Tories will be largest party in a hung parliament. "It's obviously going to be very close, that's clear," Mr Harman adds." Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 10:25:11 PM I would have thought as the leader of the largest party, Maj would give Cameron first dibs at forming a government. No, it's the PM's bag. Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 10:27:42 PM WTF is an exit poll???
What happens if it's a hung parliment??? Also them students running with the boxes look like a load of dogooder nobs Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 06, 2010, 10:27:59 PM 307 con
255 lab 59 lib 29 oth wonder how close that will be Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 06, 2010, 10:28:13 PM I can't actually see the lib dems losing any seats tbh. BBC is the only place to watch.
Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 06, 2010, 10:28:32 PM With no written constitution, I thought it was in HM's gift?
Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 06, 2010, 10:29:05 PM The punters don't believe the exit poll - Lib Dem seats at 69 or under is currently 2.2.
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 10:29:31 PM basically if the tories can get enough of the smaller parties to vote with them the tories will get in
if labour get enough of the smaller parties to vote with them they will get in if neither can get the votes from the smaller parties then it will be whoever can get the biggest minority seats to get votes through Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 10:30:35 PM With no written constitution, I thought it was in HM's gift? Technically but tradition and precedent form a stronger part of the constitution than some of the minor technicalities like that Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 06, 2010, 10:30:40 PM One of the stories of this election is going to be the number of people locked out at 10pm!!
4/5 on over a 70% turnout earlier is looking good :) Title: Re: results Post by: Delboy on May 06, 2010, 10:30:53 PM does peter snow still have his swimg ometer? always remeber that as a kid and on sky for now but will hop about Try this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8574653.stm Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 06, 2010, 10:31:30 PM On the poll, even Lab+Lib is only 314, which isn't enough.
Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 10:32:25 PM http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/05/seven-reasons-to-be-wary-of-the-exit-poll-tonight/
Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 06, 2010, 10:32:58 PM FFS Paxman, take the hint, they aren't going to answer you question move on you idiot...........
Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 10:33:12 PM I would vote for linford christie
we need a black pm and he's fast as fook Title: Re: results Post by: LeedsRhodesy on May 06, 2010, 10:33:49 PM I can't actually see the lib dems losing any seats tbh. FYP Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 06, 2010, 10:37:38 PM http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/05/seven-reasons-to-be-wary-of-the-exit-poll-tonight/ There are some seriously big brains deployed to build models that iron out these wrinkles. ...lol yes they just look at the last 4 weeks polls! Title: Re: results Post by: KarmaDope on May 06, 2010, 10:38:43 PM One of the stories of this election is going to be the number of people locked out at 10pm!! 4/5 on over a 70% turnout earlier is looking good :) Fecking morons. Would put good money on them having been free all day but not being arsed to go and vote before 9pm. Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 06, 2010, 10:41:22 PM One of the stories of this election is going to be the number of people locked out at 10pm!! 4/5 on over a 70% turnout earlier is looking good :) Fecking morons. Would put good money on them having been free all day but not being arsed to go and vote before 9pm. This. Polls were only open for 15 hours. I doubt all those people were working until 9.30. Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 10:41:42 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour
have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 10:42:10 PM Sunderland making excuses. Steve Bruce's fault.
Title: Re: results Post by: KarmaDope on May 06, 2010, 10:42:32 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 10:44:17 PM ok i am going to put my neck out labour will struggle to keep 230 seats
Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 10:45:51 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. I think this will happen Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 06, 2010, 10:46:00 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. Clegg wont prop up Brown. Tories would try and govern with minority. Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 10:48:10 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. I think this will happen they wont get near than they will be lucky to get 300 seats between them Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 10:49:53 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. Clegg wont prop up Brown. Tories would try and govern with minority. Brown would resign if it meant the LD's would support Labour without him Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 10:51:15 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. odds please 300 and above lab and lib?? I think this will happen they wont get near than they will be lucky to get 300 seats between them Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 06, 2010, 10:52:53 PM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. Clegg wont prop up Brown. Tories would try and govern with minority. Brown would resign if it meant the LD's would support Labour without him clegg has said the party with the mandate (seats and votes) has the right to try and form a gov. Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 10:54:16 PM I'd hang the frickin lot of them their all liars
Title: Re: results Post by: LeedsRhodesy on May 06, 2010, 10:59:38 PM here goes.................... Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:00:21 PM if its a hung parliment have a sit n go for it
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 06, 2010, 11:01:05 PM 1-0 lab
Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:01:31 PM she looked pleased
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 11:02:03 PM Off the top of my head I think that's a significant swing
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 06, 2010, 11:02:23 PM wow and only 26
Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:03:08 PM she looks like a vampire
i think they should add up all the people who vote for which party and the winner gets in Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 06, 2010, 11:03:16 PM Off the top of my head I think that's a significant swing to the tories, or just away from labour? edit: ok i've seen the graph now :D Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 11:04:08 PM Off the top of my head I think that's a significant swing 8% Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 11:04:20 PM Off the top of my head I think that's a significant swing to the tories, or just away from labour? Well Liberal Democrat down as well Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:05:30 PM What's Duncan banantyne doing on sky news
Title: Re: results Post by: lazaroonie on May 06, 2010, 11:06:55 PM anybody watching the election coverage on sky has obviously got no real interest in balanced reporting
Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 11:07:31 PM anybody watching the election coverage on sky has obviously got no real interest in balanced reporting Same as anyone who reads Murdoch's papers. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 11:08:20 PM she looks like a vampire i think they should add up all the people who vote for which party and the winner gets in That's pretty much what the Lib Dems want to change the system to. Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:09:13 PM anybody watching the election coverage on sky has obviously got no real interest in balanced reporting where are u watching it then? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 11:09:58 PM she looks like a vampire i think they should add up all the people who vote for which party and the winner gets in That's pretty much what the Lib Dems want to change the system to. Liberal Democrats are very pro vampire this is true Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 06, 2010, 11:11:43 PM she looks like a vampire i think they should add up all the people who vote for which party and the winner gets in That's pretty much what the Lib Dems want to change the system to. Liberal Democrats are very pro vampire this is true looks like cleggmania has had all the blood sucked out of it. Title: Re: results Post by: lazaroonie on May 06, 2010, 11:12:23 PM anybody watching the election coverage on sky has obviously got no real interest in balanced reporting where are u watching it then? im not. Title: Re: results Post by: Linux on May 06, 2010, 11:14:25 PM http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/c50.stm
LOL, at the independent runner in mine Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:18:56 PM Esther ranthzen just like her teeth
All false Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 06, 2010, 11:22:15 PM Mariella Fostrup has hardly aged since the last time I saw her :)
Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:28:03 PM Mariella Fostrup has hardly aged since the last time I saw her :) Whend you see her yesterday lolI still would with my eyes closed I had a dream once her and michael strachan had a figh naked in a swimming pool of mushy peas with 2 faggots in there with them Strange my dreams Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 06, 2010, 11:29:40 PM http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/c50.stm LOL, at the independent runner in mine I'm sure he'll get a few votes too :D Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 06, 2010, 11:35:53 PM She looks like she ate the last vampire
Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 06, 2010, 11:37:52 PM She looks like she ate the last vampire rotflmfao Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 06, 2010, 11:39:00 PM It'll be interesting to see some seats which aren't safe Labour one's now
Title: Re: results Post by: Longy on May 06, 2010, 11:53:49 PM Interesting hold by Labour in Sunderland Central, interesting that there is smaller swing in a seat where the Conservatives put in an effort in.
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 06, 2010, 11:54:54 PM Interesting hold by Labour in Sunderland Central, interesting that there is smaller swing in a seat where the Conservatives put in an effort in. swing in the seat same as the exit poll which is intresting i still stand by my predections Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 06, 2010, 11:55:59 PM Interesting hold by Labour in Sunderland Central, interesting that there is smaller swing in a seat where the Conservatives put in an effort in. Doesn't sound like they put much in when Ken Clarke thought he had no chance until he saw the previous swings. Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 07, 2010, 12:00:33 AM What a load of bollix
re vote Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 12:01:46 AM what candidate died??
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 12:03:17 AM what candidate died?? UKIP candidate in a new constituency Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 12:04:59 AM what candidate died?? UKIP candidate in a new constituency not the best day for them then Title: Re: results Post by: Dewi_cool on May 07, 2010, 12:05:45 AM Mr Paxman is a wanker
Title: Re: results Post by: NoflopsHomer on May 07, 2010, 12:06:31 AM David Miliband should be called STEVE!!!!!
Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 12:07:15 AM Mr Paxman is a wanker +1 I hate the twat. When he's interviewing its more about him than the interviewee............. Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 12:08:40 AM what candidate died?? UKIP candidate in a new constituency not the best day for them then happened a week or so ago Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 12:08:58 AM Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 07, 2010, 12:09:53 AM Churchill ftw IMHO
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 12:10:18 AM oh poker after dark on 502
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 12:11:11 AM watching bbc (england just now) that young lady thats taken over from peter snow on the swing o meter (emily) looks very nice
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 12:12:48 AM what candidate died?? UKIP candidate in a new constituency not the best day for them then happened a week or so ago When I went to vote I only got one ballot paper - and I'm far too reserved to ask them why But I did ask someone else to find out for me - turns out our local government election was cancelled because one of the candidates has just died It'll start to get really suspicious if that was a UKIP candidate as well :D Title: Re: results Post by: Dewi_cool on May 07, 2010, 12:14:09 AM Mr Paxman is a wanker i'm normallu quiet but........................Title: Re: results Post by: Longy on May 07, 2010, 12:16:39 AM Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 12:17:43 AM everyone is allowed to be wrong once in a while :) Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 07, 2010, 12:21:01 AM Loved Joan Collins pulling faces behind Andrew Neil.
Title: Re: results Post by: The-Crow on May 07, 2010, 12:22:30 AM Some voters who had waited to vote were turned away at ten o'clock
They have formed a sit in to get a vote Think its Hackney Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 07, 2010, 12:24:34 AM Joan Collins is 76.
Title: Re: results Post by: bobAlike on May 07, 2010, 12:25:17 AM Some voters who had waited to vote were turned away at ten o'clock They have formed a sit in to get a vote Think its Sheffield or maybe they should have turned up earlier Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 12:28:25 AM That's what a returning officer said!
Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 12:30:41 AM That's what a returning officer said! Must be true then. Doubt it will make a difference in reality, I guess we will find out in time if its in one of the marginal seats where a couple of hundred votes will make a difference. Title: Re: results Post by: bobAlike on May 07, 2010, 12:31:46 AM That's what a returning officer said! Must be true then. Doubt it will make a difference in reality, I guess we will find out in time if its in one of the marginal seats where a couple of hundred votes will make a difference. It's true that i said it. :) Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 12:32:04 AM Some voters who had waited to vote were turned away at ten o'clock They have formed a sit in to get a vote Think its Sheffield or maybe they should have turned up earlier I've seen, or seen reported, 5 people who got turned away All 5 of them said roughly the same thing - - we looked at 6 and there was a queue so we looked later and there was still a queue then we went back at 9 (something) and realised we had to actually get in the queue - - Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 12:33:33 AM John Reid (fromer home sec) seems to think they should be able to vote.
Anne Widdecombe (f shadow HS) seems to think they shouldn't. Someone else says the rules say they shouldn't. Harriet Harman says it could end up in court... Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 12:33:57 AM Mr Paxman is a wanker as well as Jack Straw Title: Re: results Post by: bobAlike on May 07, 2010, 12:36:34 AM Mr Paxman is a wanker as well as Jack Straw and Lord Mandelson Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 12:36:41 AM There was some suggestion before the election that some councils and returning officers were going to try and save money, it seems quite likely that some of them may get in trouble from the Electoral Commission as a result of this now.
Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 07, 2010, 12:40:54 AM Well, quite.
Title: Re: results Post by: The-Crow on May 07, 2010, 12:43:16 AM Nick Griffin is definately Barking
Its crazy hes a Euro MP for North West England as well Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 12:47:20 AM Nick Griffin is definately Barking Its crazy hes a Euro MP for North West England as well That's the benefit of Proportional Representation Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 12:58:50 AM Robinson out in Belfast!
Pretty huge swing. Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 07, 2010, 01:02:11 AM Dimbleby's voice is going.
Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 01:06:30 AM Dimbleby's voice is going. omg is only 1am! Fiona Bruce to take over 3/1 Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 07, 2010, 01:09:08 AM Dimbleby's voice is going. omg is only 1am! Fiona Bruce to distract the viewers by lezzing it up with Emily Maitlis 3/1 FYP Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 01:13:02 AM Conservatives gain Kingswood - that's a pretty reasonable swing there
Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 07, 2010, 01:13:59 AM First three guys standing behind the Tory winner here look like they're standing in a nonce's identity parade.
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 01:15:30 AM wtf with the different channels
only a handfull of results in and they already showing different numbers Title: Re: results Post by: maldini32 on May 07, 2010, 01:19:28 AM cant wait for flashforward and fringe
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 01:23:24 AM sky have it 542 bbc 832
something wrong somewhere Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 01:25:54 AM 17 5 2 9 on itv
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 01:28:34 AM lol blunketts given up
Title: Re: results Post by: AndrewT on May 07, 2010, 01:33:43 AM Now John Simpson's voice is nearly gone - has he been snogging Dimbleby during the week?
Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 01:43:09 AM Brown already giving the message he will try and form a coalition!. I would have thought Sarah would have told him to wait till the morning so he has the option to concede with a bit of dignity. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 01:43:41 AM Labour hold the city of Durham which pretty much confirms that the Lib Dems aren't going to win loads of seats
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 01:44:53 AM guy standing behind brown with fist in air is pure com
looks like a cross between rod paradise and booder Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 01:45:20 AM Brown already giving the message he will try and form a coalition! In other news the pope is a catholic! Title: Re: results Post by: LeedsRhodesy on May 07, 2010, 01:46:46 AM guy standing behind brown with fist in air is pure com looks like a cross between rod paradise and booder wft was with the shades??? lol he stil has his fist up 10 mins later Title: Re: results Post by: Longy on May 07, 2010, 01:58:14 AM This really is clear as mud at the moment, fascinating election.
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 01:59:16 AM £750pp to each person denied a vote and MPs kicked out...
Title: Re: results Post by: LeedsRhodesy on May 07, 2010, 02:04:13 AM whos the dick on sky with the pink tie on?? i wanna smash his face in
Title: Re: results Post by: LeedsRhodesy on May 07, 2010, 02:05:39 AM plus i wish they would stop the sky 100 thing
Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 02:22:16 AM 10% announced and only 3 seats gained by Cons
tells the story for me Title: Re: results Post by: Longy on May 07, 2010, 02:30:27 AM 10% announced and only 3 seats gained by Cons tells the story for me The early results always are biased towards safe Labour seats, as they are in urban areas where it is easy to count the votes quicker. Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 02:33:56 AM Amazing the non Clegg effect,after walking on water for the last 3 weeks. Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 07, 2010, 02:36:27 AM Amazing the non Clegg effect,after walking on water for thefirst 1 or so of the last 3 weeks. FYP Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 02:46:46 AM any guesses what time cons take seat lead?
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 02:52:13 AM any guesses what time cons take seat lead? maybe after 8 am when alot of the seats that are safe tory will start counts as many are not counting overnight this year Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 02:54:19 AM any guesses what time cons take seat lead? Conservatives have just overtaken Labour on the % of the overall vote Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 02:57:19 AM Mr Paxman is a wanker +1 I hate the twat. When he's interviewing its more about him than the interviewee............. needs reiterating this very second, his line of questioning is just nobish and I wish he would take that stupid smug look off his face >:( Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 02:58:36 AM Con 2 seats behind according to ITV
Title: Re: results Post by: LeedsRhodesy on May 07, 2010, 03:01:22 AM Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:03:01 AM 79, 76, 10, 21 on ITV
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:03:42 AM I think ITV report results when people 'pretty much' know the results as opposed to the when the results are actually declared - but that's just a hunch, they might just be quicker
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 03:04:00 AM 72 65 9 19 on bbc
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 03:05:19 AM any guesses what time cons take seat lead? maybe after 8 am when alot of the seats that are safe tory will start counts as many are not counting overnight this year 5 behind Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 03:06:29 AM any guesses what time cons take seat lead? maybe after 8 am when alot of the seats that are safe tory will start counts as many are not counting overnight this year 5 behind 15 on sky Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 03:07:43 AM btw the pound is going to collapse i think it could be 1.2 for a dollar before this time next month
Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:11:23 AM btw the pound is going to collapse i think it could be 1.2 for a dollar before this time next month [ ] at least i have lots of $$$$ in my poker accounts - sigh Title: Re: results Post by: NoflopsHomer on May 07, 2010, 03:17:42 AM I love that no-one knows what's going on.
Tactical voting is going to be huge later in the morning imo. Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 03:18:04 AM btw the pound is going to collapse i think it could be 1.2 for a dollar before this time next month [ ] at least i have lots of $$$$ in my poker accounts - sigh snap but when i win 3 scoops next week i will keep most of the $s on there till the rate bottoms out Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:25:24 AM Con 6 ahead now on ITV
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:26:31 AM 2 drunk women I've never heard of on ITV now. :dontask:
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:30:05 AM I love that no-one knows what's going on. Tactical voting is going to be huge later in the morning imo. I think a couple of seats have already been affected by it already. In Eastleigh the Labour vote collapsed but I think that may be a combination of their support going down, but also Labour supporters voting for Lib Dem to keep the Tories out Title: Re: results Post by: snoopy1239 on May 07, 2010, 03:32:00 AM I was actually contacted by the Lib Dems by letter yesterday and encouraged to vote tactically.
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:53:30 AM Down to < 20 votes in Edgbaston apparently...
UKIP could be giving the seat to Labour ;carlocitrone; Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 04:21:14 AM i still think the tories might be close to a majority
i would put my house (if i had one) on them having more than 315 seats Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 06:00:28 AM Green Party get their first MP in Brighton
Not exceptionally relevant to the country as a whole, but still pretty good Title: Re: results Post by: Dingdell on May 07, 2010, 06:58:45 AM Northampton North - Con gain with majority of just under 2000. Labour second, Lib Dem a surprising third - especially surprising to the Lib dems who thought they had romped home!
I was at the count overseeing the proceedings on behalf of one of the parties, the ladies counting the postal vote were so innacurate that it had to be recounted 4 times - fml. Just back from a glass of champagne, I've been up for over 24 hours, love the election but we were soooo slow at Northampton. It's going to be interesting times now - may have to do this all again in 9 months.... Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 07, 2010, 07:21:02 AM who won the seat that's listed as 'other' on the bbc?
Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 07, 2010, 07:34:24 AM DUP, Sinn Fein, an Independant in NI
Plaid Cymru and SNP got a few each. Greens get their first ever seat in Brighton. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 07, 2010, 07:36:33 AM big big holds for Labour in Scotlandshire. Incred scenes, pity I'm not Labour.
Title: Re: results Post by: redsimon on May 07, 2010, 07:39:43 AM A time management course and a watch to each person too lazy/stupid to vote in a 15 hour timescale... FYP Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 07, 2010, 08:00:35 AM DUP, Sinn Fein, an Independant in NI Plaid Cymru and SNP got a few each. Greens get their first ever seat in Brighton. Beg pardon, forgot SDLP party Also Alliance Party got a seat, never heard of them but I don't really follow NI politics. Title: Re: results Post by: Longy on May 07, 2010, 08:04:18 AM DUP, Sinn Fein, an Independant in NI Plaid Cymru and SNP got a few each. Greens get their first ever seat in Brighton. Beg pardon, forgot SDLP party Also Alliance Party got a seat, never heard of them but I don't really follow NI politics. Alliance are a non Unionist or Nationalist party who believe on concentrating on policies like Health and Education etc. They are strongly affiliated to the lib dems and on this very interesting horse trading situation can be expected to go with what the lib dems decide. Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:15:19 AM sobering thought but maybe it is the english that should be asking for indepenace
without scotland and wales the tories would have a massive majority so if we get a lib labpact then england will be ruled again by scotland and wales Title: Re: results Post by: redsimon on May 07, 2010, 08:16:44 AM sobering thought but maybe it is the english that should be asking for indepenace without scotland and wales the tories would have a massive majority so if we get a lib labpact then england will be ruled again by scotland and wales Don't tel Eccosse, his head will explode :) Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 08:18:44 AM What a fantastic night to be a political nerd
I spent most of the last week pounding the streets and at hustings, and got the expected result I wanted in my safe seat at the count last night - huge gains for the tories across much of England, particularly the South..but not in London or where the incumbent mp is highly visible eg front benhcers in lib and lab. Really localised voting - no gains at all across Scotland for the tories, and the absence of 3-4 gains there is pretty crucial - lots of tactical voting evident to me, eg lab voting lib to keep the tories out - Some amazing stuff like Birmingham Edgbaston, and the Green victory is a good thing in the long term round I think - all three parties going to be disappointed, as none have got the decisive result they want - the libdems rollercoaster is amazing to me, No gain in share of voter and loss of seats? I reckon that last debate when people saw the LidDem policies on Immigrant amnesty, Euro, and new homes VAT did for them. People liked the style of clegg and the presentation but the policies were just too "out there" for people to switich in sufficient amounts to allow them to break through Next few days going to be a lot of fun. I suppose my money would be on Labour minus Brown and the LibDems cobbling together a coalition with the price of a coalition being a referendum on voting reform and a few cabinet spots. Looking at the mess the next six months will be for the economy, with the markets forcing nasty cuts in the wake of Greece, if I were Cameron I'd go long and wait it out for events later in the year Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:25:58 AM rich the libdems got a 1.5% increase in there vote and lost seats which is unreal
ok the libdems didnt get teh increase everyone expected but to increase there vote and still lose seats in sick Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 08:30:01 AM rich the libdems got a 1.5% increase in there vote and lost seats which is unreal ok the libdems didnt get teh increase everyone expected but to increase there vote and still lose seats in sick Agreed and for the tories to get a 7-8% lead, and still not get a majority just shows how daft the electoral system is, biased towards the incumbent/Labour party Problem for the tories is if they offer a PR referendum and it passes, they'd never get back in..after all they are always going to be a 35% right of centre part of the electorate compared to a 65% left of centre voting bloc In essence this is why I think Labour have a "joker" to play in coalition talks, they can offer the libdems what the tories can't Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 08:34:54 AM LOL at Dale's questions to Rantzen
What a fascinating time this is http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/few-thoughts.html Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:35:48 AM tories have 2% more of the vote this time than labour got 5 years ago when they had a large majority
i think the tories would have got a majority of the seats if it wasnt for UKIP a few seats that they just lost would have been wins if UKIP voters for the tradional roots Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 08:37:25 AM sobering thought but maybe it is the english that should be asking for indepenace without scotland and wales the tories would have a massive majority so if we get a lib labpact then england will be ruled again by scotland and wales Good idea GTFO Scotland rotflmfao but please take GB with you.......... Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 08:37:52 AM tories have 2% more of the vote this time than labour got 5 years ago when they had a large majority i think the tories would have got a majority of the seats if it wasnt for UKIP a few seats that they just lost would have been wins if UKIP voters for the tradional roots Agreed again, plus further boundary changes since 2005 hindered them too, and more tactical voting Ironside talking sense, its a new era! Sterling fell overnight from above $1.51 to trade as low as $1.4596 at one stage this morning, its lowest level in over a year. Title: Re: results Post by: Girgy85 on May 07, 2010, 08:38:58 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:39:45 AM sobering thought but maybe it is the english that should be asking for indepenace without scotland and wales the tories would have a massive majority so if we get a lib labpact then england will be ruled again by scotland and wales Good idea GTFO Scotland rotflmfao but please take GB with you.......... you think we are going anywhere after you stole and spent all our oil money? we are here for the long haul now while you guys have to fund us even the SNP have stop talking about independance Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 08:41:58 AM ... - the libdems rollercoaster is amazing to me, No gain in share of voter and loss of seats? I reckon that last debate when people saw the LidDem policies on Immigrant amnesty, Euro, and new homes VAT did for them. People liked the style of clegg and the presentation but the policies were just too "out there" for people to switich in sufficient amounts to allow them to break through ... I would say the floating voters who are actually interested in government/politics/voting had a flicker of interest for the Lib Dems then looked at their policies and realised they were a bit daft And a lot of those that weren't really interested but became interested because of the leadership debate, when it came down to it, remembered that they weren't actually that interested in politics and didn't bother voting. Obviously there are regional differences and it did make a difference in some places, but the Lib Dems having about the same proportion of vote as last time didn't really come as a surprise. The analysts who were surprised by the exit poll result for the Lib Dems were being a bit naive in my opinion in not taking into account the 'x-factor' effect of the television debates - they should really have realised that those gains would only be realised in practice if people were able to vote by telephone. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 08:42:22 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye No one won, they all lost the two parties who came 2nd and 3rd may stitch it up between them, or may not. Please take an interest next time, democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Beats any TV drama, and a lot of novels You're welcome Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:42:57 AM tories have 2% more of the vote this time than labour got 5 years ago when they had a large majority i think the tories would have got a majority of the seats if it wasnt for UKIP a few seats that they just lost would have been wins if UKIP voters for the tradional roots Agreed again, plus further boundary changes since 2005 hindered them too, and more tactical voting Ironside talking sense, its a new era! Sterling fell overnight from above $1.51 to trade as low as $1.4596 at one stage this morning, its lowest level in over a year. as i said earlier its going to go much lower i have read reports than its going to go as low as 1:1 with the dollar but i think 1.2 is more realistic Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye nobody has won anything yet its likely that the tories will try and run a minority govenment or lab and the LD will try and run a colalition along side some of the nationlists Title: Re: results Post by: Girgy85 on May 07, 2010, 08:44:47 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye No one won, they all lost the two parties who came 2nd and 3rd may stitch it up between them, or may not. Please take an interest next time, democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Beats any TV drama, and a lot of novels You're welcome I turned it on when I got in from town! Was quite intresting! So Gordy Bmeister is still the main man? Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:44:50 AM oh crap i am in trouble
been up all night and just remembered i have to be at the hospital for 11:15 could be a long day Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:52:53 AM rich if we were to get a true proporational voting system do you think any party would ever get much more than 32% of the seats
with the smaller parties like the greens and UKiP votes going up substationally ofcourse with the transferable vote i dont think the smaller parties would make much difference and if they use a list system like for scottish elections and euro then the larger parties will still hog the votes Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 09:01:05 AM There are a lot of issues that would need to be sorted out with a PR system.
I think the most likely scenario if it was ever done would be one party would normally get about 35-40% of the vote and ally themselves with one or 2 parties for the remaining 10-15% and we would have 20 or 30 years of a ruling party at a time rather than the current 8 to 15 Title: Re: results Post by: TightPaulFolds on May 07, 2010, 09:40:23 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye No one won, they all lost the two parties who came 2nd and 3rd may stitch it up between them, or may not. Please take an interest next time, democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Beats any TV drama, and a lot of novels You're welcome I turned it on when I got in from town! Was quite intresting! So Gordy Bmeister is still the main man? Could well be. Since Labour are currently in power, they get first dibs at setting up a coalition. Apparently. Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 07, 2010, 09:47:20 AM 36 results left according to bbc and tories need all 36 to win. my money's on NOM
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 09:50:31 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye No one won, they all lost the two parties who came 2nd and 3rd may stitch it up between them, or may not. Please take an interest next time, democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Beats any TV drama, and a lot of novels You're welcome I turned it on when I got in from town! Was quite intresting! So Gordy Bmeister is still the main man? much more likely (and hopefully imo) this: I suppose my money would be on Labour minus Brown and the LibDems cobbling together a coalition with the price of a coalition being a referendum on voting reform and a few cabinet spots. Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 09:50:52 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye No one won, they all lost the two parties who came 2nd and 3rd may stitch it up between them, or may not. Please take an interest next time, democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Beats any TV drama, and a lot of novels You're welcome I turned it on when I got in from town! Was quite intresting! So Gordy Bmeister is still the main man? Could well be. Since Labour are currently in power, they get first dibs at setting up a coalition. Apparently. I'm going to start a frigging riot if Gordon doesn't GTFO............. Title: Re: results Post by: TightPaulFolds on May 07, 2010, 09:57:03 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye No one won, they all lost the two parties who came 2nd and 3rd may stitch it up between them, or may not. Please take an interest next time, democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Beats any TV drama, and a lot of novels You're welcome I turned it on when I got in from town! Was quite intresting! So Gordy Bmeister is still the main man? Could well be. Since Labour are currently in power, they get first dibs at setting up a coalition. Apparently. I'm going to start a frigging riot if Gordon doesn't GTFO............. bigot ;hide; ;) Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 09:59:00 AM a frigging riot? I'm in!
Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 09:59:07 AM Ok can sumbody please explain in very simple terms to a political noob who won and what it all means! Kthnxbye No one won, they all lost the two parties who came 2nd and 3rd may stitch it up between them, or may not. Please take an interest next time, democracy in action is a wonderful thing. Beats any TV drama, and a lot of novels You're welcome I turned it on when I got in from town! Was quite intresting! So Gordy Bmeister is still the main man? Could well be. Since Labour are currently in power, they get first dibs at setting up a coalition. Apparently. I'm going to start a frigging riot if Gordon doesn't GTFO............. Of course Brown can give the carrot of PR.....but I don't think for one second Clegg is stupid enough to prop up Brown, and even that wont be enough to form a Gov.!! Cameron will be in No.10 this time next week. Title: Re: results Post by: TheChipPrince on May 07, 2010, 10:05:36 AM Will it move quickly after today, or will this drag on for weeks/months?
Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 10:11:08 AM It has to have something in place for monday. Markets will smack govt debt and sterling if not
Title: Re: results Post by: Matt.NFFC. on May 07, 2010, 10:40:56 AM WTF is all this hung parliament nonsense.......a majority is a majority no?
whether its 100 votes or 2 million votes it shouldn't matter. Makes a mockery of democracy IMO. This will only make voters think WHY THE FOOK DID I BOTHER. For the record, I didn't bother voting, glad I didn't make the effort, pointless bs. They're all shit anyway and never give us straight answers. Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 10:43:26 AM a majority is a majority no? no one has a majority Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 10:45:38 AM WTF is all this hung parliament nonsense.......a majority is a majority no? whether its 100 votes or 2 million votes it shouldn't matter. Makes a mockery of democracy IMO. This will only make voters think WHY THE FOOK DID I BOTHER. For the record, I didn't bother voting, glad I didn't make the effort, pointless bs. They're all shit anyway and never give us straight answers. The most seats isn't necessarily a majority, they need 326 which they didnt get >:( Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 10:48:12 AM WTF is all this hung parliament nonsense.......a majority is a majority no? whether its 100 votes or 2 million votes it shouldn't matter. Makes a mockery of democracy IMO. This will only make voters think WHY THE FOOK DID I BOTHER. For the record, I didn't bother voting, glad I didn't make the effort, pointless bs. They're all shit anyway and never give us straight answers. The most seats isn't necessarily a majority, they need 326 which they didnt get >:( It doesn't mean who has won the majority of seats; it means winning the majority of seats in the Commons. There are 650 seats so the majority of seats overall would be 326 Title: Re: results Post by: Matt.NFFC. on May 07, 2010, 10:49:13 AM 291 to 248 (at the momemt) is a fkin majority no?
or do all numbers now count for nothing? So when I drink 5 pints later I can tell the wife I actually had 15 but it doesn't matter as these numbers are actually no different and still mean I only had 5!!! LOL Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 10:49:21 AM % of votes from bbc
Labour 50.4 % have 247 seats Conservative 30.9% have 291 seats Liberal Democrat 13.2% have 51 seats edit : not sure but those figures might just be my constituency am still bleary eyed Title: Re: results Post by: Matt.NFFC. on May 07, 2010, 10:51:19 AM So the 2 million extra votes for the tories counts for shit???
LOL @ democracy Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 10:51:27 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour
Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 10:52:03 AM % of votes from bbc Labour 50.4 % have 247 seats Conservative 30.9% have 291 seats Liberal Democrat 13.2% have 51 seats ? Con 37% Lab 30% LD 23% are the figures Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 10:52:32 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time sounds from what he's saying now that lib dem/labour coalition not on the cards Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 10:52:49 AM % of votes from bbc Labour 50.4 % have 247 seats Conservative 30.9% have 291 seats Liberal Democrat 13.2% have 51 seats ? Con 37% Lab 30% LD 23% are the figures Beat me to it, but I was just going to say, "what are you talking about?" Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 10:53:57 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time sounds from what he's saying now that lib dem/labour coalition not on the cards excuse my partisanship for one moment Get the fk in, well done Clegg for sticking to his guns Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 10:54:18 AM % of votes from bbc Labour 50.4 % have 247 seats Conservative 30.9% have 291 seats Liberal Democrat 13.2% have 51 seats ? Con 37% Lab 30% LD 23% are the figures Beat me to it, but I was just going to say, "what are you talking about?" lol was a long night Title: Re: results Post by: TightPaulFolds on May 07, 2010, 10:55:08 AM So the 2 million extra votes for the tories counts for shit??? LOL @ democracy 2 million extra votes for the tories, Gordon Brown could still be PM. Pretty com. Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 10:55:11 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time sounds from what he's saying now that lib dem/labour coalition not on the cards excuse my partisanship for one moment Get the fk in, well done Clegg for sticking to his guns +1 ;applause; ;applause; ;applause; Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 10:55:39 AM So the 2 million extra votes for the tories counts for shit??? LOL @ democracy more people voted against the tories than for them so the majority is non tories thats if the non tories all stick together Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 07, 2010, 10:56:39 AM That was good from Clegg - quite like the idea of a
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 10:57:21 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time sounds from what he's saying now that lib dem/labour coalition not on the cards excuse my partisanship for one moment Get the fk in, well done Clegg for sticking to his guns what you said makes total sense. Clegg reading this thread before deciding what to do probs :) Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 07, 2010, 10:58:08 AM Majority = more than all the rest put together, think in terms of 50.1% and you'll get there
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 10:58:23 AM That was good from Clegg - quite like the idea of a did he suggest that? I thought he was saying tories should have a bash on their own with no overall majority? Title: Re: results Post by: Matt.NFFC. on May 07, 2010, 10:59:44 AM So the 2 million extra votes for the tories counts for shit??? LOL @ democracy more people voted against the tories than for them so the majority is non tories thats if the non tories all stick together But 2 million votes more than the next closest party count for nothing? Title: Re: results Post by: TightPaulFolds on May 07, 2010, 11:00:27 AM Condemnation imo
Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 11:02:12 AM So the 2 million extra votes for the tories counts for shit??? LOL @ democracy more people voted against the tories than for them so the majority is non tories thats if the non tories all stick together But 2 million votes more than the next closest party count for nothing? Because of the vagaries of the constituency system, no, sadly Tories in 2010 poll higher than Blair and can't get a majority. GG Electoral system.(and Scotland) Had visions of loads of Barbours and Green wellies storming Parliament square if Brown tried to carry on, based on England alone the Tories would have had a very workable majority. Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 07, 2010, 11:03:00 AM Condemnation imo lol, Yeah yr right Claire, perhaps he wasn't inviting the poss of a formal coalition but he can let them try to 'govern' by not aligning formally with labour I guess Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 11:03:39 AM That was good from Clegg - quite like the idea of a did he suggest that? I thought he was saying tories should have a bash on their own with no overall majority? Like Tighty suggested that would probably be better in the long term for the Lib Dems, but they have to resist the temptation to try and grab a bit of power while they can (because they could get more at a later date) I think they'll agree not to block stuff, but without a formal coalition Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 07, 2010, 11:04:38 AM So the 2 million extra votes for the tories counts for shit??? LOL @ democracy more people voted against the tories than for them so the majority is non tories thats if the non tories all stick together But 2 million votes more than the next closest party count for nothing? Because of the vagaries of the constituency system, no, sadly Tories in 2010 poll higher than Blair and can't get a majority. GG Electoral system.(and Scotland) Had visions of loads of Barbours and Green wellies storming Parliament square if Brown tried to carry on, based on England alone the Tories would have had a very workable majority. Hadn't thought about the regional thing, OK I'm now for UDI for England run by the Tories, Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 07, 2010, 11:06:30 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time sounds from what he's saying now that lib dem/labour coalition not on the cards excuse my partisanship for one moment Get the fk in, well done Clegg for sticking to his guns Is that what he said? I'm on the train, so difficult to follow - but wasn't the gist of what he said that if the Tories agree to electoral reform they'd get his backing? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 11:08:16 AM That was good from Clegg - quite like the idea of a did he suggest that? I thought he was saying tories should have a bash on their own with no overall majority? Like Tighty suggested that would probably be better in the long term for the Lib Dems, but they have to resist the temptation to try and grab a bit of power while they can (because they could get more at a later date) I think they'll agree not to block stuff, but without a formal coalition at the very least the markets (given the developing situation in Greece, spain and the US) will require an emergency budget by a Cameron govt asap with cuts. If not the risk of a credit downgrade to UK sovereign debt (increasing borrowing costs on a £163bn deficit leading to more tax rises, VAT rises etc) is too high. If the Libdems abstain on this budget to allow it to pass the tories will get the voter flack and the Libdems will get credit for being "statesmanlike" Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 07, 2010, 11:09:01 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time This is an interesting way to look at it. Taking over with a minority government is a bit of a poisoned chalice, like whoever takes over from Fergie at Old Trafford. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 11:09:31 AM Clegg should think long term. Let the Conservative in as a minority, watch it be really tough for six months, then when the second election comes do a long term deal on PR with Labour Dispassionately, you don't want to win this election...you'll be unpopular for a long long time sounds from what he's saying now that lib dem/labour coalition not on the cards excuse my partisanship for one moment Get the fk in, well done Clegg for sticking to his guns Is that what he said? I'm on the train, so difficult to follow - but wasn't the gist of what he said that if the Tories agree to electoral reform they'd get his backing? He stuck to his earlier commitment to give the party with most seats/votes to get first try it sounded like this meant "have a go as a minority" Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 11:10:36 AM I love politics.
Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 07, 2010, 11:10:55 AM Without a coalition, will a minority Tory government be able to pass anything through? This surely can only lead to another election later in the year, I can't see any other resolution.
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 11:12:11 AM Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 11:12:12 AM Without a coalition, will a minority Tory government be able to pass anything through? This surely can only lead to another election later in the year, I can't see any other resolution. if they do a deal that the Libdems support on a "confidence and supply" basis then its workable, perhaps for a 1-2 year term to allow stability before another election Without this deal a second election in 2010 is inevitable, as the markets will require more to be done than a minority govt can deliver. Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 11:12:52 AM Without a coalition, will a minority Tory government be able to pass anything through? This surely can only lead to another election later in the year, I can't see any other resolution. this is what i imagine will now happen Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 07, 2010, 11:14:46 AM It's a perfect result for labour, they were well behind in the polls for months, the tories were going to walk away with it. There is not a chance in hell the tories will want the electorial change the lib's will demand. If the Tories cannot get in at this time and fuked up country we are then when will they ever get a rullling majority?
lol at the brown hate, remember he saved the world :) Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 11:15:08 AM Without a coalition, will a minority Tory government be able to pass anything through? This surely can only lead to another election later in the year, I can't see any other resolution. It depends how much of a minority it is There's a fair few abstentions on most votes and Sinn Fein don't sit in the commons, put that together with some of the smaller parties voting whichever way they actually agree with then over 300 won't be too bad and over 310 would be 'relatively' easy. Still shortens the length of the parliament, but it might not be drastic. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 11:17:31 AM It's a perfect result for labour, they were well behind in the polls for months, the tories were going to walk away with it. There is not a chance in hell the tories will want the electorial change the lib's will demand. If the Tories cannot get in at this time and fuked up country we are then when will they ever get a rullling majority? lol at the brown hate, remember he saved the world :) they would have got in massively on the English vote alone. Scotland fked them up. I think that the scars of Thatcher are retained in Scottish voter memories far more than elsewhere, and the Tories remain unelectable there. Unlike Wales with seven gains, where results were a bit better I think of all the three parties this result is worst for the Tories. They get all the apin, and no long term gain Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 11:18:11 AM top 5 by votes:
con lab lib ukip bnp bnp in 5th wow Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 11:21:28 AM Sarah Teather wins Brent Central in a lib dem gain. Tank will be pleased ;hide;
If I'm in the HoP and I have one shovel and one chance to hit someone in the face before I'm wrestled to the ground and shipped off to the mental home, it's going to be hard not to choose Sarah Teather... (http://wolverhamptonlibdems.org.uk/images/sites/217.160.173.25-3e678870b1c3f9.89263653/4.jpeg) Which epitomises eveything that's wrong with the libdems very existance. I should be using my shovel on someone that matters. :D Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 11:22:21 AM bnp in 5th wow ? did you think they'd be higher, or lower? Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 11:24:23 AM bnp in 5th wow ? did you think they'd be higher, or lower? a lot lower Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 11:26:43 AM I am not a Labour voter but I thought the Barking result vs BNP was most encouraging.
UKIP are a joke, BNP going nowhere...would expect votes for both in this election to be at a peak relative to subsequent elections Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 11:28:40 AM I am not a Labour voter but I thought the Barking result vs BNP was most encouraging. UKIP are a joke, BNP going nowhere...would expect votes for both in this election to be at a peak relative to subsequent elections still pretty scary imo that over 6k people would stick their cross next to Griffin's name Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 07, 2010, 11:35:22 AM I don't no much about all this chit but I say labour have already done a deal with peg clegg and that will keep labour in is this possible??? Yeah - if they get 326 seats between them. Re: results « Reply #50 on: Today at 09:44:17 PM » ok i am going to put my neck out labour will struggle to keep 230 seats Report to moderator Logged http://ironsidefishypokerdiary.blogspot.com/ Looks like your neck went out to far mate lol 303 with 29 more to come in I predict 323 joint together I think this will happen they wont get near than they will be lucky to get 300 seats between them Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 11:46:19 AM bnp in 5th wow ? did you think they'd be higher, or lower? a lot lower BNP got 1.9% of the vote - 12 or 13 seats in a Proportionally Representative Parliament; they would be a fairly significant minority party if that was the case. Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 11:56:24 AM do all the royals get the chance to vote?
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 11:58:26 AM do all the royals get the chance to vote? they're not constitutionally barred from doing so, but they don't Title: Re: results Post by: Tonji on May 07, 2010, 12:20:16 PM Can only see continued uncertainty with this result. Not good for the Financial Markets over the next few weeks/months. Any budget will not get to the root of the problem. Get the IMF on the phone...
Title: Re: results Post by: TheChipPrince on May 07, 2010, 12:23:55 PM On the colour map on the BBC website if looks 75% blue, you would never guess by looking at that its 292/251 them and Labour.
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 12:26:13 PM On the colour map on the BBC website if looks 75% blue, you would never guess by looking at that its 292/251 them and Labour. it looks better on the proportional view Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 07, 2010, 12:30:49 PM One hour or so ago the two politicans I probably disliked the most in the world were Nick Clegg and Sarah Teather.
I saw Nick Clegg just made a speech that he was probably advised against making. It may have been better for his party to stay quiet for a day, to have a rest and let Brown and Cameron stew, to play the uncertainty of the situation to get whatever he could. To convienently forget what he'd said before the election about working with the party that has the largest mandate. He fought an election under a system that he doesn't like. He did poorly in this election in terms of getting less of a share of the vote that was expected of him and he acknowledged this. The quirks of the voting system have given him an advantage and a disadvantage. He's lost seats, but his position as kingmaker, and Brown having the first chance to make him an offer, gives his party more power than they've ever had before. Having felt the rough edge of one of the quirks and losing seats, he would have been well within his rights to use another quirk to gain power and massive amounts of negotiating leverage. instead he stood up, probably before he knew what was on the table, and said he's a man of his word, he'll work with Cameron before he works with Brown. It swerves the whole constitutional question, Brown cannot form a government without Clegg's help. He's basically said, no thankyou whatever Brown, I'm off to see Cameron first. Might get less than he's hoping for now, a lot less, but it means this situation will likely be sorted out in days rather than weeks. Good for the markets, good for the country, bad for his party. Then Sarah Teather won her seat and it was a tough fight. We're told by the beeb that she could have gone to a safer seat, but she chose to fight the harder one. I'm not an instant convert, but my least favourite politicians in my least favourite party have just demonstrated that their priorities go Country before Party before Self. It's not like I'm suddenly a LibDem, but I've got some respect for two people I wanted to hit with a shovel an hour ago. I find it inspiring that so many seats were decided by less than 200 votes from really high turnouts. Some of them rock hard safe seats. We're all told our vote is wasted but people refused to believe this and turned up and made a difference. I find it inspiring that although the pollsters got things right on a national scale, the swing was far from uniform with only the marginals changing hands. It was the activists on the ground working their butts off making the difference rather than just the TV debates and the bigot gaffes and the newspaper endorsements. Labour held Birmingham Edgbaston but nearly lost Ashfield. The LibDems lost Montgomeryshire but took seats of the Conservatives. I find it inspiring that in a country that the media would have us believe is increasingly xenophobic and racist, no UKIP or BNP candidate came close to winning a seat. At the same time the Greens have made a historic first gain and now have representation in the House. David Cameron said that he wasn't going to do what Tony Blair did in '97 and keep fighting a general election 3 years after he's won it. I think he's going to "roll up his sleeves" work with Nick. I can't explain why I believe him. It really is an age of austerity that's on the way, there does need to be cuts and stuff. I can't explain why I feel so optimistic. I really can't explain why I believe politicians today and not the news media. Maybe it's because I've followed this campaign closely and at so many junctures what everyone assumed to be the case... turned out not to be the case. I really hope David Cameron says something at 2.30pm that makes us think that he'll give Nick Clegg his due and that they can work together. If he spouts only party political blarb and disses Brown then he can gtfo. I can't explain why I think this election has been a good thing for British democracy, but I've done my best. :) Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 07, 2010, 12:37:41 PM just seen Glenda Jackson scrapped through by only 42 votes
Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 12:37:48 PM Great post. Gotta admire clegg's principled approach so far, hope cameron matches it
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 12:44:15 PM Great post. Gotta admire clegg's principled approach so far, hope cameron matches it Also hope Brown matches it Title: Re: results Post by: Dingdell on May 07, 2010, 01:22:58 PM Without a coalition, will a minority Tory government be able to pass anything through? This surely can only lead to another election later in the year, I can't see any other resolution. this is what i imagine will now happen Me too. As we all left last night we agreed to meet again in 9 months! Title: Re: results Post by: Dingdell on May 07, 2010, 01:29:25 PM Ooooh Gordon to speak shortly from Downing Street.
One of the more comedy moments was last night was one of the guys from the BNP asking me out for a drink......tbh his tattooed knuckles with love and hate were obv a turn on for me, his conspiracy theories about how the Royal family were secret nazis and supporters of his party were fascinating and [ ] kept me enthralled but he had a 5 year old son and I try not to go out with single fathers. Obv. WTF did he think we had in common as I re-attached my blue rosette to my top?? Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 01:29:56 PM Brown statement soon......not expected to offer his resignation. Oh dear.
Someone tell him to do a John Major and go off and watch a cricket match this afternoon :) Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 07, 2010, 01:40:52 PM they should have a fight at westminster over the cobbles .,.,all in affair.,.,.,.,
brown evens big weight advatage clegg 6/4 looks like an old army chum cameron 2/1 hes got 2 left feet and a blunt penknife what a load of bollox. ,i like all these pm's saying we want change.,.,.,i wonder how many times they have walked pass the big issue guy or a begger,.,asking for change??? for them to be ignored.,.,.,and be told sorry i dont carry cash.,.,., .,.,bring in obama.,., Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 01:44:07 PM Brown statement soon......not expected to offer his resignation. Oh dear. Someone tell him to do a John Major and go off and watch a cricket match this afternoon :) One of the analysts last night was saying that Gordon Brown might want to think about how he is going to be remembered. He was saying that how people leave has a disproportionate effect on how they're viewed, John Major was the example he gave of how to leave with dignity. Title: Re: results Post by: Dingdell on May 07, 2010, 01:49:42 PM Can someone explain to me how the lib dem surge didn't turn into more results at the ballot box? Somewhere along the line the great response that Clegg got from the public failed to get people voting for him. Were the boundary changes part of it or was there a psychology element?
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 01:51:50 PM Can someone explain to me how the lib dem surge didn't turn into more results at the ballot box? Somewhere along the line the great response that Clegg got from the public failed to get people voting for him. Were the boundary changes part of it or was there a psychology element? The Lib Dem surge was all about people saying they would vote for them, but their share of the vote only went up by about the same as it might have done if they'd done nothing In other words it didn't get them better results in the ballot box because people didn't vote for them I said elsewhere I think it's mainly people looking more closely at their policies and people who were never going to bother voting supporting the Lib Dems over the phone (not enough to go out and vote) Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 01:53:46 PM I repeat GTFO Gordon, nobody wants you.....
Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 07, 2010, 01:54:21 PM I'm kinda meh about the results.
In one way tories getting power means it's more likely we get independance - there's less oil revenue for them to sponge off us now & Scotland leaving gives them a majoirty (I think). But they're arrogant Empire type folk so giving freedom to the oiks would stick in their craw. The usual shite from the Labour machine in scotland got them the usual result in Scotland in a british election, ("you can't survive without us & the other lot will treat you worse" - we're like an abused wife going back to the abusers fml ;frustrated;), which could possibly lead to a better result for the SNP in a Scottish parliament election. I get what Tighty's saying - whoever gets in now gets a poisoned chalice - an independance referendum & the loss of the labour seats in Scotland might just be the rabbit out of the hat for Cameron. Won't be holding my breath though. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 07, 2010, 01:57:35 PM I repeat GTFO Gordon, nobody wants you..... Brown is just Labour's Major - a sacrificial lamb to hopefully lose at an awkward point for the next party in - worst thing for the tories was Major getting in, labour leaders will be dreading achieving power. Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 02:08:49 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 02:11:12 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. I'm worried about collusion Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 07, 2010, 02:41:49 PM Good post Tank, I feel a bit reinvigorated politically after this campaign & election
Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 07, 2010, 02:43:32 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. nah he's got QQ at best (just calling the fish, knowing that a raise will only get called by better) Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 02:50:11 PM irrespective of what happens in the next few days we will all be doing this again in 6 months time!
Greece and europe need sorting out asap or it wont matter which bunch of clowns get it Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 07, 2010, 02:50:44 PM Clegg is going to look terrible if he doesn't agree to work with Cameron now.
Also, a masterstroke to try to get them fully on board to share the opprobrium when cuts start to bite Very good Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 07, 2010, 02:52:05 PM Nice speech....GG Gordon, turn the lights off on your way out.....
Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 07, 2010, 02:52:50 PM Clegg is going to look terrible if he doesn't agree to work with Cameron now. Also, a masterstroke to try to get them fully on board to share the opprobrium when cuts start to bite Very good Also, if they do a deal here and make this work it's GG labour for about a zillion years Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 02:54:04 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. and i would love to see the board run 772 k............ 7 i cant understand why Cameron thinks he can just talk his way into power and the media are with it we have a first past the post system, you didnt get there - now quiten down and let the prime minister attempt to form a government pls - wait your fucking turn - thats what should be happening it ironic that the party who dismisss PR now really want to rely on it - please settle down in the blue corner Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 07, 2010, 02:56:11 PM if the tories get a good run for 4-5 years they will be deeply unpopular with the cuts that need to be made. Gives time for labour to re-invent themselves into old labour again and get back in power :) minus brown ofcourse.
should be interesting though after camerons speech he seems keen to work with lib. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 02:59:24 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. and i would love to see the board run 772 k............ 7 i cant understand why Cameron thinks he can just talk his way into power and the media are with it we have a first past the post system, you didnt get there - now quiten down and let the prime minister attempt to form a government pls - wait your fucking turn - thats what should be happening it ironic that the party who dismisss PR now really want to rely on it - please settle down in the blue corner They've got the most seats and the most votes, Clegg and Brown have both said that Cameron has got the first opportunity to work out a deal Title: Re: results Post by: Josedinho on May 07, 2010, 03:01:24 PM This is top notch stuff. Not been a fan of any of the leaders so far but voted for convservative policies. Then today i've been impressed with all 3 of them so far.
Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:07:13 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. and i would love to see the board run 772 k............ 7 i cant understand why Cameron thinks he can just talk his way into power and the media are with it we have a first past the post system, you didnt get there - now quiten down and let the prime minister attempt to form a government pls - wait your fucking turn - thats what should be happening it ironic that the party who dismisss PR now really want to rely on it - please settle down in the blue corner They've got the most seats and the most votes, [ ] this matters under our constitution i am aware of what brown said. He IMO, is taking one last gamble. He knows that if COn's cant agree anything with Lib Dem, they arent getting in. He sees their policies as being so far apart that it is worth a punt. Shit or bust of you will Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 07, 2010, 03:09:03 PM Better than any soap opera imo. Just missing Tighty's input. Slacker.
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 07, 2010, 03:11:35 PM i am aware of what brown said. He IMO, is taking one last gamble. He knows that if COn's cant agree anything with Lib Dem, they arent getting in. He sees their policies as being so far apart that it is worth a punt. Shit or bust of you will this. As things stand the tories and lib dems are too far apart on some important issues. One or the other of them is going to have to do a lot of selling out in order to be able to work together fully as a coalition and I can't see it happening. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 03:11:48 PM At the airport! What a wonderful 24 hours this has been. No idea what clegg will do.
Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 07, 2010, 03:13:04 PM I do hope clegg insists the Tories move away from the right wing facists they seem to be aligned with in Europe :)
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:14:37 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. and i would love to see the board run 772 k............ 7 i cant understand why Cameron thinks he can just talk his way into power and the media are with it we have a first past the post system, you didnt get there - now quiten down and let the prime minister attempt to form a government pls - wait your fucking turn - thats what should be happening it ironic that the party who dismisss PR now really want to rely on it - please settle down in the blue corner They've got the most seats and the most votes, [ ] this matters under our constitution i am aware of what brown said. He IMO, is taking one last gamble. He knows that if COn's cant agree anything with Lib Dem, they arent getting in. He sees their policies as being so far apart that it is worth a punt. Shit or bust of you will When the only people who the PM can form a government with have said no then it's the other side's turn. Can we have a referendum in England about Scotland's independence please? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:14:51 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. and i would love to see the board run 772 k............ 7 i cant understand why Cameron thinks he can just talk his way into power and the media are with it we have a first past the post system, you didnt get there - now quiten down and let the prime minister attempt to form a government pls - wait your fucking turn - thats what should be happening it ironic that the party who dismisss PR now really want to rely on it - please settle down in the blue corner They've got the most seats and the most votes, [ ] this matters under our constitution i am aware of what brown said. He IMO, is taking one last gamble. He knows that if COn's cant agree anything with Lib Dem, they arent getting in. He sees their policies as being so far apart that it is worth a punt. Shit or bust of you will You said you couldn't understand how he expected to just talk his way into power, I was pointing out that there was a bit more to it than that. Technically under our constitution Brown is now able to look into forming a government, but he has said that all the parties can take part in discussions with this aim. If the Conservatives and the Lib Dems come to a workable agreement Brown will resign and Cameron will form the next government - not because he has to, but because he should do; and that is what really matters under our constitution. Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 07, 2010, 03:22:32 PM Think Lib Dems will walk away from any offer that doesn't include a referendum on proper PR. Don't think the Tories can offer this. Cameron will try to form a minority government but I think Labour will woo LDs with referendum & cabinet seats.
Fantastic stuff! Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:23:38 PM Wouldn't LibLab still be a minority government though?
Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:24:56 PM lol....Brown has just chucked in his last chip, holding 7 2 off. Clegg has ave chips, gone off on a break, and Cameron, chip leader holding KK, is going to call. and i would love to see the board run 772 k............ 7 i cant understand why Cameron thinks he can just talk his way into power and the media are with it we have a first past the post system, you didnt get there - now quiten down and let the prime minister attempt to form a government pls - wait your fucking turn - thats what should be happening it ironic that the party who dismisss PR now really want to rely on it - please settle down in the blue corner They've got the most seats and the most votes, [ ] this matters under our constitution i am aware of what brown said. He IMO, is taking one last gamble. He knows that if COn's cant agree anything with Lib Dem, they arent getting in. He sees their policies as being so far apart that it is worth a punt. Shit or bust of you will You said you couldn't understand how he expected to just talk his way into power, I was pointing out that there was a bit more to it than that. Technically under our constitution Brown is now able to look into forming a government, but he has said that all the parties can take part in discussions with this aim. If the Conservatives and the Lib Dems come to a workable agreement Brown will resign and Cameron will form the next government - not because he has to, but because he should do; and that is what really matters under our constitution. thanks for pointing that out, ;carlocitrone; i am well aware of what will happen, brown has been gracious from start to finish, Cameron is just showing what a power hungry freak he is. I think that there are enough Lib Dems who are anti tory for it not to work, and I dont see clegg having a personal agenda for power like cameron and therefore i hope he will only doing something which is right the country and/or his party Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:28:14 PM I still don't quite understand.
The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 07, 2010, 03:30:26 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? Because it's not a majority? Because that's the rules they are most strongly in support of? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:32:23 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? Because it's not a majority? Because that's the rules they are most strongly in support of? Ok I should have said why shouldn't they 'try' to form a government? Because outrageous seems to be suggesting that they're acting badly in even considering the idea that they should be in charge next. Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:33:19 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so OK - so brown has told them he is happy to see if LD and Con can form a working majority.............. and at that point I refer you to my previous comments why DO you think that a party without a majority should walk into government? are you aware of how totally unsustainable it will be? That is why we have a majority based system Title: Re: results Post by: Josedinho on May 07, 2010, 03:38:10 PM You can't say "Brown told him to do so" but then expect that he shouldn't just because Brown only said it because it;s the last throw of his dice.
Brown invited them to do so, so they are. Simples. Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 07, 2010, 03:38:49 PM Wouldn't LibLab still be a minority government though? yeah. even with the sdlp mob in tow they're short Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:41:06 PM You can't say "Brown told him to do so" but then expect that he shouldn't just because Brown only said it because it;s the last throw of his dice. Brown invited them to do so, so they are. Simples. i didnt say brown told them anything....................... other than he was happy that they tried they are, they will hopefully fail and the silver spooned tw@t will crawl back into his mansion for a while VInce cable needs to come up trumps here as he is about as polar opposite from tory as a Lib Dem will ever get Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:43:08 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so OK - so brown has told them he is happy to see if LD and Con can form a working majority.............. and at that point I refer you to my previous comments why DO you think that a party without a majority should walk into government? are you aware of how totally unsustainable it will be? That is why we have a majority based system "why DO you think that a party without a majority should walk into government?" - where does that come from? They've been talking about working with the Lib Dems, and they could try doing it with an informal case by case basis with a minority government, and it's all been done after the Lib Dems said the Conservatives should have a try and after Gordon Brown said the Conservatives should have a try. The consensus amongst the analysts is that all three leaders have handled it pretty well, so I think it might show more about your preconceived ideas colouring your view of the situation then anything that's actually happening. The next government won't serve a full term, but ruling with a minority is far from catastrophic whilst work needs to be done on the economy, it's only after that where real policy differences on less urgent matters come into play that another election will have to be called to give a single party a mandate. Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:43:31 PM VInce cable needs to come up trumps here as he is about as polar opposite from tory as a Lib Dem will ever get A self publicising flip flopper? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:43:52 PM ... they are, they will hopefully fail and the silver spooned tw@t will crawl back into his mansion for a while ... yes, good objective political judgement - I'm sure that couldn't possibly prejudice your view Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 03:47:14 PM because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so what are you talking about? Clegg insisted this morning on talking to Cameron first (clearly he has the most legitimacy), Cameron is making an offer and then we'll see if the Libdems go for it and on what basis Once the hung parliament civil service framework has been implemented any party can talk to any other, Brown stays prime minister until a resolution is reached Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 03:50:53 PM Guido Fawkes seems to think a Lib/Con pact and electoral reform could banish Labour from government for ever:
http://order-order.com/2010/05/07/the-change-coalition-part-iii/ It's round about here I get confused by what the lid dems are about. The liberal side seems to fit with the tories but the socialists side with Labour. Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:52:34 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so OK - so brown has told them he is happy to see if LD and Con can form a working majority.............. and at that point I refer you to my previous comments why DO you think that a party without a majority should walk into government? are you aware of how totally unsustainable it will be? That is why we have a majority based system The next government won't serve a full term, but ruling with a minority is far from catastrophic whilst work needs to be done on the economy, it's only after that where real policy differences on less urgent matters come into play that another election will have to be called to give a single party a mandate. rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao gg me listening to anymroe points you have ok - first vote on important changes in a minority led tory govt spending cuts immediately (their policy) vote in house of commons fails as it isnt lib dem or labour policy hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - do you envisage any problems with your plan? Cameron is in it for himself - not the country - that is why i dislike him as an individual I can assure you that financially, personally I would be MUCH better off under a tory govt, however, i have a social concience too, which outweighs my perosnal gain on the whole. i have no problem telling people that i dislike cameron, why i dislike him, my reasons for it, and why i think like that Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 07, 2010, 03:53:08 PM ... they are, they will hopefully fail and the silver spooned tw@t will crawl back into his mansion for a while ... yes, good objective political judgement - I'm sure that couldn't possibly prejudice your view He's got a point - what in Cameron's past qualifies him to run anything? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 03:54:13 PM I think the Libdems will go for "confidence and supply"..abstain to allow the basic Con bills to go through, but not be associated with the imminent pain that a lot of the electorate still does not realise is coming, in terms of scale
Turn their back on the tories and support Labour now (propping up a leader who has polled at Micahel Foot levels is ludicrous) and I think they'll be punished big style in all the LibDem/Tory marginals where a lot of their seats are, in the second election Clegg should play it long, keep any deal informal and at arms length, and claim correctly he acted in the national interest when he goes up against Cameron and Milliband in the autumn. At that point go for the electoral reform joker and put a proper coalition in place with Labour if they win it, or settle for seats in a Con government with some policies enacted if Cameron wins the second one View sorted. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 07, 2010, 03:54:43 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so OK - so brown has told them he is happy to see if LD and Con can form a working majority.............. and at that point I refer you to my previous comments why DO you think that a party without a majority should walk into government? are you aware of how totally unsustainable it will be? That is why we have a majority based system The next government won't serve a full term, but ruling with a minority is far from catastrophic whilst work needs to be done on the economy, it's only after that where real policy differences on less urgent matters come into play that another election will have to be called to give a single party a mandate. rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao gg me listening to anymroe points you have ok - first vote on important changes in a minority led tory govt spending cuts immediately (their policy) vote in house of commons fails as it isnt lib dem or labour policy hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - do you envisage any problems with your plan? Cameron is in it for himself - not the country - that is why i dislike him as an individual I can assure you that financially, personally I would be MUCH better off under a tory govt, however, i have a social concience too, which outweighs my perosnal gain on the whole. i have no problem telling people that i dislike cameron, why i dislike him, my reasons for it, and why i think like that Not sure you're right there - they all know they need to have spending cuts - if the tories get in as a minority they will be pagged back a bit in where they make the cuts, but I have no doubt they'd still get cuts through. Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:55:23 PM because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so what are you talking about? Clegg insisted this morning on talking to Cameron first (clearly he has the most legitimacy), Cameron is making an offer and then we'll see if the Libdems go for it and on what basis Once the hung parliament civil service framework has been implemented any party can talk to any other, Brown stays prime minister until a resolution is reached correct but brown has the first right to try and form a govt, that is all i was saying - Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 03:56:14 PM Guy you are misguided, the markets and if necessary the IMF will force a severe plan of cuts to go through, whatever administration we have in a weeks time. It's that serious
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 03:56:23 PM Guido Fawkes seems to think a Lib/Con pact and electoral reform could banish Labour from government for ever: http://order-order.com/2010/05/07/the-change-coalition-part-iii/ It's round about here I get confused by what the lid dems are about. The liberal side seems to fit with the tories but the socialists side with Labour. It is interesting the Liberal history of the party is closer to the Conservatives but the Social Democrat side is obviously closer to Labour It's skewed slightly by the fact that they have a significant radical element, but the underlying principles of the party 'should' mean they could work with either the Conservatives or Labour Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 03:57:33 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so OK - so brown has told them he is happy to see if LD and Con can form a working majority.............. and at that point I refer you to my previous comments why DO you think that a party without a majority should walk into government? are you aware of how totally unsustainable it will be? That is why we have a majority based system The next government won't serve a full term, but ruling with a minority is far from catastrophic whilst work needs to be done on the economy, it's only after that where real policy differences on less urgent matters come into play that another election will have to be called to give a single party a mandate. rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao gg me listening to anymroe points you have ok - first vote on important changes in a minority led tory govt spending cuts immediately (their policy) vote in house of commons fails as it isnt lib dem or labour policy hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - do you envisage any problems with your plan? Cameron is in it for himself - not the country - that is why i dislike him as an individual I can assure you that financially, personally I would be MUCH better off under a tory govt, however, i have a social concience too, which outweighs my perosnal gain on the whole. i have no problem telling people that i dislike cameron, why i dislike him, my reasons for it, and why i think like that Not sure you're right there - they all know they need to have spending cuts - if the tories get in as a minority they will be pagged back a bit in where they make the cuts, but I have no doubt they'd still get cuts through. brown will spend 2010 and cut 2011 Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 03:57:47 PM because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so what are you talking about? Clegg insisted this morning on talking to Cameron first (clearly he has the most legitimacy), Cameron is making an offer and then we'll see if the Libdems go for it and on what basis Once the hung parliament civil service framework has been implemented any party can talk to any other, Brown stays prime minister until a resolution is reached correct but brown has the first right to try and form a govt, that is all i was saying - well not this time he doesn't. He does constitutionally but he was left no choice once Clegg who committed in the run up to the election to give highest votes/highest seats first dibs, confirmed this this morning. Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 03:59:01 PM ... they are, they will hopefully fail and the silver spooned tw@t will crawl back into his mansion for a while ... yes, good objective political judgement - I'm sure that couldn't possibly prejudice your view He's got a point - what in Cameron's past qualifies him to run anything? same as Blair and Thatcher? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 03:59:05 PM I still don't quite understand. The Conservatives have the most seats and the most votes, why do you think they shouldn't form a government? because until they are invited to do so they have no right to do so OK - so brown has told them he is happy to see if LD and Con can form a working majority.............. and at that point I refer you to my previous comments why DO you think that a party without a majority should walk into government? are you aware of how totally unsustainable it will be? That is why we have a majority based system The next government won't serve a full term, but ruling with a minority is far from catastrophic whilst work needs to be done on the economy, it's only after that where real policy differences on less urgent matters come into play that another election will have to be called to give a single party a mandate. rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao gg me listening to anymroe points you have ok - first vote on important changes in a minority led tory govt spending cuts immediately (their policy) vote in house of commons fails as it isnt lib dem or labour policy hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - do you envisage any problems with your plan? Cameron is in it for himself - not the country - that is why i dislike him as an individual I can assure you that financially, personally I would be MUCH better off under a tory govt, however, i have a social concience too, which outweighs my perosnal gain on the whole. i have no problem telling people that i dislike cameron, why i dislike him, my reasons for it, and why i think like that Not sure you're right there - they all know they need to have spending cuts - if the tories get in as a minority they will be pagged back a bit in where they make the cuts, but I have no doubt they'd still get cuts through. brown will spend 2010 and cut 2011 If Spain goes, that policy is unworkable. The servicing cost of UK debt will soar, the deficit will go higher, government creditors would be panicky and cuts would have to happen now. Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 07, 2010, 04:00:48 PM im talking stated policy
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 04:01:12 PM ... they are, they will hopefully fail and the silver spooned tw@t will crawl back into his mansion for a while ... yes, good objective political judgement - I'm sure that couldn't possibly prejudice your view He's got a point - what in Cameron's past qualifies him to run anything? Cameron - nothing. Clegg - nothing. Brown - bankrupted the country. We're screwed either way! :P Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 04:01:32 PM Guido Fawkes seems to think a Lib/Con pact and electoral reform could banish Labour from government for ever: http://order-order.com/2010/05/07/the-change-coalition-part-iii/ It's round about here I get confused by what the lid dems are about. The liberal side seems to fit with the tories but the socialists side with Labour. It is interesting the Liberal history of the party is closer to the Conservatives but the Social Democrat side is obviously closer to Labour It's skewed slightly by the fact that they have a significant radical element, but the underlying principles of the party 'should' mean they could work with either the Conservatives or Labour speaking from personal experience the LidDem local activists are much more extreme than the MPs they elect. Any ConLib deal stands no chance if it has to be voted on by LibDem members Similarly Cam may have problems with Con members, many of who are 1980s Thatcherite dinosaurs. those T-Rexes are unelectable without a social conscience that I believe many of the new Tory MPs have Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 04:02:09 PM I think the Libdems will go for "confidence and supply"..abstain to allow the basic Con bills to go through, but not be associated with the imminent pain that a lot of the electorate still does not realise is coming, in terms of scale Turn their back on the tories and support Labour now (propping up a leader who has polled at Micahel Foot levels is ludicrous) and I think they'll be punished big style in all the LibDem/Tory marginals where a lot of their seats are, in the second election Clegg should play it long, keep any deal informal and at arms length, and claim correctly he acted in the national interest when he goes up against Cameron and Milliband in the autumn. At that point go for the electoral reform joker and put a proper coalition in place with Labour if they win it, or settle for seats in a Con government with some policies enacted if Cameron wins the second one View sorted. I think this 'should' happen The only thing that might affect it is if the Lib Dems get scared that either the Conservatives or Labour will get a surge of support between now and the next election. I don't see this hapenning but if they do worry about it then that would push them into seeking a deal to give them some return sooner rather than later Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 04:02:52 PM im talking stated policy fair enough. I am merely making the point that the speed of global events means that stated policy looks optimistic to me We haven't got a year to wait, if the Eurozone situation worsens. Which it demonstrably has since the Labour manifesto came out Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 07, 2010, 04:04:51 PM Anyway, just wanted to say this has been a fantastic thread (I'm off on a plane now), and a pretty amazing 18 hours of politics watching
Well done everyone. Title: Re: results Post by: The Camel on May 07, 2010, 04:11:08 PM Guido Fawkes seems to think a Lib/Con pact and electoral reform could banish Labour from government for ever: http://order-order.com/2010/05/07/the-change-coalition-part-iii/ It's round about here I get confused by what the lid dems are about. The liberal side seems to fit with the tories but the socialists side with Labour. I remember when Labour got thwacked in 1983 (and to a lesser extent in 1992) and when Major/Howard got trounced by Blair all the pundits said Labour/Conservatives* (delete as appropriate) would never be in power again. It was a load of old bollox then, and it is now. Circumstances change massively. Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 07, 2010, 04:13:00 PM I guess he's thinking that PR would mean LD and Con coalition would always have a majority between and they would combine as a small government government against the statist Labour party.
Just read here that Clegg might have no choice but to turn down Cameron: http://charlottegore.com/2010/05/07/cleggs-impossible-position.html Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 07, 2010, 04:14:00 PM I don't like PR, I love the democracy as it is.
Bring on the referendum though. Just bring it. Let's work together baby!!!! Tory fiscal responsibility to sort out the credit card bill coupled with libdem social responsibility to stop us snatching too much milk. Politicians fixing the reputation of parliament by showing they can talk to each other. Having to talk about pros and cons of policies for a change, rather than just bullshitting and obfuscating. More of a mandate in Scotland than 1 seat. gg Salmond, not the dream result you thought it was 3 hours ago. This could be a historic day. or it could all go wrong. Zomg tho, they're giving it a boosch. Title: Re: results Post by: The Camel on May 07, 2010, 04:18:21 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR.
It is so ridiculously unfair that one person vote in a marginal constituency counts so much more than someone elses in a safe constituency. And that the LDs can garner almost as many votes as Labour and only win a quarter of the seats. PR doesn't make the German economy suffer too badly, does it? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 04:22:49 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. It is so ridiculously unfair that one person vote in a marginal constituency counts so much more than someone elses in a safe constituency. And that the LDs can garner almost as many votes as Labour and only win a quarter of the seats. PR doesn't make the German economy suffer too badly, does it? With first past the post, you can get second place in every constituency but not get any MP's With PR you can get 100% of the vote within a constituency, but not get elected. They're the simplistic extremes, but PR is certainly not without it's problems. Title: Re: results Post by: Dingdell on May 07, 2010, 06:11:22 PM Just watching the Cameron speech - he says he welcomes input from the lib dems then he licked his lips - surely a sign of discomfort and lying if my poker books are right?
Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 07:33:05 PM ok imagine the senerio
clegg and cameron find there isnt enough common ground and talks break down brown gets on phone to clegg and clegg says we cant support you as PM the labour party big wigs tell brown to FO, and then get back to clegg with no leadership in place for labour they agree to a pact with clegg as PM possible? Title: Re: results Post by: The Camel on May 07, 2010, 07:42:26 PM ok imagine the senerio clegg and cameron find there isnt enough common ground and talks break down brown gets on phone to clegg and clegg says we cant support you as PM the labour party big wigs tell brown to FO, and then get back to clegg with no leadership in place for labour they agree to a pact with clegg as PM possible? All extremely possible. Until the last line. Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 07:48:52 PM ok imagine the senerio clegg and cameron find there isnt enough common ground and talks break down brown gets on phone to clegg and clegg says we cant support you as PM the labour party big wigs tell brown to FO, and then get back to clegg with no leadership in place for labour they agree to a pact with clegg as PM possible? All extremely possible. Until the last line. you dont think that labour would agree to a labour government topped up with a few libs with clegg as a figurehead while they get there ship in order before a november elevtion? Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 07, 2010, 07:52:15 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. It is so ridiculously unfair that one person vote in a marginal constituency counts so much more than someone elses in a safe constituency. And that the LDs can garner almost as many votes as Labour and only win a quarter of the seats. PR doesn't make the German economy suffer too badly, does it? With first past the post, you can get second place in every constituency but not get any MP's With PR you can get 100% of the vote within a constituency, but not get elected. They're the simplistic extremes, but PR is certainly not without it's problems. That's why I quite like the compromise between the 2 systems as used in the Scottish Parliament. Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:05:51 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. It is so ridiculously unfair that one person vote in a marginal constituency counts so much more than someone elses in a safe constituency. And that the LDs can garner almost as many votes as Labour and only win a quarter of the seats. PR doesn't make the German economy suffer too badly, does it? With first past the post, you can get second place in every constituency but not get any MP's With PR you can get 100% of the vote within a constituency, but not get elected. They're the simplistic extremes, but PR is certainly not without it's problems. That's why I quite like the compromise between the 2 systems as used in the Scottish Parliament. i dont like the scottish system as there seems to be 2 classes of MSP, Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 08:06:07 PM ok imagine the senerio clegg and cameron find there isnt enough common ground and talks break down brown gets on phone to clegg and clegg says we cant support you as PM the labour party big wigs tell brown to FO, and then get back to clegg with no leadership in place for labour they agree to a pact with clegg as PM possible? don't think we will get to the second line. Cameron will run a minority gov with the lib dems allowing only certain legislation. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 08:06:35 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. It is so ridiculously unfair that one person vote in a marginal constituency counts so much more than someone elses in a safe constituency. And that the LDs can garner almost as many votes as Labour and only win a quarter of the seats. PR doesn't make the German economy suffer too badly, does it? With first past the post, you can get second place in every constituency but not get any MP's With PR you can get 100% of the vote within a constituency, but not get elected. They're the simplistic extremes, but PR is certainly not without it's problems. That's why I quite like the compromise between the 2 systems as used in the Scottish Parliament. That would be the kind of option I wouldn't mind so much if PR was introduced, also the German model is quite good. UK >>>>>>>> bigger than Scotland UK <> significantly different political system to Germany But something could be done eventually, they'd just need to adapt the right system with the right modifications to make it work. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 08:07:32 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. It is so ridiculously unfair that one person vote in a marginal constituency counts so much more than someone elses in a safe constituency. And that the LDs can garner almost as many votes as Labour and only win a quarter of the seats. PR doesn't make the German economy suffer too badly, does it? With first past the post, you can get second place in every constituency but not get any MP's With PR you can get 100% of the vote within a constituency, but not get elected. They're the simplistic extremes, but PR is certainly not without it's problems. That's why I quite like the compromise between the 2 systems as used in the Scottish Parliament. i dont like the scottish system as there seems to be 2 classes of MSP, First past the post you're voting for the person PR you're voting for the party A combination model like Scotland (and most places with PR), makes sense you just do both. Doesn't it? Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:19:04 PM not when you get same people on the list as in the first past post
joe bloggs beats tony boggs in the first past the post with a huge 25% majority but tony is on list and get in on there then comes a issue in the area and joe tells tony to bugger off as he kicked his butt in the fpp system happens in scotland Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 08:26:45 PM not when you get same people on the list as in the first past post joe bloggs beats tony boggs in the first past the post with a huge 25% majority but tony is on list and get in on there then comes a issue in the area and joe tells tony to bugger off as he kicked his butt in the fpp system happens in scotland I think that comes under making sure any system is implemented well. And highlights a problem with PR, Tony Boggs is rejected overwhelmingly by a constituency but if it was purely a PR system he'd still end up as an MP because of votes gained in other parts of the country. Title: Re: results Post by: Ironside on May 07, 2010, 08:30:37 PM true PR will give us a hung parlament every election and really take away the joys of an election
i'd prefer a single transferable vote where a candidate doesnt get into a seat untill they get 50% of the votes will still give us good election nights will give smaller parties a chance but also mean that we are still able to have majority single party government Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 07, 2010, 09:08:47 PM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows.
I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories? Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government? I just don't see what's in it for them. If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position. Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 07, 2010, 09:15:10 PM ... Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. On what basis? Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 07, 2010, 09:24:28 PM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories? Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government? I just don't see what's in it for them. If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position. Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. The UK financial markets desperately need a stable gov.....a lib/tory coalition (360 ish seats) gives that. Lib dems can take credit for thinking of the country. The lib dems can take credit for any "good policy" they can push through, and dissociate with the bad. They don't need to do a formal coalition...and can keep at arms length. None of them have seen inside No.10. Title: Re: results Post by: Ecosse on May 07, 2010, 09:52:56 PM Ok, I will not refer or quote to previous accurate analysis lol.
Shady situation but TightEnd has been explaining all. My biggest shock in this election is the fact that in my own constituency (Renfrewshire East), Jim Murphy actually increased his share of the vote to 50. something % WOW. Scotland will never learn. Labour = Communism = FAIL Gerrymandering (boundary changes) of course has made this a safe labour seat, check the history of the seat (used to be safest seat in Scotland) for Tory. Thatcher legacy does live on for sure. I'll be heading to the nearest pub as soon as she pops her clogs. .............. Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 08, 2010, 03:33:21 AM hahahaa, GTFO squatter.............
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2964713/Gordon-Brown-squatting-in-No-10.html Title: Re: results Post by: MANTIS01 on May 08, 2010, 10:21:26 AM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories? Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government? I just don't see what's in it for them. If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position. Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. The Lib Dems aren't abandoning their main principle, which is to do what's best for the people of the country. With the Conservatives winning most votes and most seats and the country crying out for stability I think anything other than a pact with the Tories would be amiss. If they get into bed with Labour there is no majority and no stability. With just 50 odd seats the opportunity for Clegg to influence the direction of the country with Cameron is a greater power than his actual seats should offer. I can see Clegg getting into the cabinet giving him valuable experience he could never have dreamed of and an opportunity to see the inside workings of the Tories. All that is much better for the Lib Dems than just taking their 50 seats, going home, and not wanting to play government anymore. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 08, 2010, 10:33:55 AM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories? Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government? I just don't see what's in it for them. If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position. Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. The Lib Dems aren't abandoning their main principle, which is to do what's best for the people of the country. With the Conservatives winning most votes and most seats and the country crying out for stability I think anything other than a pact with the Tories would be amiss. If they get into bed with Labour there is no majority and no stability. With just 50 odd seats the opportunity for Clegg to influence the direction of the country with Cameron is a greater power than his actual seats should offer. I can see Clegg getting into the cabinet giving him valuable experience he could never have dreamed of and an opportunity to see the inside workings of the Tories. All that is much better for the Lib Dems than just taking their 50 seats, going home, and not wanting to play government anymore. Would a ConDem coalition provide long-term stability and give Clegg the ability to influence the direction of the country, or really just provide them with the veneer of power where they can try and put a spanner in Tory proposals they don't agree with? LibDem policies certainly wouldn't be promoted by this pact. The best thing for the country might be no coalition, and a short-term minority government under the Tories, followed by another election this year. Just in my opinion. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 08, 2010, 10:52:31 AM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. I'm also sure that a vast number of Lib Dem voters weren't voting for the Lib Dems to see the Tories in power. On a different slant, what do the Lib Dems gain from a coalition with the Tories? Are the Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, so power-craved that they'll abandon a lot of their parties values and principles just to have a spoiling say in an interim government? I just don't see what's in it for them. If they allow the Tories to enter into a temporary minority government and then make their voice known in the subsequent election they place themselves in a much stronger position. Also, if there's another election this year, I'd expect to see a lot more votes/seats going the Lib Dems' way. They dropped their knickers to Labour in the Scottish Parliament so quick it was unbelievable (a few years back) - a great many points on their manifesto were not negotiable..... which is true, they were dropped immediately they had a sniff of a Minister's job. Hopefully the UK party will have a bit more spine. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 08, 2010, 11:30:26 AM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour. If my party puts up a 19 year old on a gap year I'm probably going to vote for someone else. There are problems with FPTP, but surprsing number of safe seats changed hands, or almost changed hands this year. A sign that politics becoming less tribal all the time, a trend that people are making up their own minds more and more rather than voting just for who their parents did. Long way to go still obv. I like how election night is uncertain. With national polling being more and more accurate, under PR we might be able to know who won and by how much before we actually vote. My biggest worry is that a party can get in who just cites populist policies that sound good in the pub or in the columns of redtop newspapers but don't take into account the complexity of the situation, or potential negative ramifications. If 70% of people everywhere know you're shite, it'll be tough to get enough votes in a single seat as you can only work with the 30% who are idiots. Under PR obv they've got a chance to get a decent number of seats. I don't know if we need to pay public money to stick a load of MPs from wacky parties in the commons to talk bollox and slow things up. Not just right wing wacky, you'll get a lot of seats taken up by single issue lefty parties. Facebook group to promote the Pro Squirrel party, who to be fair don't just look after squirrels, but other woodland creatures who happen to be cute. The idea that PR is completely and unquestionalbly fair is also a bit of a fallacy. If you had a deal between 1st place and 3rd place party, more people voted for 2nd place party but they have less power than 3rd place party. It's not an out of the world example that 3 times as many people could vote for 2nd place than 3rd place, but 3rd place party ends up with 3 times the amount of actual power. Under PR you've still got the safe seats for top brass, in fact, unless you spend money on having primary elections of something like that, the safe seats are about 5,000 times safer. I'm not against the idea of reform altogether, but I don't want to go full on into PR with both feet. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 08, 2010, 11:48:43 AM ... I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour. ... This is my main problem with PR, the principle of voting for someone to represent you rather than some party is much more important than the people who focus on the safe seats and party politics would give credit. A lot of seats with this election were decided on local issues, with PR those issues wouldn't matter. Even in combination methods which try and make the election 'more' proportionate you are likely to end up with constituency sizes which are much larger than the current ones, further removing the representative link between constituency and MP (and we are meant to have a representative democracy after all) Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 08, 2010, 12:15:57 PM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference. The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 08, 2010, 12:24:32 PM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference. The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues. Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority. That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised. To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit. Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo). Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 08, 2010, 12:26:25 PM A blogger made a list of where they align and where they don't:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/areas-where-cooperation-between-conservatives-and-the-liberal-democrats-is-easy-possible-improbable-.html Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 08, 2010, 12:30:53 PM LOL - I like the way they've glossed over the fundamental differences, and focused on the points where there is a scrap of common ground.
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 08, 2010, 12:33:43 PM I think where the fundamental differences aren't the economy/urgent they'll just want to get on with it and sort it out later for the good of the country.
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 08, 2010, 12:40:15 PM As Hannan says:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100038675/an-entente-with-the-lib-dems-is-not-impossible/ (I quite like Dan Hannan) Title: Re: results Post by: neeko on May 08, 2010, 12:46:56 PM Given that all parties are going to throw out every thing in their manifestos the moment they see the financial figures, I find it funny that all politicians that appear on tv only talk about there policies as if they intent to stick to them.
I think that a combination of con lab would be good, let's face it there is more in common between cameron and clegg than between bill cash and ken Clarke. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 08, 2010, 01:58:08 PM ... I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour. ... This is my main problem with PR, the principle of voting for someone to represent you rather than some party is much more important than the people who focus on the safe seats and party politics would give credit. When? Apart froma couple of protest votes, the over use of the party whip has made MP's personality/approach to local issues even less of a relevance. Unless you've a George Galloway type who you know will fight for his constituents whatever happens, then you're stuck with party drones scared to rock the boat. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 08, 2010, 02:01:25 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour. If my party puts up a 19 year old on a gap year I'm probably going to vote for someone else. There are problems with FPTP, but surprsing number of safe seats changed hands, or almost changed hands this year. A sign that politics becoming less tribal all the time, a trend that people are making up their own minds more and more rather than voting just for who their parents did. Long way to go still obv. I like how election night is uncertain. With national polling being more and more accurate, under PR we might be able to know who won and by how much before we actually vote. My biggest worry is that a party can get in who just cites populist policies that sound good in the pub or in the columns of redtop newspapers but don't take into account the complexity of the situation, or potential negative ramifications. If 70% of people everywhere know you're shite, it'll be tough to get enough votes in a single seat as you can only work with the 30% who are idiots. Under PR obv they've got a chance to get a decent number of seats. I don't know if we need to pay public money to stick a load of MPs from wacky parties in the commons to talk bollox and slow things up. Not just right wing wacky, you'll get a lot of seats taken up by single issue lefty parties. Facebook group to promote the Pro Squirrel party, who to be fair don't just look after squirrels, but other woodland creatures who happen to be cute. The idea that PR is completely and unquestionalbly fair is also a bit of a fallacy. If you had a deal between 1st place and 3rd place party, more people voted for 2nd place party but they have less power than 3rd place party. It's not an out of the world example that 3 times as many people could vote for 2nd place than 3rd place, but 3rd place party ends up with 3 times the amount of actual power. Under PR you've still got the safe seats for top brass, in fact, unless you spend money on having primary elections of something like that, the safe seats are about 5,000 times safer. I'm not against the idea of reform altogether, but I don't want to go full on into PR with both feet. Sorry Tank we need a far better argument than FPTP fuels my gambling & competitive fire. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 08, 2010, 02:06:50 PM ... I like to know who I'm voting for, not just picking my favourite colour. ... This is my main problem with PR, the principle of voting for someone to represent you rather than some party is much more important than the people who focus on the safe seats and party politics would give credit. When? Apart froma couple of protest votes, the over use of the party whip has made MP's personality/approach to local issues even less of a relevance. Unless you've a George Galloway type who you know will fight for his constituents whatever happens, then you're stuck with party drones scared to rock the boat. There were several results that came in on election night where the trend for or against one party or another was attributed to 'local issues', so in several places the individuals approach and attitude was directly relevant to the result. And it has to be remembered that most of the legislation that the Commons works on isn't very interesting or very important and doesn't involve a lot of the MP's. If you have a vote on some minor regulation which affects land based fishing fleets for example then not many of the 650 MP's are going to pay it any attention, but if you live in a town with a land based fishing fleet you're going to be appreciative of an electoral system where your MP can be brought to account on which way they voted (or whether they voted). That's a specific example, but most constituencies will be greatly affected by minor pieces of regulation which don't matter at the national level Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 08, 2010, 02:08:55 PM ..So the people that voted for the publicity hound & the loonball (all IMO & IYO) get no representation at all???? ... No, they get represented by the MP who was elected. They represent the whole of their constituency, not just their voters. They may not represent those who didn't vote for them as closely, but those voters still have a voice in Parliament. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 08, 2010, 02:43:22 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday
Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties Title: Re: results Post by: MANTIS01 on May 08, 2010, 02:45:13 PM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference. The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues. Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority. That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised. To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit. Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo). One of the fundamentals of the Lib Dems is every vote counting, together with fair politics. If the Lib Dems reject the Tories offer and try to hop into bed with Labour they reject the importance of 2 million of those votes and the actual result of the election. The time isn't right for tribal no compromise politics from radicals within a party. It is time for the parties to work together and put less urgent issues on the backburner for the good of the country. Most countries in Europe don't have a majority government, Obama doesn't have a majority. If Clegg can't work together with Cameron it would be to everyone's detriment imo, but I'm sure he will. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 08, 2010, 02:50:14 PM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference. The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues. Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority. That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised. To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit. Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo). One of the fundamentals of the Lib Dems is every vote counting, together with fair politics. If the Lib Dems reject the Tories offer and try to hop into bed with Labour they reject the importance of 2 million of those votes and the actual result of the election. The time isn't right for tribal no compromise politics from radicals within a party. It is time for the parties to work together and put less urgent issues on the backburner for the good of the country. Most countries in Europe don't have a majority government, Obama doesn't have a majority. If Clegg can't work together with Cameron it would be to everyone's detriment imo, but I'm sure he will. You're not listening to what I've said. I haven't said a LabDem coalition is what they want either. The actual result of the election is that most people didn't vote Tory - yet you're saying they should hold majority power. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 08, 2010, 02:51:03 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. ...and instead we get Nadine Dorries. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 08, 2010, 03:00:15 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. ...and instead we get Nadine Dorries. Nadine is much maligned, very nice person and excellent MP. Spent a lot of time with her in the last month. Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 08, 2010, 03:03:48 PM I just don't see the Lib Dems and Tories as great bed-fellows. In the same way that Lib Dems and Labour aren't, Lib Dems are small government, Labour Big - a fundamental difference. The parliamentary Lib Dems have been voting with the Tories against Labour for a long time too and whenever I watched PMQs Clegg and Cameron were raising the same kind of issues. Of course they voted with the Tories on some issues, they were in opposition to a government with a majority. That's not the same thing as siding up to the Tories now and fighting for scraps in the hope they get some of their policies raised. To say the LibDems and the Tories are aligned in their policies is pushing it quite a bit. Not saying they're close to Labour either, but this isn't the opportunity the LibDems have been craving for (again all imo). One of the fundamentals of the Lib Dems is every vote counting, together with fair politics. If the Lib Dems reject the Tories offer and try to hop into bed with Labour they reject the importance of 2 million of those votes and the actual result of the election. The time isn't right for tribal no compromise politics from radicals within a party. It is time for the parties to work together and put less urgent issues on the backburner for the good of the country. Most countries in Europe don't have a majority government, Obama doesn't have a majority. If Clegg can't work together with Cameron it would be to everyone's detriment imo, but I'm sure he will. If a lab/lib coalition had a majority Clegg wouldn't be having anymore than cursory discussions with the Tories no matter how many votes they got. Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 08, 2010, 03:05:43 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 08, 2010, 03:10:55 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 08, 2010, 03:17:28 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. It's not likely that anybody would do a deal with the BNP, but if a party got about 315 seats they could do a deal with a party of that size to form a government. How is it a democratic or a fair process when a party the size of the BNP could end up in government? Maybe only a couple of ministers and some influence - but still in government Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 08, 2010, 03:22:18 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. It's not likely that anybody would do a deal with the BNP, but if a party got about 315 seats they could do a deal with a party of that size to form a government. How is it a democratic or a fair process when a party the size of the BNP could end up in government? Maybe only a couple of ministers and some influence - but still in government Thats what I'm saying - any system should ensure that a certain % of voters have to support a party before it gets seats in parliament. Title: Re: results Post by: byronkincaid on May 08, 2010, 03:41:28 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. ...and instead we get Nadine Dorries. Nadine is much maligned, very nice person and excellent MP. Spent a lot of time with her in the last month. hope you've claimed for your expenses Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 08, 2010, 03:46:42 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. ...and instead we get Nadine Dorries. Nadine is much maligned, very nice person and excellent MP. Spent a lot of time with her in the last month. hope you've claimed for your expenses volunteer Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 08, 2010, 08:29:49 PM If a lab/lib coalition had a majority Clegg wouldn't be having anymore than cursory discussions with the Tories no matter how many votes they got. You say that but I reckon Clegg has more in common with the tories than he does with Labour. Also looks like Labour are trying to derail the ConDem coalition in private: http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/05/07/a-libcon-coalition-is-the-only-route-but/ Quote By now we all know about the Liberal “triple lock” - Nick has to get any coalition deal through his party - and as we speak Labour high command are beavering away to make sure that a Lib/Con deal breaks down. Phonelines are hot as they call senior Liberal MPs and activists to put pressure on Nick NOT to do a Tory deal - using the “Tories wont give you PR , we will” line. How do I know - I had a call from a “mate” from the other side asking me who in my opinion were the big guns on the Federal Executive (oh how I laughed). Title: Re: results Post by: Ecosse on May 09, 2010, 01:21:07 AM Have a laugh while it all unfolds.
B3ta has some seriously talented graphic artists :- http://www.b3ta.com/links/General_Election_2010_by_b3ta Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 09, 2010, 09:25:50 AM So the people that voted for the publicity hound & the loonball (all IMO & IYO) get no representation at all??? The people have their say and we get a government. There's always going to be winners and losers. You're the one telling me that an MP who is in parliament but not in government isn't worth a shite. If you use PR, you just get a different kind of injustice with your perpetual hung parliaments and your third place party having power and your second place party having none. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 09, 2010, 11:01:39 AM Almost every election under first past the post has been won by the party with about 40% of the vote
Under proportional representation this would mean that either a party that only gets about 10% of the vote forms part of the government - is that fair? or The only other significant party, the Lib Dems, joins with the winners to form a government. So our choice would be between a Lib Lab government or a Lib Con government - how can an electoral system where we can't vote out the Lib Dems be fair or democratic? Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 09, 2010, 12:16:03 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. ...and instead we get Nadine Dorries. Nadine is much maligned, very nice person and excellent MP. Spent a lot of time with her in the last month. hope you've claimed for your expenses LOL He's claimed £40K of expenses, but unfortunately knows nothing about it. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 09, 2010, 12:19:58 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. Which is of course exactly how PR systems work in reality, with a percentage threshold that has to be reached before seats are allocated. But that doesn't make for such extreme, scaremongering headlines. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 09, 2010, 12:24:58 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. Which is of course exactly how PR systems work in reality, with a percentage threshold that has to be reached before seats are allocated. But that doesn't make for such extreme, scaremongering headlines. ;D it's not scaremongering, it's debating skillz In Germany it's 5%, which probably shuts out the BNP. But under first past the post people don't always vote for who they want because they know they can't win - it's not inconceivable that their share of the vote could go up if PR was introduced. And it doesn't alter the fact that a party who less than 10% of the country vote for could end up as part of the Government. Title: Re: results Post by: Geo the Sarge on May 09, 2010, 12:59:59 PM I really cannot see any cogent argument against PR. Lembit Opik and Phillipa Stroud would have gotten seats under PR. Instead we used first past the post. The electorate got the chance to tell the publicity hungry gonk and the nut who used to try to heal gay people by prayer to bugger off. ...and instead we get Nadine Dorries. Nadine is much maligned, very nice person and excellent MP. Spent a lot of time with her in the last month. hope you've claimed for your expenses LOL He's claimed £40K of expenses, but unfortunately knows nothing about it. Gave me a chuclkle - lol Geo Title: Re: results Post by: curnow on May 09, 2010, 01:59:59 PM http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nick-Clegg-/290433096884?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_Tickets_Tickets_LE&hash=item439f295cb4
Nick Clegg for sale on ebay , only 46 bids so far + 5 pages of questions lol Title: Re: results Post by: KarmaDope on May 09, 2010, 03:08:03 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. Which is of course exactly how PR systems work in reality, with a percentage threshold that has to be reached before seats are allocated. But that doesn't make for such extreme, scaremongering headlines. ;D it's not scaremongering, it's debating skillz In Germany it's 5%, which probably shuts out the BNP. But under first past the post people don't always vote for who they want because they know they can't win - it's not inconceivable that their share of the vote could go up if PR was introduced. And it doesn't alter the fact that a party who less than 10% of the country vote for could end up as part of the Government. That could conceivably happen now, because if we have a Lab-Lib coalition they are gonna need the SNP and Plaid Cymru (along with the SDLP, but thats a given) with them to get a majority of seats, and I can see someone giving them a seat on Government to get them in. Scarily enough, not only did the aforementioned parties have less than 10% of the vote, they also had less votes than the BNP!! Title: Re: results Post by: redsimon on May 09, 2010, 03:27:52 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. Which is of course exactly how PR systems work in reality, with a percentage threshold that has to be reached before seats are allocated. But that doesn't make for such extreme, scaremongering headlines. ;D it's not scaremongering, it's debating skillz In Germany it's 5%, which probably shuts out the BNP. But under first past the post people don't always vote for who they want because they know they can't win - it's not inconceivable that their share of the vote could go up if PR was introduced. And it doesn't alter the fact that a party who less than 10% of the country vote for could end up as part of the Government. That could conceivably happen now, because if we have a Lab-Lib coalition they are gonna need the SNP and Plaid Cymru (along with the SDLP, but thats a given) with them to get a majority of seats, and I can see someone giving them a seat on Government to get them in. Scarily enough, not only did the aforementioned parties have less than 10% of the vote, they also had less votes than the BNP!! They also stood in less seats than fascists did? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 09, 2010, 04:31:02 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. Which is of course exactly how PR systems work in reality, with a percentage threshold that has to be reached before seats are allocated. But that doesn't make for such extreme, scaremongering headlines. ;D it's not scaremongering, it's debating skillz In Germany it's 5%, which probably shuts out the BNP. But under first past the post people don't always vote for who they want because they know they can't win - it's not inconceivable that their share of the vote could go up if PR was introduced. And it doesn't alter the fact that a party who less than 10% of the country vote for could end up as part of the Government. That could conceivably happen now, because if we have a Lab-Lib coalition they are gonna need the SNP and Plaid Cymru (along with the SDLP, but thats a given) with them to get a majority of seats, and I can see someone giving them a seat on Government to get them in. Scarily enough, not only did the aforementioned parties have less than 10% of the vote, they also had less votes than the BNP!! You can still get it occurring like now with first past the post But only about once every 20 or 30 years, with Proportional Representation you'll get it every election. (or the alternative where the Lib Dems are constantly in government) Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 09, 2010, 04:43:26 PM If we a had a pure PR system the BNP would have won 12 seats on Thursday Now that may not give much influence, but it is to my mind the major downside to pure PR...the voice in legislative corridors it gives to extreme parties but why should parties, however extreme or abhorrant (to most of us) their views, be denied a voice if they are representing a significant minority of people who voted them in? That's true democracy imo. Of course if I had my way I'd support a system that didn't let any tories in, but that's never gonna happen :) Because I think that it is reasonable for a point of view to have a certain quorum before it is taken seriously in the democratic process. Which is of course exactly how PR systems work in reality, with a percentage threshold that has to be reached before seats are allocated. But that doesn't make for such extreme, scaremongering headlines. ;D it's not scaremongering, it's debating skillz In Germany it's 5%, which probably shuts out the BNP. But under first past the post people don't always vote for who they want because they know they can't win - it's not inconceivable that their share of the vote could go up if PR was introduced. And it doesn't alter the fact that a party who less than 10% of the country vote for could end up as part of the Government. That could conceivably happen now, because if we have a Lab-Lib coalition they are gonna need the SNP and Plaid Cymru (along with the SDLP, but thats a given) with them to get a majority of seats, and I can see someone giving them a seat on Government to get them in. Scarily enough, not only did the aforementioned parties have less than 10% of the vote, they also had less votes than the BNP!! They also stood in less seats than fascists did? Quite a few less: SNP 59 candidates 491376 votes of 2465720 votes cast 19.93% of votes cast. BNP 338 candidates 564321 votes of 15259156 votes cast 3.70% of votes cast. * Results from downloaded results spreadsheet from the Telegraph - BNP total a little bit (600 odd) higher than I've seen reported elsewhere. Still makes the point. Now trying to work out how many seat's they'd have got under the Scottish system. Title: Re: results Post by: david3103 on May 09, 2010, 05:39:12 PM 1. - PR doesn't mean dividing all the seats directly in poroportion to the vote.
2. - Coalition is not the only way around the issues arising from a 3. - If David Cameron can't negotiate his way around the current position with the strength of position he holds then he isn't fit to be PM. The Conservatives are the only party with a realisitic chance of making any sort of agreement which would give them a strong enough position to do anything. The LibDems are the most obvious partner in this, but not the only partner. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 09, 2010, 06:19:41 PM Using the PR system currently in use for the NI Assembly & the Scottish Parliament, I've calculated the following results:
Party Current PR Votes Party Current PR Votes Con 306 252 10706388 Lab 258 214 8601349 LD 57 147 6827832 DUP 8 5 168216 SNP 6 11 491376 SF 5 5 171942 PC 3 4 165394 SDLP 3 3 110970 Ind 1 2 192899 Gren 1 1 285616 Allinc 1 1 42762 UCUNF 0 3 102361 BNP 0 1 564321 UKIP 0 0 917175 Note 1: This is a mathematical calculation - in reality new larger constituencies would return 8 MPs each, so the individual constituencies now would be amalgamated. The method seems to apportion seats more evenly according to amount of votes cast. Minority parties without a 'heartland' suffer under it as other minority parties with less votes get a seat but they don't (UKIP being best example) %ages show a more even spread although still a bit skewed to the big parties. Party_ Seat% PR%_ Vote % Con___ 47.1% 38.8% 36.1% Lab___ 39.8% 33.0% 29.0% LD____ 8.78% 22.7% 23.0% DUP__ 1.23% 0.77% 0.57% SNP__ 0.92% 1.69% 1.66% SF____ 0.77% 0.77% 0.58% PC____ 0.46% 0.62% 0.56% SDLP_ 0.46% 0.46% 0.37% Ind____ 0.15% 0.31% 0.65% Green 0.15% 0.15% 0.96% Sorry about the alignment Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 11:58:06 AM BBC Political reporter Laura Kuenssberg is the definition of a rising star. What a watch she has been for five weeks now. Different gravy
Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 10, 2010, 12:46:19 PM BBC Political reporter Laura Kuenssberg is the definition of a rising star. What a watch she has been for five weeks now. Different gravy As a Sky News devotee (hush) I haven't had the pleasure. Do you have any video evidence of her talents you could post? Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 12:52:54 PM ...or just a purdy picture would do.
We'll take your word that she's good at the talky talky news stuff. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 01:10:32 PM best I can do
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 01:14:41 PM New Tory poster is out today:
I've never voted Tory before - turns out I didn't need to, thanks to Nick Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 02:01:46 PM Outline of a deal in place, Brown statement coming this pm I am told
get on those 24 hour news channels, to which I am totally addicted. Title: Re: results Post by: Josedinho on May 10, 2010, 02:05:11 PM Any ideas what we're going for?
Is it definitely Cameron as PM and just whether it Lib Dems have formed a formal coalition or not or has the Lib-Lab coalition still got a chance? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 02:06:35 PM Any ideas what we're going for? Is it definitely Cameron as PM and just whether it Lib Dems have formed a formal coalition or not or has the Lib-Lab coalition still got a chance? No idea here. Just idle gossip that things have moved on and if anyone is as sad as me and addicted to this stuff, you might like to keep a look out Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 02:07:01 PM http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/
For those not near a TV. Contains such tilting statements as: James from Edinburgh writes: 81% of Scots voted for Labour, Lib Dems or the SNP, with the Tories only winning one seat out of 59. Nick Clegg is selling out on his party's principles and will only ensure that there will now be two hated political parties north of the border. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 02:21:44 PM seen on Twitter
@Queen_UK: Ok, listen up boys. Decision day. It's not that fucking difficult. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 02:31:32 PM Compared to the 2005 result the number of seats that changed hands was the third highest in post war history. This is despite 0/59 Scottish seats changing hands.
Best government for Scotland I think would be a free speech dictatorship. No power to change who's in charge but at least we're still allowed to moan about it. Would save having these pesky elections. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 02:37:35 PM What I like the most about this election is the Daily Mirror's call for tactical voting to stop a privately educated toff being in charge of the country.
gg Daily Mirror, we now have 2 privately educated toffs in charge instead. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 02:44:34 PM BBC Political reporter Laura Kuenssberg is the definition of a rising star. What a watch she has been for five weeks now. Different gravy She is quality. Though poor lass looks like she could do with a decent nights kip... (http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/tigmong/bbcwifey-1.jpg) Reporting live on history kicking off takes its toll. Title: Re: results Post by: Josedinho on May 10, 2010, 04:12:33 PM Nothing statement from the Lib Dems
Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 04:13:21 PM Nothing statement from the Lib Dems LibDem MPs playing hard to get Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 04:15:53 PM Thomas, from Peterborough, writes: It's becoming clear to me that British politics is in need of a greater overhaul than even the Lib Dems dare suggest. Separating the English, Scottish and Welsh parliaments is the only measure that will satisfy everyone - England would have a majority Tory government by now, Scotland and Wales Labour ones. Surely the results speak for themselves?
(from the beeb) Interesting point. It does seem odd to me that Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments but also have MPs who have influence over England. (sure there's a famous name for this problem but I can't remember it now). Something I thought of: 650 seats in parliament, 649 declared. 326 makes a majority. Sinn Fein have 5, don't sit in parliament so 645 seats, 323 majority. Last seat is 'safe' tory so they have 307. They need 16 more for a majority. If Lib Dems don't do a deal with the Tories could they get a majority from defections/minor parties? Would some of the more right wing (relatively speaking) and libertarian LDs prefer to work with the Tories than Labour or be tempted by power/ministerial posts? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 04:17:45 PM A Lib Dem, Labour, SDLP, Plaid Cymru, SNP coalition hits a majority
How do you fancy that lasting longer than six months though? Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 04:21:59 PM Would the (English) public really be happy to see Welsh and Scottish parties hold the balance of power over England?
I'm Welsh but live in England and it seems messed up to me... Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 04:26:06 PM The West Lothian question is the Scottish MPs voting on English only matters iirc.
Problem with Cameron doing deals with nationalists is that their line will not be any policy concessions or anything like that, just an amount of £££. Not to cut the block grant to the devolved governments. This isn't really in national interest. Cuts will need to be deeper in England to pay for that so he would risk losing the support of the only people who like him at the moment. People in Scotland/Wales will take the money but it'll be Plaid or the SNP that they thank and not Cameron. It's very close to a suicidal move imo. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 04:28:22 PM The West Lothian question is the Scottish MPs voting on English only matters iirc. Problem with Cameron doing deals with nationalists is that their line will not be any policy concessions or anything like that, just an amount of £££. Not to cut the block grant to the devolved governments. This isn't really in national interest. Cuts will need to be deeper in England to pay for that so he would risk losing the support of the only people who like him at the moment. It's very close to a suicidal move imo. Plaid Cymru and the SNP are both socialist parties anyway so I'm pretty sure it's a non-starter. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 04:32:17 PM Plaid in particular have said that they'll happily sell out to anyone at the drop of a hat and have already named their price.
The phonecall isn't coming. Or at least I hope it isn't from Cameron. It just can't be justified Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 04:34:23 PM the phone call would go from Brown to PC (£400m was the price) and SNP...but it would be wildly unpopular with English voters at a time when they will be asked for "austerity" to cut the deficit
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 10, 2010, 04:35:24 PM Would the (English) public really be happy to see Welsh and Scottish parties hold the balance of power over England? I'm Welsh but live in England and it seems messed up to me... thought it was UK ELECTION no? dunno why they dont allow all individual countries run thre own affairs personally then we'd see who does the best job.. or is it all down to £££'s? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 04:36:52 PM It's because we are a Union, the United Kingdom. A constitutional point first and foremost, then a matter for politics and finances
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 10, 2010, 04:39:57 PM It's because we are a Union, the United Kingdom. A constitutional point first and foremost, then a matter for politics and finances i understand that,but do you think it would work if we were all to be self goverened? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 04:41:49 PM It's because we are a Union, the United Kingdom. A constitutional point first and foremost, then a matter for politics and finances i understand that,but do you think it would work if we were all to be self goverened? Well Scotland, Wales and NI are! England gets the pain, but not the gain. Currently, obv going back the NS oil revenue meant the relationship was hugely skewed in England's favour Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 10, 2010, 04:42:28 PM There really is only 2 options.
Tories go it alone and another election in 6 months to a year. Or, some kind of deal is done with the tories and lib dems with a 2 to 4 year time frame. Answer by tomorrow or Wednesday is my best guess. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 04:43:08 PM I've argued for an independant Aberdeen for quite some time. :)
Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 04:44:39 PM Also an independant London. Then call the rest of the UK a 3rd world country and get some of the foreign aid coin coming in.
Simples Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 10, 2010, 04:56:16 PM Also an independant London. Then call the rest of the UK a 3rd world country and get some of the foreign aid coin coming in. Simples oh i like this lol as long as we can keep boris Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 05:12:56 PM Everything up for grabs then
Brown goes asap, formal negotiations with LibDems Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 10, 2010, 05:16:24 PM brown's smartest move since becoming pm
Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 05:17:19 PM Fascinating game play
Like playing risk, minus the board. Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 10, 2010, 05:21:54 PM David Miliband pls, good jewish lad whos dad was a prof. at Leeds Uni :)
Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 10, 2010, 05:24:48 PM David Miliband pls, good jewish lad whos dad was a prof. at Leeds Uni :) fk off he's a total knob and so is Clegg btw - he is taking too long over a situation that he should have entirely envisaged pre-election. Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 10, 2010, 05:25:42 PM David Miliband pls, good jewish lad whos dad was a prof. at Leeds Uni :) fk off he's a total knob and so is Clegg btw - he is taking too long over a situation that he should have entirely envisaged pre-election. fk off? whats up with Miliband? I read lots about his dad, well funny about as left wing as you can get. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 05:28:36 PM Anyone but Balls.
If Ed Balls is our Prime Minister I may have to take to the streets. Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 10, 2010, 05:29:45 PM brown's smartest move since becoming pm wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 10, 2010, 05:29:59 PM David Miliband pls, good jewish lad whos dad was a prof. at Leeds Uni :) fk off he's a total knob and so is Clegg btw - he is taking too long over a situation that he should have entirely envisaged pre-election. fk off? whats up with Miliband? I read lots about his dad, well funny about as left wing as you can get. His tenure of the foreign office has been characterised by american arse-lickiing at every opportunity. Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 10, 2010, 05:32:28 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action
Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 10, 2010, 05:36:41 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 10, 2010, 05:37:17 PM David Miliband pls, good jewish lad whos dad was a prof. at Leeds Uni :) fk off he's a total knob and so is Clegg btw - he is taking too long over a situation that he should have entirely envisaged pre-election. fk off? whats up with Miliband? I read lots about his dad, well funny about as left wing as you can get. His tenure of the foreign office has been characterised by american arse-lickiing at every opportunity. not sure I agree, but if it is true then its not a massive crime I will hold against him. I dont think he has been afraid to say what he thinks in the past wether its pissed people off or not (terrorism, isreal) I know that rattled some Americans chain. Clever man with a personality that Brown lacked. Ed Balls on the other case....grrrr Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 10, 2010, 05:37:21 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action lets go round again... Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 05:49:22 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. okay Quote I quite like that brown is now in his second term without ever receiving a mandate from the electorate to lead the country and if we go liblab he'll be followed by another pm who hasn't received a mandate from the electorate to lead the country. democracy in action better? Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 10, 2010, 05:52:42 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. okay Quote I quite like that brown is now in his second term without ever receiving a mandate from the electorate to lead the country and if we go liblab he'll be followed by another pm who hasn't received a mandate from the electorate to lead the country. democracy in action better? this Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 10, 2010, 05:53:33 PM lol at sky boulton v campbell
Title: Re: results Post by: pleno1 on May 10, 2010, 05:54:21 PM sky news now. gogogooggogoogoggogo. fighgttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 06:04:38 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. He wasn't elected as leader of his party either as he bullied all possible opponents into submission... Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 10, 2010, 06:10:29 PM This gives Clegg move leverage with Cameron, and gets him a better PR deal,........but still the only strong stable gov is a tory one with lib dem coalition or understanding, and Clegg knows it.
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 06:13:28 PM This gives Clegg move leverage with Cameron, and gets him a better PR deal,........but still the only strong stable gov is a tory one with lib dem coalition or understanding, and Clegg knows it. Depends what level Cameron is playing at If he knows that a LibLab coalition will look hugely undemocratic then he knows he can hold out Title: Re: results Post by: Teacake on May 10, 2010, 06:14:39 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. okay Quote I quite like that brown is now in his second term without ever receiving a mandate from the electorate to lead the country and if we go liblab he'll be followed by another pm who hasn't received a mandate from the electorate to lead the country. democracy in action better? this John Major & Alex Douglas Hume say :hello: Title: Re: results Post by: Teacake on May 10, 2010, 06:20:07 PM lol at sky boulton v campbell I've been pissing myself for the last hour at Boulton looking like he would spew at any moment then Campbell comes on and he looks like he's going to have a heart attack, he has lost the plot. Boulton has as much credibility as Gordon Brown :D Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 10, 2010, 06:50:53 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. He wasn't elected as leader of his party either as he bullied all possible opponents into submission... lol he pushed the chips in and no one called - did you expect him to check it down like a girly libdem? Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 06:53:29 PM AV
Who likes AV? Makes no sense to me. As I understand it everyone's first choice gets counted and if no-one has >50% then the last place candidate is eliminated and the peeps that voted for them have their 2nd choice votes counted instead. So you count the second choice votes of the craziest people first. Is that how it works? Probs good for the Tories in a lot of places, UKIP voters 2nd choice (presumably Tory) would be counted before the LibDem voters 2nd choice (presumably Labour) Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 10, 2010, 06:54:56 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. okay Quote I quite like that brown is now in his second term without ever receiving a mandate from the electorate to lead the country and if we go liblab he'll be followed by another pm who hasn't received a mandate from the electorate to lead the country. democracy in action better? this its irrelevant - the way it works is a bod goes to see the Queen and says "I'm it" and she says "whatever" Whether you like it or agree with it is another point. Title: Re: results Post by: curnow on May 10, 2010, 06:55:17 PM lol at sky boulton v campbell YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8 Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 10, 2010, 07:04:22 PM lol at sky boulton v campbell YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8 Now that's how politics should be debated/argued/shouted about :D Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 10, 2010, 07:05:53 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. okay Quote I quite like that brown is now in his second term without ever receiving a mandate from the electorate to lead the country and if we go liblab he'll be followed by another pm who hasn't received a mandate from the electorate to lead the country. democracy in action better? this John Major & Alex Douglas Hume say :hello: that's completely lost me. major got the largest number of votes ever didn't he? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 07:07:46 PM AV Who likes AV? Makes no sense to me. As I understand it everyone's first choice gets counted and if no-one has >50% then the last place candidate is eliminated and the peeps that voted for them have their 2nd choice votes counted instead. So you count the second choice votes of the craziest people first. Is that how it works? Probs good for the Tories in a lot of places, UKIP voters 2nd choice (presumably Tory) would be counted before the LibDem voters 2nd choice (presumably Labour) This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm) has an estimate based on results and polls for how the main 2 alternatives would have affected the 2005 result. Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 10, 2010, 07:08:34 PM Hahaha that argument was quality, its hard to win v campbell though as he's a great PR man and able to keep cool under pressure.
Title: Re: results Post by: The Baron on May 10, 2010, 07:13:35 PM Pmsl! GG Boulton
Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 10, 2010, 07:14:10 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. You may technically be correct, but that still doesn't stop it pissing people off and causing resentment against him because of it. In my eyes he is unelected too, I didn't mind Blair either tbh so its not because I'm anti labour. Title: Re: results Post by: The Baron on May 10, 2010, 07:15:27 PM Agree about Brown being 'unelected' for what it's worth.
Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 10, 2010, 07:18:53 PM apart from the obv fact that it'd never happen is there anything to stop a conlab coalition happening if they get fed up with clegg?
Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 10, 2010, 07:27:11 PM apart from the obv fact that it'd never happen is there anything to stop a conlab coalition happening if they get fed up with clegg? Nah Labour are in metagame mode - they've got rid of Brown so they are already positioning themselves for the next election that prob won't be far away as it looks like libdems aren't getting what they want from the cons. Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 10, 2010, 07:29:16 PM apart from the obv fact that it'd never happen is there anything to stop a conlab coalition happening if they get fed up with clegg? Nah Labour are in metagame mode - they've got rid of Brown so they are already positioning themselves for the next election that prob won't be far away as it looks like libdems aren't getting what they want from the cons. I meant constitutionally. is there something like the MMC for politics to stop them forming a super party Title: Re: results Post by: Ecosse on May 10, 2010, 07:32:02 PM (http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pound1.jpg?w=480&h=277) Pound crashes. LOL, just lol at Labour being back in government. Title: Re: results Post by: sofa----king on May 10, 2010, 07:32:50 PM Boulton is on suppaaaaa tilt lmao
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 07:33:53 PM apart from the obv fact that it'd never happen is there anything to stop a conlab coalition happening if they get fed up with clegg? Nah Labour are in metagame mode - they've got rid of Brown so they are already positioning themselves for the next election that prob won't be far away as it looks like libdems aren't getting what they want from the cons. I meant constitutionally. is there something like the MMC for politics to stop them forming a super party No, but they'd lose core support and splinter parties would rise up to take the place of the opposition Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 10, 2010, 07:35:24 PM AV Who likes AV? Makes no sense to me. As I understand it everyone's first choice gets counted and if no-one has >50% then the last place candidate is eliminated and the peeps that voted for them have their 2nd choice votes counted instead. So you count the second choice votes of the craziest people first. Is that how it works? Probs good for the Tories in a lot of places, UKIP voters 2nd choice (presumably Tory) would be counted before the LibDem voters 2nd choice (presumably Labour) This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm) has an estimate based on results and polls for how the main 2 alternatives would have affected the 2005 result. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 07:42:47 PM AV Who likes AV? Makes no sense to me. As I understand it everyone's first choice gets counted and if no-one has >50% then the last place candidate is eliminated and the peeps that voted for them have their 2nd choice votes counted instead. So you count the second choice votes of the craziest people first. Is that how it works? Probs good for the Tories in a lot of places, UKIP voters 2nd choice (presumably Tory) would be counted before the LibDem voters 2nd choice (presumably Labour) This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm) has an estimate based on results and polls for how the main 2 alternatives would have affected the 2005 result. It's also the preferred option for Labour [ ] shocker Title: Re: results Post by: gatso on May 10, 2010, 07:44:43 PM apart from the obv fact that it'd never happen is there anything to stop a conlab coalition happening if they get fed up with clegg? Nah Labour are in metagame mode - they've got rid of Brown so they are already positioning themselves for the next election that prob won't be far away as it looks like libdems aren't getting what they want from the cons. I meant constitutionally. is there something like the MMC for politics to stop them forming a super party No, but they'd lose core support and splinter parties would rise up to take the place of the opposition but libdems would be the opposition, why would splinter parties replace them? or do you mean long term? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 07:46:31 PM apart from the obv fact that it'd never happen is there anything to stop a conlab coalition happening if they get fed up with clegg? Nah Labour are in metagame mode - they've got rid of Brown so they are already positioning themselves for the next election that prob won't be far away as it looks like libdems aren't getting what they want from the cons. I meant constitutionally. is there something like the MMC for politics to stop them forming a super party No, but they'd lose core support and splinter parties would rise up to take the place of the opposition but libdems would be the opposition, why would splinter parties replace them? or do you mean long term? Yeah long term New Tory and New New Labour (although Lib Dems could get flooded with ex Labour supporters instead) Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 07:47:10 PM It's only an estimate. Dunno about y'all but I only put one cross on my ballot paper.
Title: Re: results Post by: Teacake on May 10, 2010, 07:53:59 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. okay Quote I quite like that brown is now in his second term without ever receiving a mandate from the electorate to lead the country and if we go liblab he'll be followed by another pm who hasn't received a mandate from the electorate to lead the country. democracy in action better? this John Major & Alex Douglas Hume say :hello: that's completely lost me. major got the largest number of votes ever didn't he? He was an unelected PM for about 18 months. My point being that its not that unusual Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 08:09:31 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. okay Quote I quite like that brown is now in his second term without ever receiving a mandate from the electorate to lead the country and if we go liblab he'll be followed by another pm who hasn't received a mandate from the electorate to lead the country. democracy in action better? this John Major & Alex Douglas Hume say :hello: that's completely lost me. major got the largest number of votes ever didn't he? He was an unelected PM for about 18 months. My point being that its not that unusual It's not unknown but it's still unusual. And having 2 in a row would be unknown. Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 08:27:00 PM From the BBC:
Some clarification. Labour are planning to offer the Lib Dems a bill on bringing in the AV electoral system and a referendum on a fuller system of proportional representation, Lib Dem sources tell the BBC. The Tories, by contrast, are offering a referendum on AV and fixed-term parliaments. Surely the Tory offer is the fairest and most democratic? Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 08:38:03 PM I quite like that brown is now in his second term without being elected and if we go liblab he'll be followed by an unelected pm. democracy in action I wish ppl wld stop saying this - we don't have primeminesterial elections in this country. So the words "unelected pm" are completely meaningless. He wasn't elected as leader of his party either as he bullied all possible opponents into submission... lol he pushed the chips in and no one called - did you expect him to check it down like a girly libdem? It would be a bit closer to shoving the chips in and then pointing out the casino is his mate and he'll bar you if you call. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 08:40:56 PM Labour are all over the place. All over the place.
Days like these, 24Hour news is incred. Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 10, 2010, 09:01:40 PM Never thought I would ever agree with Labour's ex Home Secretary John Reed. Well said! Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 09:02:45 PM Never thought I would ever agree with Labour's ex Home Secretary John Reed. Well said! :o I know, shocking amount of sense being talked Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 10, 2010, 09:08:17 PM Never thought I would ever agree with Labour's ex Home Secretary John Reed. Well said! :o I know, shocking amount of sense being talked I can honestly say I have never heard a politician speak with such clarity, in so few words with such complete integrity. Sometimes you think you see people being sincere/authentic but I think in future I will more easily identify it - it will be the John Reed test for me from now on Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 10, 2010, 09:10:24 PM He might also just be a better strategic thinker and recognise that being in power over the next 5 years is probably long term -ev
Title: Re: results Post by: 77dave on May 10, 2010, 09:14:30 PM All i know is this country would be in better shape if Ray Winstone and Jeremy Clarkson ran the country
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 09:17:29 PM Never thought I would ever agree with Labour's ex Home Secretary John Reed. Well said! :o I know, shocking amount of sense being talked I can honestly say I have never heard a politician speak with such clarity, in so few words with such complete integrity. Sometimes you think you see people being sincere/authentic but I think in future I will more easily identify it - it will be the John Reed test for me from now on I wouldn't put too much faith in his integrity For his party it's a better strategic move to not be the next government For him personally - he's probably one parliamentary term away from retirement, having that on the back bench with his cabinet career behind him isn't really that much of a sacrifice. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 09:20:02 PM I thought John Reed was already retired.
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 09:23:45 PM I thought John Reed was already retired. oh yeah, good point, he didn't stand for re election My above points, and even easier for him to take the long term strategic view Title: Re: results Post by: nirvana on May 10, 2010, 09:24:48 PM Never thought I would ever agree with Labour's ex Home Secretary John Reed. Well said! :o I know, shocking amount of sense being talked I can honestly say I have never heard a politician speak with such clarity, in so few words with such complete integrity. Sometimes you think you see people being sincere/authentic but I think in future I will more easily identify it - it will be the John Reed test for me from now on I wouldn't put too much faith in his integrity For his party it's a better strategic move to not be the next government For him personally - he's probably one parliamentary term away from retirement, having that on the back bench with his cabinet career behind him isn't really that much of a sacrifice. Ha ! Not quick enough my son. Lost my dewy eyed innocence in 73 seconds. OK, I'm with Jim, bring in Ray Winstone Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 10, 2010, 09:26:17 PM Is there any realistic chance of a Lib/lab deal, or are Libs just talking to Lab to scare the tories into giving them a better deal?
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 10, 2010, 09:29:07 PM I thought John Reid was talking sense on election night too so his comments tonight have reinforced my new found respect for him (I was very surprised)
Title: Re: results Post by: redsimon on May 10, 2010, 09:29:56 PM Is there any realistic chance of a Lib/lab deal, or are Libs just talking to Lab to scare the tories into giving them a better deal? Feelling that Clgg can't sell Lib/Con deal to his party so looking at Labour post- Brown with better PR gtee? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 10, 2010, 09:33:04 PM Is there any realistic chance of a Lib/lab deal, or are Libs just talking to Lab to scare the tories into giving them a better deal? Feelling that Clgg can't sell Lib/Con deal to his party so looking at Labour post- Brown with better PR gtee? My money is still on the Lib Dems agreeing not to bring down a Conservative minority government But the offer of electoral change without a referendum tips things more towards a Lib Lab agreement, it's just whether it's enough. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 10, 2010, 09:38:33 PM I thought John Reed was already retired. But now Brown (who he wasn't exactly friendly with) is gone & up pops John, unsoiled by the economics crash & the election, acting the statesman....... See he's advocating Labour try the same tactic he's been using as chairman of Celtic, i.e. do as little as possible & wait for the evil b*stards in blue to screw it up. [ ] Working well John. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 10, 2010, 10:24:07 PM I cannot find a single democracy in the world where at least some of the policies of the party that gained the highest number of votes in an election did not end up being put into action.
I find it inconceivable that whatever party finishes in this place in an election on whatever electoral system is ignored in any coalition goverment Yet we now face the prospect of this. Remarkable times. I still take the long view, I think, that this is a coalition not to be part of. Any of the coalitions will be short lived and have to go through very hard times and be very unpopular. I think I also take the view that if Labour/Lib Dems do this they will face slaughter at the next election. Over-reaction maybe. Get soundly beaten might be a better way of putting it. My ire is not so much towards Labour but towards Clegg who cannot with a straight face claim to be acting in the public interest when he is blatantly playing one off against the other for the gain of his party. If he had waited until Conservative talks had failed, then fair enough Title: Re: results Post by: doubleup on May 10, 2010, 10:40:59 PM I cannot find a single democracy in the world where at least some of the policies of the party that gained the highest number of votes in an election did not end up being put into action. I think this might happen in Israel, not sure tho Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 10, 2010, 10:54:39 PM I wouldn't put too much faith in his integrity For his party it's a better strategic move to not be the next government If he did have a hidden agenda, another possibility is that he (and others in the Labour party who have expressed similar sentiments) wants it to look like Labour are divided, and not altogether desperate to stay in power. The ulterior motive being that they don't have to offer the LibDems as much in their deal. Personally I think he was just calling a spade a spade. Title: Re: results Post by: Woodsey on May 11, 2010, 12:24:27 AM (http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/Andr4w/post-16166-1273532240.gif)
Title: Re: results Post by: Longy on May 11, 2010, 01:45:41 AM I cannot find a single democracy in the world where at least some of the policies of the party that gained the highest number of votes in an election did not end up being put into action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951 Labour had 200 000 more votes and lost the election. or USA 2000 Gore got more votes, no? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 06:12:26 AM I cannot find a single democracy in the world where at least some of the policies of the party that gained the highest number of votes in an election did not end up being put into action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951 Labour had 200 000 more votes and lost the election. or USA 2000 Gore got more votes, no? yes but in 51 the party with the most votes did not have the highest number of seats, a vagary of FPTP. However I accept the point that it is not toally unprecedented USA 2000 was clearly a disgrace, but no coalition it was an either/or choice I am so outraged I am considering marching on parliament with a rolled up copy of the Daily Telegraph in one hand and a signed photo of Ecosse in the other. Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 11, 2010, 09:08:25 AM It makes me laugh how everytime time I hear a tory representative on the radio they cry 'but we got the most votes', yet they are whole heartedly against PR
The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. There is an awful lot of media weight behind him might just push him home Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 11, 2010, 09:12:26 AM It makes me laugh how everytime time I hear a tory representative on the radio they cry 'but we got the most votes', yet they are whole heartedly against PR The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. There is an awful lot of media weight behind him might just push him home It's possible for the Tory's to do it without the Lib Dems, but it's just so much easier to do it with them that it really is only a last resort measure. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 10:05:07 AM lol, this is the first fight...that was the background to last night's fight..from about 2 minutes in
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RXPnXDkrc Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 10:38:51 AM lol, this is the first fight...that was the background to last night's fight..from about 2 minutes in YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RXPnXDkrc i remember see that at the time and I lol'd this battle definitely has legs,and I cant wait for round 3 Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 11, 2010, 11:03:35 AM It makes me laugh how everytime time I hear a tory representative on the radio they cry 'but we got the most votes', yet they are whole heartedly against PR The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. There is an awful lot of media weight behind him might just push him home You only just noticed the media weight behind the Tories? :D Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 11, 2010, 11:09:05 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 11, 2010, 11:11:17 AM lol, this is the first fight...that was the background to last night's fight..from about 2 minutes in YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RXPnXDkrc i remember see that at the time and I lol'd this battle definitely has legs,and I cant wait for round 3 Boulton bringing in the piece of shit that is Kelvin MacKenzie to argue against Murdoch's media being biased shows a fair bit of desperation! Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 11, 2010, 11:13:35 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 11, 2010, 11:17:07 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. Not really, IMO, as the Lib Dems would have to support (or atleast not vote against) the budget measures the Tories would have to implement. And the spin that would be put on that solution would be that the Lib Dems became too greedy and just don't have the balls to govern when times are tough. I really can't see anything other than a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition working, and only then if everyone accepts that massive cuts will have to be made. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 11, 2010, 11:18:49 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. I think this is the best plan to strengthen the Lib Dems as well, they could basically oppose any measure they want 'as a matter of principle' and support any measure they want 'in the national interest'. But it's the only option which doesn't put them in government, and I think that's going to be hard to resist. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 11, 2010, 11:21:50 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. I think this is the best plan to strengthen the Lib Dems as well, they could basically oppose any measure they want 'as a matter of principle' and support any measure they want 'in the national interest'. But it's the only option which doesn't put them in government, and I think that's going to be hard to resist. They have to decide if they want a longer period of greater influence after the next election, rather than being part of a government during an extremely difficult period. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 11, 2010, 11:23:22 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. I think this is the best plan to strengthen the Lib Dems as well, they could basically oppose any measure they want 'as a matter of principle' and support any measure they want 'in the national interest'. But it's the only option which doesn't put them in government, and I think that's going to be hard to resist. They have to decide if they want a longer period of greater influence after the next election, rather than being part of a government during an extremely difficult period. I know, it seems obvious ...... but (etc etc) Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 11, 2010, 11:31:01 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. I think this is the best plan to strengthen the Lib Dems as well, they could basically oppose any measure they want 'as a matter of principle' and support any measure they want 'in the national interest'. But it's the only option which doesn't put them in government, and I think that's going to be hard to resist. They have to decide if they want a longer period of greater influence after the next election, rather than being part of a government during an extremely difficult period. I know, it seems obvious ...... but (etc etc) Oh, I agree. It depends how much they crave the power (they are politicians after all), and if they have the patience for the long-haul. Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 11, 2010, 11:41:38 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. I think this is the best plan to strengthen the Lib Dems as well, they could basically oppose any measure they want 'as a matter of principle' and support any measure they want 'in the national interest'. But it's the only option which doesn't put them in government, and I think that's going to be hard to resist. They have to decide if they want a longer period of greater influence after the next election, rather than admit they can't govern during an extremely difficult period. FYP. I always used to like the Lib Dems here (much preffered them over the Tories or Labour) but if they don't step up now I will lose all respect for them. Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 11, 2010, 11:48:41 AM It seems absurd to me that they can say that the party with the most votes and seats should have the chance to govern and yet they will be prepared to work with the other as they will give them some form of electoral reform without consulting the electorate (if they can get it through parliament) compared to the other side who would give a referendum on the same reform.
Losing all respect is putting it very mildly. Title: Re: results Post by: Dingdell on May 11, 2010, 11:56:19 AM The torys are really going about this the wrong way due to desperation.cameron should ditch lib dem and make a positive move for power. I expect him to do just this at the end of today if the Lib Dems haven't made their mind up yet. I hope he yanks the referendum concession tonight and just says "Listen, we clearly can't work it out between us so in the interest of the country let's have another election" This would be the end of the Lib Dems IMO. Interesting. I think letting the Tories rule under a minority government, leading to another election sooner rather than later will place the LibDems in a stronger position next time. I don't agree - once they have lost a seat twice they loose their extra funding for that seat so their campaign has to be based on basic funds plus donations. In Northampton they were sending out so much paper and still manage to come third, so no funding here and probably less votes imo. Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 11, 2010, 12:18:41 PM Where does the extra funding come from?
Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 11, 2010, 12:23:55 PM Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 12:25:24 PM funding for the next election if it were to be held now
Tories £14m Labour £6m Libs £4m Cameron should go nuclear. Issue a statement saying "now or never". ie the Libs go with him now or fk off. If they fk off he says he is prepared to form a minority government knowing that if he needs to call another election he is far better funded to do so. If the Libs go with Lab then he knows this may be electoral suicide for both if it a) goes wrong economically or b) the coalition collapses soon. The Libs will bear their share of the blame for this Turn it back on Clegg, tell him that he has made his own bed and play the long game All being well for Cameron the Tories would be back in within 2-3 years with a stonking majority and Clegg will be toast. I still contend this is a situation where you want to lose! Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 12:26:51 PM Rich,how much influence do you reckon the funding would have on the outcome?
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 11, 2010, 12:27:28 PM Then why are donations listed separately? :dontask: Tighty - rumours are that CCHQ has retained it's election team for 5 months... Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 12:28:46 PM Rich,how much influence do you reckon the funding would have on the outcome? I think it had an effect this time, in some seats..Ashcroft for the Tories of course and the Unite funding in some seats, notably Ed Balls' one, for Labour a quick election now and the effects will be magnified as only the Tories are in a position to adequately fund it. If I were Cam, I'd be tempted by the nuclear option and stick two fingers up at Clegg asap and make Clegg lie on a rainbow bed of nails, the tosser lol Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 12:30:37 PM Rich,how much influence do you reckon the funding would have on the outcome? I think it had an effect this time, in some seats..Ashcroft for the Tories of course and the Unite funding in some seats, notably Ed Balls' one, for Labour a quick election now and the effects will be magnified as only the Tories are in a position to adequately fund it. If I were Cam, I'd be tempted by the nuclear option and stick two fingers up at Clegg asap and make Clegg lie on a rainbow bed of nails, the tosser lol rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 01:54:04 PM ffs Hague says Con Lib talking again this afternoon. Back and forth they go
Another night of 24 hour news beckons. I reckon Kay Burley may just get Molotov cocktailed the end of the week Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 11, 2010, 02:05:14 PM ffs Hague says Con Lib talking again this afternoon. Back and forth they go Another night of 24 hour news beckons. I reckon Kay Burley may just get Molotov cocktailed the end of the week have you had any sleep this week Rich? Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 02:05:51 PM ffs Hague says Con Lib talking again this afternoon. Back and forth they go Another night of 24 hour news beckons. I reckon Kay Burley may just get Molotov cocktailed the end of the week have you had any sleep this week Rich? Not much. A few hours since last thursday Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 11, 2010, 02:08:06 PM Do you reckon reports that Morgan Stanley are predicting a 10% drop in the pound could be accurate?
Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 11, 2010, 04:05:07 PM Labour deal collapsing........just a matter of time. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 11, 2010, 04:09:17 PM It's going to be hard for the Conservatives to introduce austerity measures and still keep support, but I think they can only have been helped by these protracted negotiations.
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 11, 2010, 04:10:13 PM "Number 10 recognises that talks with the Lib Dems have not and will reach not any positive conclusion, and they are now discussing the method of declaring that their side of the negotiation is over, BBC Radio 5 Live's political correspondent Jon Pienaar says"
From the beeb Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 11, 2010, 04:13:24 PM Yay a poker metaphor in the news
Quote ... To use the metaphor of poker, Labour have folded and thrown in their cards. ... I didn't say it was a particularly good one Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 11, 2010, 04:16:47 PM "Large holdalls are being loaded into two government cars at the back of Number 10, reports the BBC News channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg. "
That's one way to get rid of Brown! Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 11, 2010, 04:28:26 PM I don't really like Brown but I do not understand all the hate for him. In many ways he got very unlucky in the cards he got dealt. I am not sure I am happy Labour didn't get in or not but I personally think Brown is a honest man :) Blair is a fair bigger *****.
*ducks* Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 11, 2010, 04:29:49 PM I don't really like Brown but I do not understand all the hate for him. In many ways he got very unlucky in the cards he got dealt. I am not sure I am happy Labour didn't get in or not but I personally think Brown is a honest man :) *ducks* Reasonably good chancellor [ x ] Reasonably good bloke [ x ] Reasonably good PM [ ] Competent PM [ ] Title: Re: results Post by: ripple11 on May 11, 2010, 04:31:10 PM "Large holdalls are being loaded into two government cars at the back of Number 10, reports the BBC News channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg. " That's one way to get rid of Brown! Even money he's put Clegg in a holdall and he's still inside plotting his next move :D Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 11, 2010, 04:31:36 PM I don't really like Brown but I do not understand all the hate for him. In many ways he got very unlucky in the cards he got dealt. I am not sure I am happy Labour didn't get in or not but I personally think Brown is a honest man :) *ducks* Reasonably good chancellor [ x ] Reasonably good bloke [ x ] Reasonably good PM [ ] Competent PM [ ] he has an impossible job but I agree with the above. Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 04:34:13 PM sky ticker is saying brown has quit as PM??
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 04:56:35 PM LOL mandy didnt look happy
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 05:01:31 PM Tighty if it goes how it is looking with a Con/Lib coalition how many seats in the cabinet do you reckon they will get,and what will Nick Cleggs role be?
Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 11, 2010, 05:14:16 PM my money is on 3 cabinet seats. None of them being the great offices of state.
They'll get important ones though, like education secretary Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 11, 2010, 05:24:05 PM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs...
My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 05:28:12 PM 4 seats maybe. Chief second to the treasury for cable, education etc
Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 11, 2010, 05:38:21 PM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled yup A lot of my friends in Scotlandshire are anti Tori with more fervour than their grandparents were anti Nazi. They're saying that if the ConDemNation comes then they no longer agree with Nick and will be voting Labour. Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 07:19:55 PM another GB speech that he reads coming up?
Title: Re: results Post by: technolog on May 11, 2010, 07:32:39 PM Good speech imo. Appeared close(ish) to tears.
Title: Re: results Post by: cia260895 on May 11, 2010, 07:52:16 PM norrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr lol Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 11, 2010, 08:20:10 PM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled yup A lot of my friends in Scotlandshire are anti Tori with more fervour than their grandparents were anti Nazi. They're saying that if the ConDemNation comes then they no longer agree with Nick and will be voting Labour. Like this a lot..WP Tank. A lot of people in Scotland should get over their Tory hang-ups though.."Oh but twenty years ago they were mean to us"...Get over it FFS. Title: Re: results Post by: celtic on May 11, 2010, 09:21:15 PM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled yup A lot of my friends in Scotlandshire are anti Tori with more fervour than their grandparents were anti Nazi. They're saying that if the ConDemNation comes then they no longer agree with Nick and will be voting Labour. Like this a lot..WP Tank. A lot of people in Scotland should get over their Tory hang-ups though.."Oh but twenty years ago they were mean to us"...Get over it FFS. Lol, good point Boldie, had similar convo with a woman at work last week who said she would never vote Labour beacause of the black outs in the 70's when she was trying to bring up a young baby with no heating or hot water or lights. Sure is a good basis for who you vote for in 2010 Title: Re: results Post by: CelticGeezeer on May 11, 2010, 09:42:48 PM Have people forgotten what the tories are all bout, the only good thing is that just over 1/3 of the people who bothered to vote
Lets watch the LIB Dems show their true colours and dig their own grave whille tories try to weasel their way out of PR. Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 11, 2010, 09:45:32 PM lolol. Thisn't Thatcher's tories, a much more socailly conscious group iimo (albeit with right wing backbenchers)
I can sleep tonight finally. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 11, 2010, 09:48:35 PM Have people forgotten what the tories are all bout,... lol - so you're not paying any attention at all to the people making fun of judging the Tories by what they did 30 years and Labour by what it did 40 years ago? Title: Re: results Post by: Acidmouse on May 11, 2010, 10:14:55 PM Have people forgotten what the tories are all bout,... lol - so you're not paying any attention at all to the people making fun of judging the Tories by what they did 30 years and Labour by what it did 40 years ago? most of these new tory MP's grew up idolising thatcher, people got what they wanted so let the fun begin. Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 11, 2010, 10:25:18 PM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled Yeah definitely. I've been a lib dem supporter for the last few years (having previously been a card carrying member of the labour party) since they seemed to drift leftwards as labour moved in the other direction. How they can even begin to find common ground for a formal coalition with the tories has left me incredibly disillusioned with them and I really don't know where my allegiances lie now. Guess i'm just a political slut :) Title: Re: results Post by: kukushkin88 on May 11, 2010, 10:27:13 PM Having Murdoch's ministry of truth working over time to prejudice public opinion is one thing but the BBC live report states "20.43 David Cameron enters Downing Street as prime minister. A large crowd claps and cheers.
The only clearly discernible noise was very loud booing, lots of it. Title: Re: results Post by: The Baron on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM Clegg to be deputy PM.
GG Lib Dems. Nice knowing you. Would PMSL if he didn't get the Lib Dem vote he needs. Title: Re: results Post by: Ecosse on May 11, 2010, 11:26:06 PM Thank God for some stability at least.
Bottom line is Labour (new, old, any version) had to be removed. They've bankrupted the country FFS. (as per usual). Hard times ahead for all taxpayers to pay for the usual Labour mismanagement. Only this time on a horrendous scale, biggest debt now since the end of the Second World War. Coalition makes it more likely of the true state of the finances being released to the countries workers at last. Unions already lining up for there strikes !, be prepared for the sack you fools. Dougie. Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 11, 2010, 11:59:13 PM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled Yeah definitely. I've been a lib dem supporter for the last few years (having previously been a card carrying member of the labour party) since they seemed to drift leftwards as labour moved in the other direction. How they can even begin to find common ground for a formal coalition with the tories has left me incredibly disillusioned with them and I really don't know where my allegiances lie now. Guess i'm just a political slut :) Interesting letter in the Times today from a lifelong LibDem supporter equally disgusted at the prospect of working with the Labour party. Their main beef involved citing liberal principles and that the Labour government wants the state to dominate it's citizens lives from cradle to death. I think that the party that supports proportional representation has a duty to demonstrate to the electorate that political partys working together is actually possible in this country. The case for PR will be much stronger if this new government lasts a full term, I agree with Paddy Ashdown in that respect. The Liberal Democrats were in a bit of a lose-lose-lose situation, a deal with the Labour party really wasn't possible. The tiny parties could have been bought easily enough, and it's not them, or the media that would have brought the whole thing down after a few weeks/months. It would have been Labour rebels. Cue massive Tory majority from resultant general election. Doing a deal with neither of them wouldn't sit well with anyone. Would make some LibDem activists feel good about themselves perhaps, but just as many would see Nick Clegg as having squandered a once in a generation oppurtunity. The resultant Tory minority government would probably become a Tory government with a slim majority before too long. The media would find a way to sell it that the LibDems forced the country into another general election rather than the Torys. Your party is in a good position now, and also playing a good long game on PR. (Anyone who thinks that Nick Clegg could have gotten a deal on a referendum for STV from Labour isn't looking at the political reality. The Labour party being completely divided on that without any leader to unite them. Not to mention losing masses of amounts of public support by the need to bribe some tiny parties and perpetually wearing the monicker of being the coalition of losers) He also wouldn't have gotten more out of the Torys (who almost wanted them to walk away from the deal I felt, so long as they could sell it that they'd offered something reasonable) Don't know why I'm canvassing on behalf of the LibDems here, but it's not a good time to walk away from your Party because your leader has done the only thing he could have. Title: Re: results Post by: Ecosse on May 12, 2010, 12:03:04 AM 1 in 5 people now work for the state in the UK 1 in 3 in Scotland. It's unsustainable. Full Stop. Thank any god you like that Labour were ejected. Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 12, 2010, 01:04:42 AM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled yup A lot of my friends in Scotlandshire are anti Tori with more fervour than their grandparents were anti Nazi. They're saying that if the ConDemNation comes then they no longer agree with Nick and will be voting Labour. Like this a lot..WP Tank. A lot of people in Scotland should get over their Tory hang-ups though.."Oh but twenty years ago they were mean to us"...Get over it FFS. Quote 1 in 5 people now work for the state in the UK 1 in 3 in Scotland. That's not down to Labour - that was Thatchers determination to take any major power out of Scots unions & to make us a service culture. Still - independence wouls suit the Tories - so there's a little hope. Title: Re: results Post by: CelticGeezeer on May 12, 2010, 02:06:31 AM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled yup A lot of my friends in Scotlandshire are anti Tori with more fervour than their grandparents were anti Nazi. They're saying that if the ConDemNation comes then they no longer agree with Nick and will be voting Labour. Like this a lot..WP Tank. A lot of people in Scotland should get over their Tory hang-ups though.."Oh but twenty years ago they were mean to us"...Get over it FFS. Quote 1 in 5 people now work for the state in the UK 1 in 3 in Scotland. That's not down to Labour - that was Thatchers determination to take any major power out of Scots unions & to make us a service culture. Still - independence wouls suit the Tories - so there's a little hope. +1 Title: Re: results Post by: Longy on May 12, 2010, 02:33:35 AM I don't think the future looks too bad for Labour at all, as Tighty says this is a really poisioned chalice of an election to win with the economy needing massive attention which involve wide sweeping changes (read public spending cuts). The governments popularity will no doubt take a hit even though they pretty much have one if not both hands tied behind their back regarding this.
While Labour can regroup under a new leader, probably Milliband seize the centre ground and look towards the next election which could be quicker than we expect imo. As the awkwardness of the maths of forming a coalition meant that a Condem coalition was the only practical way forward, yet they seem very uneasy bedfellows in terms of ideology. I can very easily see a situation where the liberals feel promises have been broken or get what they asked for and then decide that still the government is not acting anywhere near their progressive left ideology of the majority of their party at large. The public looking in it on all this I can see swinging back to labour by the time the next election. Especially if Labour go for a smiley pr savvy leader who is good at tv debates etc. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 05:25:44 AM Full coalition with David Cameron as prime minister; Nick Clegg as deputy PM and four other Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers – 20 government posts in total. Last night Danny Alexander was confirmed as Scottish secretary. Others rumoured to include Vince Cable in a business and banking job, David Laws in education and Chris Huhne as justice secretary. Liberal Democrat wins:
Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 05:29:46 AM Liberal Democrat wins:
• Referendum to bring in an alternative vote system. Coalition members will be subject to three-line whip to force legislation for referendum through, but will be free to campaign against reforms before referendum • New five-year fixed term parliaments, an entirely or mainly elected second chamber and a commission to review party funding. According to this plan, the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. • Reduce tax burden on low earners. A substantial increase to persona tax allowance from April 2011 with a "long- term goal" of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. Tory plans to reduce inheritance tax that would have benefited the richest people most have been scrapped. • New pupil premium to be introduced, steering more funding to schools for every child they take from poor homes to help close class gap in school results Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 05:34:09 AM Tory wins:
• £6bn cuts this financial year and a reversal of some planned rises in national insurance contributions • A cap on immigration with Lib Dem plans for an amnesty on illegal immigration dumped. • School reforms to introduce more Swedish-style "free" schools • A commitment to maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent • No proposals to join the euro and a referendum lock will ensure that any proposal to transfer new powers must by law be put to a referendum • The Conservatives have kept their plan for a £150 marriage tax break. Lib Dems will abstain but not oppose this. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 05:38:33 AM (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/conservative-lib-dem-coalition-deal )
Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 12, 2010, 05:53:11 AM (http://www.nationalreview.com/images/DavidCameronatCommons.JPG)
Nick agrees with me! Tory wins: • £6bn cuts this financial year and a reversal of some planned rises in national insurance contributions • A cap on immigration with Lib Dem plans for an amnesty on illegal immigration dumped. • School reforms to introduce more Swedish-style "free" schools • A commitment to maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent • No proposals to join the euro and a referendum lock will ensure that any proposal to transfer new powers must by law be put to a referendum • The Conservatives have kept their plan for a £150 marriage tax break. Lib Dems will abstain but not oppose this. Printable version Send to a friend Share Clip • Y'all my beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeatches. fyp Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 12, 2010, 05:57:04 AM It's the new politics
Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 12, 2010, 06:26:02 AM I think the compromise they came to is a pretty good one, but, that's a lot of concessions and a lot of government posts that were conceded by the party that was only 20 seats short of an overall majority.
It gives some indication of how much power the very small parties could get if the winning party under Proportional Representation ended up only 6 or 7 seats short of a majority. Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 12, 2010, 07:57:33 AM I wonder if this will turn people off the LDs... My reasoning is I had a quick look on facebook and it seems like lots of people have no idea what they stand for and are now appalled yup A lot of my friends in Scotlandshire are anti Tori with more fervour than their grandparents were anti Nazi. They're saying that if the ConDemNation comes then they no longer agree with Nick and will be voting Labour. Like this a lot..WP Tank. A lot of people in Scotland should get over their Tory hang-ups though.."Oh but twenty years ago they were mean to us"...Get over it FFS. Quote 1 in 5 people now work for the state in the UK 1 in 3 in Scotland. That's not down to Labour - that was Thatchers determination to take any major power out of Scots unions & to make us a service culture. Still - independence wouls suit the Tories - so there's a little hope. ON the Cuts; I should hope so! they can't start cutting fast enough IMO. Any party would have needed to do this, obviously so it can't come as a surprise to anyone that there are massive cuts coming. The structural deficit is a massive problem. and it's one that needs to be resolved. On the unions; whenever I see the Royal Mail workers or signal workers strike again I feel sick. Especially the BA strikes will be the death of the company. To go on strike whilst your company is bleeding fast amounts of money is completely unforgiveable IMO. Seems to me like they didn't do enough to break up the unions. On Thatcher's death...Well I don't like the woman and sure as hell won't miss her, I especially consider "Right-tobuy" a massive mistake. So dance away, just don't think that there shouldn't be massive cuts now or that the Tories are the only ones that would make them. Obviously an independent Scotland is not an option at the moment, it's simply unsustainable...let it go. Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 12, 2010, 07:59:38 AM • The Conservatives have kept their plan for a £150 marriage tax break. Lib Dems will abstain but not oppose this. Printable version Send to a friend Share Clip wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. Payyyyyyyy me da monies! Seriously though, obviously a ridic plan this and a complete waste of money. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 09:12:47 AM It's intersting that some people have been up in arms about the possibility of a LabLib coalition, as it wouldn't represent what the electorate voted for.
The ConDem pact wwas more logical in terms of the tories having the largest minority from the election, but is this result what the people who voted Tory or LibDem wanted when they cast their votes? On the whole I wonder who is happier. I know a lot of LibDem voters were keen on electoral reform, but are they going to get the reform they thought they were voting for? Oh, and that married tax break is just completely ridiculous. Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 12, 2010, 10:27:51 AM • Reduce tax burden on low earners. A substantial increase to persona tax allowance from April 2011 with a "long- term goal" of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. Tory plans to reduce inheritance tax that would have benefited the richest people most have been scrapped. that's quite an unexpected concession from the tories. Interesting times.... Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 12, 2010, 10:38:34 AM • Reduce tax burden on low earners. A substantial increase to persona tax allowance from April 2011 with a "long- term goal" of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. Tory plans to reduce inheritance tax that would have benefited the richest people most have been scrapped. that's quite an unexpected concession from the tories. Interesting times.... In terms of the greater good then conservative economic policies tempered by liberal social concerns and liberal social policies tempered by conservative pragmatism could work really well. But I'm mainly expecting at the first sign of public spending cuts support will just drift towards Labour without any other policies or considerations being taken into account Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 11:01:20 AM • Reduce tax burden on low earners. A substantial increase to persona tax allowance from April 2011 with a "long- term goal" of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. Tory plans to reduce inheritance tax that would have benefited the richest people most have been scrapped. that's quite an unexpected concession from the tories. Interesting times.... In terms of the greater good then conservative economic policies tempered by liberal social concerns and liberal social policies tempered by conservative pragmatism could work really well. But I'm mainly expecting at the first sign of public spending cuts support will just drift towards Labour without any other policies or considerations being taken into account Of course there is waste in public spending, but I sincerely hope that certain areas don't fall under an indiscriminate cost-cutting axe. Primarily thinking about the NHS. How much of the LibDems' pre-election plans for the NHS will be considered by the coalition government? http://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/opinion/norman-lamb-on-the-nhs-under-the-lib-dems/5013894.article Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 12, 2010, 11:28:51 AM I think all areas are going to have to suffer indiscriminate cost cutting purely because our finances are that bad.
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 12, 2010, 11:35:55 AM • Reduce tax burden on low earners. A substantial increase to persona tax allowance from April 2011 with a "long- term goal" of a £10,000 personal tax allowance. Tory plans to reduce inheritance tax that would have benefited the richest people most have been scrapped. that's quite an unexpected concession from the tories. Interesting times.... It's essentially the same as the Tory NI policy that they are dropping to pay for it, so it's not that surprising. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 11:52:58 AM I think all areas are going to have to suffer indiscriminate cost cutting purely because our finances are that bad. Why does cost-cutting need to be indiscriminate? Surely a better way is to select the appropriate areas and prioritise where the cuts should be made first and where they need to be more damning. Indiscriminate cost-cutting is a recipe for disaster. Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 12, 2010, 12:04:47 PM I think all areas are going to have to suffer indiscriminate cost cutting purely because our finances are that bad. Why does cost-cutting need to be indiscriminate? Surely a better way is to select the appropriate areas and prioritise where the cuts should be made first and where they need to be more damning. Indiscriminate cost-cutting is a recipe for disaster. It depends how literally you take 'indiscriminate' If you wanted to be completely literal then their would never be any indiscriminate cost cutting as that would imply they would just randomly pick areas to cut random amounts from. Well. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do that anyway Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 02:33:41 PM Well, the LibDems seem to be saying that they will refuse to allow ringfencing of NHS budget? That's not good imo.
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 12, 2010, 02:51:18 PM So the left wing party want to cut the NHS and the evil cutting tories don't? ;dingdell;
Pretty amusing Q at the press conference... "Do you regret saying, when asked what your favourite joke was, "Nick Clegg"? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 12, 2010, 03:19:03 PM Well, the LibDems seem to be saying that they will refuse to allow ringfencing of NHS budget? That's not good imo. what about education, or pensions, should that spending be ringfenced? Because didn't some economist show that the cuts needed were so large that the only budgets where enough money could be saved were either one or more of those 3? (I think there might have been another 'big' one as well but I can't remember it) Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 03:28:23 PM Well, the LibDems seem to be saying that they will refuse to allow ringfencing of NHS budget? That's not good imo. what about education, or pensions, should that spending be ringfenced? Because didn't some economist show that the cuts needed were so large that the only budgets where enough money could be saved were either one or more of those 3? (I think there might have been another 'big' one as well but I can't remember it) Just because budgets are ringfenced, doesn't mean they can't be cut. They might decide to cut the spend by 10% for something, but the money now allocated to it will then remain ringfenced. I'm sure the LibDems had proposed a specific tax that would be ringfenced for the NHS (before the election that is). Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 03:29:50 PM From the ConDemNation (© tank):
"We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation." Good. Title: Re: results Post by: outragous76 on May 12, 2010, 03:30:45 PM If i was an administrator in the NHS or middle management, id have 200 CV's out to the real world yesterday
gg toasty jobs of the last 10 years, you had a good run Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 03:31:41 PM http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1277687/DAVID-CAMERON-BECOMES-PRIME-MINISTER-Middle-classes-pay-price-Tory-deal-Lib-Dems.html
Coalition can't be all that bad. The Daily Fail is up in arms about it!! Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 12, 2010, 03:45:58 PM Well, the LibDems seem to be saying that they will refuse to allow ringfencing of NHS budget? That's not good imo. what about education, or pensions, should that spending be ringfenced? Because didn't some economist show that the cuts needed were so large that the only budgets where enough money could be saved were either one or more of those 3? (I think there might have been another 'big' one as well but I can't remember it) Just because budgets are ringfenced, doesn't mean they can't be cut. They might decide to cut the spend by 10% for something, but the money now allocated to it will then remain ringfenced. I'm sure the LibDems had proposed a specific tax that would be ringfenced for the NHS (before the election that is). Tax income goes up - spending on the NHS goes up Tax income goes down - why should spending on the NHS go down? Because if you only ever keep it the same or increase it, how do you pay for it? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 12, 2010, 04:05:47 PM I haven't read it, but the headline sounds interesting.
Ring-fencing NHS budget is 'insane' (http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=11940) Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 04:43:59 PM I haven't read it, but the headline sounds interesting. Ring-fencing NHS budget is 'insane' (http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=11940) I've just read it. There's nothing in the article. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 12, 2010, 04:50:38 PM Looks like there could be some very good stuff in terms of civil liberties. Some of these points are cornerstones of LibDem policy before the election in the eyes of many LibDem supporters (imo).
The measures they've outlined include:
Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 12, 2010, 05:00:29 PM I think all areas are going to have to suffer indiscriminate cost cutting purely because our finances are that bad. Very much this. Not making cuts in the NHS is simply not an option. Title: Re: results Post by: redsimon on May 12, 2010, 05:06:02 PM Liberal Democrat wins: • Referendum to bring in an alternative vote system. Coalition members will be subject to three-line whip to force legislation for referendum through, but will be free to campaign against reforms before referendum As AV isn't a form of PR this is not really a win is it. gg LD's Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 12, 2010, 05:43:02 PM Liberal Democrat wins: • Referendum to bring in an alternative vote system. Coalition members will be subject to three-line whip to force legislation for referendum through, but will be free to campaign against reforms before referendum As AV isn't a form of PR this is not really a win is it. gg LD's There's little point in changing to AV, hardly seems worth it. But there are a lot of other details about political reform which are more important which the Lib Dems are getting Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 12, 2010, 09:01:49 PM I have just seen someone on Facebook blame the Tories for the NI rise... I'm lost for words.
Title: Re: results Post by: relaedgc on May 13, 2010, 02:44:50 AM Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system."
Title: Re: results Post by: boldie on May 13, 2010, 08:21:20 AM I have just seen someone on Facebook blame the Tories for the NI rise... I'm lost for words. lol. and to think they are allowed to vote. Title: Re: results Post by: redsimon on May 13, 2010, 10:05:48 AM Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system." No its deffo Alternative Vote (AV) from all the Lib Dems on BBCNews24 etc yesterday...even kept mentioning Labour manifesto commitment which was AV only not PR. I favour a PR system but if AV is the only choice in a referendum Id vote "No". Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 13, 2010, 10:09:13 AM Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system." No its deffo Alternative Vote (AV) from all the Lib Dems on BBCNews24 etc yesterday...even kept mentioning Labour manifesto commitment which was AV only not PR. I favour a PR system but if AV is the only choice in a referendum Id vote "No". Lib Dems being all political about it, they want PR and they're trying to sell the fact that they could get AV as a victory when it clearly isn't. On a wider point if this means the concept of changing the voting system becomes accepted then it still leaves open the possibility of PR at a later stage. Title: Re: results Post by: TightPaulFolds on May 13, 2010, 01:06:10 PM (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/gallery/2010/5/13/1273737241348/01-Evening-Standard-001.jpg)
Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 13, 2010, 03:06:37 PM Is it not possible that it's poor wording. "An alternative to the present voting system." No its deffo Alternative Vote (AV) from all the Lib Dems on BBCNews24 etc yesterday...even kept mentioning Labour manifesto commitment which was AV only not PR. I favour a PR system but if AV is the only choice in a referendum Id vote "No". Lib Dems being all political about it, they want PR and they're trying to sell the fact that they could get AV as a victory when it clearly isn't. On a wider point if this means the concept of changing the voting system becomes accepted then it still leaves open the possibility of PR at a later stage. I agree. AV's a poor substitute - but it starts the ball rolling. The move from 50% to 55% for a motion of no confidence is a dirty wee trick though. Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 13, 2010, 03:13:00 PM I'm sure I read today that It's not for no confidence, it's for a dissolution by the government. No confidence is still 50% apparently. Looking for the source and I can't find it now :|
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 13, 2010, 03:31:18 PM Here we are!
Quote But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes: “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons. “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.” from: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/ Title: Re: results Post by: TightPaulFolds on May 13, 2010, 05:02:13 PM YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZ86GYoxE0 stolen from HIGNFY
Title: Re: results Post by: Rod Paradise on May 13, 2010, 06:15:27 PM Here we are! Quote But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes: “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons. “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.” from: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/ Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 14, 2010, 10:38:45 AM Here we are! Quote But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes: “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons. “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.” from: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/ Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer. It's still not right. So if there's a vote of no-confidence, the incumbent government can continue in power until the end of their 5-year tenure, unless there's some sort of revolt within the party. As commented in this piece, it'd lead to a 'zombie-government' - who have no power to do anything, but who will stay in 'power'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 14, 2010, 10:42:12 AM Here we are! Quote But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes: “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons. “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.” from: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/ Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer. It's still not right. So if there's a vote of no-confidence, the incumbent government can continue in power until the end of their 5-year tenure, unless there's some sort of revolt within the party. As commented in this piece, it'd lead to a 'zombie-government' - who have no power to do anything, but who will stay in 'power'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm In theory, in practice it wouldn't happen, they would call an election The 'worst' I'd envisage is that they'd carry on for a bit, but then realise it wasn't feasible. As that would obviously look so much worse than reacting straight away to the no confidence vote then it's much much more llikely that they'd just call a snap election. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 14, 2010, 10:45:30 AM Here we are! Quote But in a briefing note on the proposed changes prepared for Left Foot Forward by UCL’s Constitution Unit, Robert Hazel writes: “The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition agreement proposes a 55 per cent threshold before Parliament can be dissolved. This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47 per cent of the votes in the Commons. “Some commentators appear to have confused a dissolution resolution moved by the government, and a confidence motion tabled by the opposition. On no confidence motions tabled by the opposition parties, the normal 50% threshold should continue to apply.” from: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/is-55-too-low/ Ah cheers, was badly reported - still they're trying to get themselves a bit safer. It's still not right. So if there's a vote of no-confidence, the incumbent government can continue in power until the end of their 5-year tenure, unless there's some sort of revolt within the party. As commented in this piece, it'd lead to a 'zombie-government' - who have no power to do anything, but who will stay in 'power'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm In theory, in practice it wouldn't happen, they would call an election The 'worst' I'd envisage is that they'd carry on for a bit, but then realise it wasn't feasible. As that would obviously look so much worse than reacting straight away to the no confidence vote then it's much much more llikely that they'd just call a snap election. OK, so why introduce it? Seems ridiculous. Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 14, 2010, 10:46:20 AM http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10112936.stm
VAT to rise to 20%. Thoughts? Title: Re: results Post by: Jon MW on May 14, 2010, 10:46:54 AM Bad but inevitable
Title: Re: results Post by: Bongo on May 14, 2010, 11:30:06 AM Been inevitable for months.
Title: Re: results Post by: TightEnd on May 14, 2010, 11:33:12 AM you are committed not to cut front line services, you have a £163bn deficit to reduce and persuade the markets you can reduce so you can issue more long dated debt, its sadly inevitable
Title: Re: results Post by: Claw75 on May 17, 2010, 05:54:21 PM bargain souvenirs available now!
http://www.peterjoneschina.com/products/products.asp?pid=2916 Title: Re: results Post by: kinboshi on May 17, 2010, 05:58:15 PM bargain souvenirs available now! http://www.peterjoneschina.com/products/products.asp?pid=2916 "Also available is the Margaret Thatcher 30th Anniverary tankard. They make a perfect matching pair!" For mugs everywhere... Title: Re: results Post by: thetank on May 17, 2010, 06:51:19 PM bargain souvenirs available now! http://www.peterjoneschina.com/products/products.asp?pid=2916 Is cool, I get the hint. When's your birthday again? |