View Full Version : Gordon to announce 6 May general election
Del Lardo
05-04-2010, 23:29
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8603591.stm
i truly never thought i would ever say this but I am seriously considering not voting. I have voted in every Local and General election (apart from a couple of Locals where I was unexpectedly out the country) I have been eligible for and this time round quite simply NONE of them deserve it. I wish we could also have a negative voting system so that rather than having to choose which party we want in power we could also vote for the party we don't want in power but then I suspect it would be the party with the smallest number of (negative) votes that won.
Hmmm, whoever does win, it will come as a poisoned chalice. With everything going on at present and the government incentives all finishing just in time for this, it will be interesting to see where we are in a year.
I think we need a "none of the above" option. They go on about dwindling voting numbers but I bet you'd see a whole lot more turn out if that option was on there. Of course it will never happen because seeing that option win would mean they'd have to change something in the system.
Knipples
06-04-2010, 07:27
As much as I am struggling to find anyone to vote for, I still believe you should vote for someone. I am just still trying to work out who that is.
I know where your coming from, they all suck. I'll be voting Tories for two reason. I want labour out at all costs and I doubt Tories will introduce laws with nothing to back them up, like fox hunting and the other 1001 stupid laws labour have introduced in all areas of law.
Lib dems have some great ideas, like 10k personal allowence, but then go wreck it with others.
Who ever gets in will do a crap job and will be out in 8-12 years.
I just wish there was a 4th party with real policies. Like tax reform, power security, law & order and every other section. But no we have 3 crediable parties which are almost identical then many one policy parties.
Think I'll be going Tory as well. I just cannot stand Labour and want them out asap.
Knipples
06-04-2010, 11:14
I want labour out too, and have voted conservative in the past, however this time round I cannot stand the MP I would be re-voting in, for two reasons,
1. He was one of the higher claimants in the whole expenses scandal, and also appealed against the decision to force him to repay the money, instead of just doing it.
2. He is also standing in the way of the new Bristol City stadium, (for which part of the land is in his constituency) yet he just waved plans for the expansion of bristol airport through.
I will also most likely be out of a job next March if they get in. (the conservatives won't invest in projects like the one I work in)
Hence my dilemma.
Psymonkee
06-04-2010, 11:41
Mines largely a wasted vote as this area is a major Lib Dem safe seat. Only party that comes close is Conservatives....
Briggykins
06-04-2010, 13:04
I'll be tactically voting this election, as the party I'd like to vote for are a distant 3rd. Happily though the party I'll be tactically voting for are the party most interested in preventing tactical voting being necessary. Wonder how many more times I can say tactically voting in this message. Tactical.
The other thing is that our local MP is Conservatives and I'd happily vote for him anyway. He seems to have kept himself pretty clean from what I've seen over the years and I'm generally happy with the way our area is run.
Last time I voted, I think it was for Geoff Hoon. Seems like an age.
Our local Conservative MP is a cock. I'd sooner drink a pint of my own urine than vote for him.
Our local Conservative MP is a cock. I'd sooner drink a pint of my own urine than vote for him.
Tony Baldry MP, a cock of the highest order.
I'll be tactically voting this election, as the party I'd like to vote for are a distant 3rd. Happily though the party I'll be tactically voting for are the party most interested in preventing tactical voting being necessary. Wonder how many more times I can say tactically voting in this message. Tactical.
Sounds familiar :)
As it stands I know I'd never vote Conservative but I need to read up on policies that other parties offer. Despite reading a lot of news daily, there's still a ridiculous amount of waffle and sound bites to get through so I think I'll have a browse through a few of the different parties' sites. Seems the best way of doing it.
At a guess I probably need to choose between Labour or Lib Dem. Tough choice as I really don't like New Labour's policies (I'm more liberal than Labour's current idea of it) and they've certainly done plenty to cause my family financial hardship, but I'm wondering if tactical voting would be better as I really, really don't want the Conservatives to get in.
Whole system needs a good shake up really as it's far from democratic imo. I'd rather see proportional representation.
Matblack
06-04-2010, 13:54
The whole tactical voting thing and the 'I'd vote for them as they really represent views, but...........' annoys me. One of the reasons the lib dems struggle is that people feel they can't vote for them because the will 'never get in'.
Voting for a party which represents your views but is unlikely to get in is not a waste as it shows other parties where interest lies and allows them to adjust their policies in the future. The increasing green vote has made the main parties think twice about their policies in that area, if you think they are right then vote for them :)
MB
Briggykins
06-04-2010, 14:00
But I'd rather have a party in power that represents me somewhat rather than voting for a party that have no chance of winning, thereby letting in the other guy who goes completely opposite to my views. If it was a choice between, say, UKIP and BNP (neither of whom are anywhere near my cup of tea) then I probably would vote with my heart, but as I do have some sympathies towards one of the parties then I'll give them my vote.
Still, proportional representation FTW.
Del Lardo
06-04-2010, 14:04
As it stands I know I'd never vote Conservative
Just out of interest, why?
My guess below....
Thatcher by any chance?
The whole tactical voting thing and the 'I'd vote for them as they really represent views, but...........' annoys me. One of the reasons the lib dems struggle is that people feel they can't vote for them because the will 'never get in'.
Voting for a party which represents your views but is unlikely to get in is not a waste as it shows other parties where interest lies and allows them to adjust their policies in the future. The increasing green vote has made the main parties think twice about their policies in that area, if you think they are right then vote for them :)
MB
And that's the other side of my brain with my internal debate :D
I'll read as much as I can so I can have an informed decision then hopefully I'll have a clearer idea of what to do. :)
Sorry for the double post but easier than editing :p
Just out of interest, why?
My guess below....
Thatcher by any chance?
Although no fan of everything she did ;) No actually, it's not just that but good try :p
I've read up on their policies and agree with very few of their points :)
I can't bring myself to vote for any of them either
Labour have already messed things up
Conservatives still seem short of direction and policies
Lib Dems are a waste of space with unrealistic ideals
BNP are ****ers
the Greens need to live in the real world
what a sorry state of affairs
Streeteh
06-04-2010, 15:57
They're all rubbish imo, it's just a matter of choosing the lesser of the evils... god knows who that is though.
What i will say is that we've had the same MP for as long as i can remember, i'm beginning to become disillusioned with voting as i've always voted against him yet year on year he gets back in. I'm beginning to wonder what the point in me voting is, at least until i move out of this area or he kicks the bucket.
EDIT: Just had a look and he's been the MP here since 1997 and the margins show no sign of that changing any time soon. The dude he followed on from, also a conservative, was apparently the MP for this area from 1972 till 1997.
Last time I voted, I think it was for Geoff Hoon. Seems like an age.
Our new labour candidiate is quite fit though so that may swing it ;)
Can't be worse than Hoon anyway :p
http://s11.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/c/i/cifhjhszqljnjls.jpg
http://www.mrcrip.com//wp-content/uploads/2007/08/gloria_de_piero_big_tits.jpg
The whole tactical voting thing and the 'I'd vote for them as they really represent views, but...........' annoys me. One of the reasons the lib dems struggle is that people feel they can't vote for them because the will 'never get in'.
Voting for a party which represents your views but is unlikely to get in is not a waste as it shows other parties where interest lies and allows them to adjust their policies in the future. The increasing green vote has made the main parties think twice about their policies in that area, if you think they are right then vote for them :)
MB
Exactly what I was going to say. I really do despair when I hear people saying they aren't voting for their preferred candidate as they won't get in. Well of course they won't if half the people that support them aren't giving them their vote. It's as much voters faults that we have effectively a two party system as it is due to the first past the post method we have for elections (though that is something that should definitely be changed).
I will be voting for who I feel respresents my views best irrespective of what other people are voting. You cant really whine abut the state of the country when you don't bother to vote at all and if you vote for someone just to keep someone else out then you can't complain when (if they get in) they don't respresent your views.
I really should stop sitting on the fence ;) :)
Can't really disagree there, although from what I've seen people always complain regardless of who gets in and whether they voted for them or not :p But then I suppose that's why we have the phrase 'It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government will always win' :D
Like I said, I'll be reading through more policies before I decide anyhow. :) It's what I usually do and I've yet to vote in an election where it's been clear cut who I prefer :/ Too little between the main parties of late.
Matblack
06-04-2010, 18:22
Exactly what I was going to say. I really do despair when I hear people saying they aren't voting for their preferred candidate as they won't get in. Well of course they won't if half the people that support them aren't giving them their vote. It's as much voters faults that we have effectively a two party system as it is due to the first past the post method we have for elections (though that is something that should definitely be changed).
I will be voting for who I feel respresents my views best irrespective of what other people are voting. You cant really whine abut the state of the country when you don't bother to vote at all and if you vote for someone just to keep someone else out then you can't complain when (if they get in) they don't respresent your views.
I really should stop sitting on the fence ;) :)
Beautiful and smart Mubs :)
MB
Not sure about removing the first past the post system, it's not ideal but PR would lead to repeat hung paliaments and nothing getting done
A parliament full of independents would be better with every issue voted solely on it's merits
re the LIb Dems in this respect I am sure they do lose votes due to the current system but I think they are long way from being a credible alternative, they seem to come up with as many barmy ideas as decent ones
Dymetrie
06-04-2010, 18:55
PR would lead to repeat hung paliaments and nothing getting done
Which is why both Labour and the Lib Dems are proposing a move to the Single Transferable Vote system.
Much less likely (but still possible) to get a hung parliament.
Although the cynic in me finds it very unlikely that any kind of PR voting system would actually be put in place by a Government in power, because it'd increase their chances of losing at the next election :p
And complete agreement with avoiding tactical voting!
I just find it difficult to vote for people who I know will lie to me to get what they want, have absolutely no idea what life is like outside of their ivory towers and will doubtless let me down when they get into power. I understand what is being said and I understand that there's good and bad on both sides of the major parties, unfortunately, it's usually the good stuff you voted for that never appears, and the bad stuff that you didn't want that you get in spades. So forgive me for not leaping towards the voting station with a spring in my step and a song in my heart. I honestly don't feel that it matters a jot what I want to happen, because it won't, whether I vote or not. I will be looking at the policies individually, but I suspect yet again it will be the lesser of two evils rather than a positive vote.
I wish there was a party I wanted to vote for, because I'd vote for them regardless of whether I thought they'd get in or not.
re the LIb Dems in this respect I am sure they do lose votes due to the current system but I think they are long way from being a credible alternative, they seem to come up with as many barmy ideas as decent ones
What sort of barmy ideas do you mean? I've seen policies I don't like from each of the three main parties but yet to see one I'd consider barmy!
Von Smallhausen
06-04-2010, 19:06
I won't be voting Labour that is for sure.
Unfortunately any other vote in my catchment is almost a wasted one.
Stick a red rosette on a chimp and it will get voted in.
Why can't I have a MILF MP like Grandad ?
What sort of barmy ideas do you mean? I've seen policies I don't like from each of the three main parties but yet to see one I'd consider barmy!
only yesterday they were tallking of massive cuts to roads investment, the road system is a mess and needs investment not cuts
another that I recall was council tax being a percentage of income
of course, what seems barmy to me may not be to others :D
Maybe barmy was a bit strong ;)
Why can't I have a MILF MP like Grandad ?
;D
of course, what seems barmy to me may not be to others :D
Ohhh definitely! I'm sure there are things I back that others would think was insane. I was just curious really what things you meant :)
Ohhh definitely! I'm sure there are things I back that others would think was insane. I was just curious really what things you meant :)
I was probably being a bit harsh but they do come across a bit "hippy" for my liking ;D
I was probably being a bit harsh but they do come across a bit "hippy" for my liking ;D
And that's probably why I like them :D
Although I'd definitely agree with you on cutting investment on the roads!
Matblack
06-04-2010, 19:32
only yesterday they were tallking of massive cuts to roads investment, the road system is a mess and needs investment not cuts
another that I recall was council tax being a percentage of income
of course, what seems barmy to me may not be to others :D
Maybe barmy was a bit strong ;)
They said, that they will cut road investment to invest in making the rail network more usable and thus taking more people off the roads and on to rail. Now here in the commuter belt that will be a worthwhile investment, in your neck of the woods maybe that doesn't make sense.
MB
They said, that they will cut road investment to invest in making the rail network more usable and thus taking more people off the roads and on to rail. Now here in the commuter belt that will be a worthwhile investment, in your neck of the woods maybe that doesn't make sense.
MB
yes, when down south I do use rail, around here it would not be possible without investment of epic proportions
though even when down south I do question rail travel, even with a subsidised system the prices are too high
it may be a desirable situation to have a good rail netowrk but if the cost is too high to either the user or the taxpayer ( or both ) then serious thought needs to go into it
The MP for my home region is one Mr Nicholas Soames, he who never saw any warnings about Gulf War Syndrome, even though they were handed to him and pointed out to him etc. etc, but gets away with it because Winston Churchill "was my grandfather don't you know."
God awful in parliament, but a good man so far as looking out for his constituents. Home region is a rock solid Conservative area, it'd be a strange day indeed to see the vote go to anything but him.
Psymonkee
06-04-2010, 22:22
I seem to recall a looney Lib Dem policy of enforcing a minimum of £800 PA for road fund....
Matblack
06-04-2010, 22:53
I seem to recall a looney Lib Dem policy of enforcing a minimum of £800 PA for road fund....
Don't know maybe, but unless you take that it in context of other policies then it means nothing.
MB
I seem to recall a looney Lib Dem policy of enforcing a minimum of £800 PA for road fund....
our Lib Dem run council paid out just short of £500,000 for the sugababes to appear at our local park
They then kept 4,000 of the 14,000 tickets for family and friends of council folks and the local newspaper
5,000 of the remaining 10,000 tickets went to locals the rest went "elsewhere"
the show generated about £270,000
this cost every local person who didn't go £40 for the privelidge
the head of the Lib Dems arranged 2 overnight off site meetings, 2 miles from the council offices , these involved overnight stays and in one case a wine bill for 3 people running into several hundred pounds
the concert thing I think was to boost their egos and the hotel/wine as sleazy as anything from MPs
They said, that they will cut road investment to invest in making the rail network more usable and thus taking more people off the roads and on to rail. Now here in the commuter belt that will be a worthwhile investment, in your neck of the woods maybe that doesn't make sense.
MB
It's pretty pointless unless you live in a big city. I have to dodge enough pot holes as it is on the way to work and they're certainly not going to lay on a train for me that will take me in to town first to pick up the post and then on to work in a small village. I don't exactly live in the middle of nowhere either.
Matblack
07-04-2010, 08:26
It's pretty pointless unless you live in a big city. I have to dodge enough pot holes as it is on the way to work and they're certainly not going to lay on a train for me that will take me in to town first to pick up the post and then on to work in a small village. I don't exactly live in the middle of nowhere either.
If you don't subscribed to the general philosophy of 'for the greater good' then the Lib Dems are going to have less appeal as a party, I'm not suggesting they are right for everyone nor am I suggesting you or anyone else should vote for them but their policies aren't as 'loony' as has been suggested and they are a genuine alternative party. I have no interest in campaigning on behalf of the Lib Dems here just suggesting people don't write them off without reading what they have to say.
MB
I think it's a shame that a party has a strong possibility of winning an election primarily because they are 'not Labour'.
I would much prefer it if everybody voted on the policies they agree with opposed to their 'front man' of choice; sure, it's hard to believe that some MPs are involved in the running of the country when they behave in such a playground manner, but I must admit feeling impressed/relieved with a couple of speeches & comments made that promoted what a party would actually like to achieve- opposed to a tiresome barrage upon rival candidates/parties.
TinkerBell
07-04-2010, 09:55
I have to agree that I don't see how they are going to improve the rail network enough to make it a good idea for most people to use. I wouldn't be able to use it on a daily basis, but it would be more likely at the weekends (which is still very unlikely). Why would go on trains when my car is cheaper, more flexible, always has a seat, quiet, always only a short walk away and I can get to the exact place without needing a lift or getting a bus as well. I live in a big city and there is no chance I would give up my car to get the bus everywhere again!
I have no idea who I am going to vote for. I was reading Conservative's policies and they seem pretty good if they actually do them, but in the back of my mind all I could hear was "if they are going to do all of this, how are they going to fund it". I don't see a way that they will be able to do all that without taxing us to the hilt (I know this will be the same for all the parties) but I have just had enough of getting paid and alot of my money going to them. It is just tooo much money all the time.
Bah, will have to read the other policies later on.
TinkerBell
07-04-2010, 09:58
I would much prefer it if everybody voted on the policies they agree with opposed to their 'front man' of choice; sure, it's hard to believe that some MPs are involved in the running of the country when they behave in such a playground manner, but I must admit feeling impressed/relieved with a couple of speeches & comments made that promoted what a party would actually like to achieve- opposed to a tiresome barrage upon rival candidates/parties.
This was something I noticed yesterday when I was reading Conservative policies. It kept mentioning how Labour has failed us and how they weren't doing what they were supposed to. Of course we blooming know where they have gone wrong. I don't won't to hear about them. I want to know what YOU are going to do, not what they should have.
I don't generally write anyone off and I know you're not on a massive campaign drive :)
If you don't subscribed to the general philosophy of 'for the greater good' then the Lib Dems are going to have less appeal
If it's for the greater good, I still think it's a bad idea. More people use the roads compared to trains so for the greater good surely means more money spent on the roads? I'm all for the greater good.
I just find it difficult to vote for people who I know will lie to me to get what they want, have absolutely no idea what life is like outside of their ivory towers and will doubtless let me down when they get into power. I understand what is being said and I understand that there's good and bad on both sides of the major parties, unfortunately, it's usually the good stuff you voted for that never appears, and the bad stuff that you didn't want that you get in spades. So forgive me for not leaping towards the voting station with a spring in my step and a song in my heart. I honestly don't feel that it matters a jot what I want to happen, because it won't, whether I vote or not. I will be looking at the policies individually, but I suspect yet again it will be the lesser of two evils rather than a positive vote.
I wish there was a party I wanted to vote for, because I'd vote for them regardless of whether I thought they'd get in or not.
I vote Green for those reasons. My theory is, and I don't really follow politics so it might be totally fscked, but its that Green are hopefully fighting for the planet rather than greedy policies and breaking things like the NHS and copyright on my photos. So I vote for them hoping that my vote goes to someone who is trying to do good for us all.
I'm not sure if I want to be proven wrong on that or not tbh. I won't know who to vote for otherwise. Might start my own party. The Xmas Party. Policies include no xmas ads or music until Dec 1st. A ban on chavy decorations like black Xmas trees and blue neons ;)
I've never been more disillusioned with the government than last night when I watch Parliament live. They were debating the DEBill. All 10 of them. 10! The other 600 had better things to do. Over 20,000 people complained about it and about 10 people showed up to discuss such an important bill. I was disgusted. AFAIK my MP wasn't there fighting for my believes. Guess I'm naive to believe that thats what they do.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7562734/MPs-criticised-for-poor-turnout-at-Digital-Economy-Bill-debate.html
Matblack
07-04-2010, 11:50
I don't generally write anyone off and I know you're not on a massive campaign drive :)
If it's for the greater good, I still think it's a bad idea. More people use the roads compared to trains so for the greater good surely means more money spent on the roads? I'm all for the greater good.
There is a much bigger picture than making the roads better. You can only make the roads so much better and the roads can only take so many cars.
Hell I love my car but I know that unless we invest in the public transportation system, make it affordable and pleasant that the traffic jams will get worse and worse and worse, as a country we won't be able to keep our agreements on greenhouse gases and things will get nasty. You just have to look at my home town to see that however much money you throw at roads you'll never solve the problem and we have to invest in other ways
I'm not sure it's really worth getting into a big debate about it there are so many more policies than just taking a bit of road investment and putting it in to public transport. As I mentioned earlier the Lib Dems are one of the few parties to tell people that 'This is going to hurt', I'd rather people were honest with me that give me bluff and bluster and say 'hey this might not help you directly but the benefits will be worth the pain'. That's just me though.
MB
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/
^^ Live footage ^^
I cannot believe these MPs are behaving in such a manner; it is more comparable to a drunken night of laddish banter than a discussion and debate of important governing issues.
our Lib Dem run council paid out just short of £500,000 for the sugababes to appear at our local park
They then kept 4,000 of the 14,000 tickets for family and friends of council folks and the local newspaper
5,000 of the remaining 10,000 tickets went to locals the rest went "elsewhere"
the show generated about £270,000
this cost every local person who didn't go £40 for the privelidge
the head of the Lib Dems arranged 2 overnight off site meetings, 2 miles from the council offices , these involved overnight stays and in one case a wine bill for 3 people running into several hundred pounds
the concert thing I think was to boost their egos and the hotel/wine as sleazy as anything from MPs
T'was a good evening though :D
Didnt realise thats what it cost them :/
Didnt realise thats what it cost them :/
You. It cost YOU!!! ;)
There is a much bigger picture than making the roads better. You can only make the roads so much better and the roads can only take so many cars.
Oh aye, it's not quite as black and white as I've put in my post. There's plenty to think about.
One thing I just can't go with the LibDems with is where they want to scrap our nuclear armament. The world is a constantly changing and hostile place. I want a big fist that others know I can use to punch back with should I have to. It should stop them throwing the first punch.
You. It cost YOU!!! ;)
At least Dee got a ticket for he money unlike most of us :p
I admire MB's commitment to the "bigger picture" as someone who seems to have done quite well for himself it would be easy just to worry about himself
However I believe the "bigger picture" has already gone too far, people who work hard and try and better themselves are continually battered while those who sit on their arses rewarded
The needy have to be helped but the idle should never be
I have watched the situation with my retired parents, they have a small private pension, they are punished for this in terms of council tax, fuel allowances etc
it's time that people were encouraged to work, better themselves and take some responsibility, at the moment there is no incentive to do this
Briggykins
07-04-2010, 14:24
One thing I just can't go with the LibDems with is where they want to scrap our nuclear armament. The world is a constantly changing and hostile place. I want a big fist that others know I can use to punch back with should I have to. It should stop them throwing the first punch.
Yep, that and nuclear power (very good thing imo) are the two areas on which I disagree with the LDs. Neither of them are my most important issue, but nonetheless it's off-putting. Still, none of the parties match me completely.
Matblack
07-04-2010, 15:31
I admire MB's commitment to the "bigger picture" as someone who seems to have done quite well for himself it would be easy just to worry about himself
However I believe the "bigger picture" has already gone too far, people who work hard and try and better themselves are continually battered while those who sit on their arses rewarded
The needy have to be helped but the idle should never be
I have watched the situation with my retired parents, they have a small private pension, they are punished for this in terms of council tax, fuel allowances etc
it's time that people were encouraged to work, better themselves and take some responsibility, at the moment there is no incentive to do this
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some pious bloody hippy who wants to be able to live off the rich.
I like a nice house and a nice car, but I also like nice town and nice parks and good hospitals which I don't have to pay insurance for and that I know my Grandmother can access as well despite the fact she is on a pension and can't afford health insurance and I am willing to give a proportion of my earnings to get that.
If by doing so other people benefit then that's good. I don't want to fund people sat on their arses either, however I live with the idea that if god forbid Heather and I are made redundant at the same time I would like some help to stay alive and that if I develop an illness which means I have to have care long term then I don't have to sell my house to get it.
Interestingly there are places where this happens if you look at Sweden and Denmark the tax rate is high however public services are comprehensive and of excellent quality and the people seem to like it. Here in the UK there is far too much emphasis on how much money people have got and how they can get more.
Taking things to the extreme, I don't want to live in a gated community and drive my Ferrari through slums to get to work when I can live in a nice place in a nice area and drive a reasonable car, some people might call this Socialism but I call it common sense.
MB
, however I live with the idea that if god forbid Heather and I are made redundant at the same time I would like some help to stay alive MB
totally agree, however surely someone who worked hard, paid taxes and fell on hard times thorough no fault of their own at the moment gets "looked after" to the same extent ( and often a lesser extent ) than the idle dossers that have never done a proper days work or contributed anything to society
or not at all Grandad. My Mum & Step-Dad had separated and were living in separate houses. She got a new job in a different field and after 12 months was made redundant because the company folded while she was in hospital after a serious operation. After 26 years continuous employment in the health service she was told that she wasn't entitled to anything at all because her husband was still in full employment (despite the fact that they were living in separate houses and were officially separated and had been for some time). That was a bit of a kick in the teeth, and one of the reasons that I don't trust any of them. I realise it's different for everyone, but there's something rotten somewhere, and I don't think a change of party will change any of it.
Yours,
Disillusioned, England.
Yep, that and nuclear power (very good thing imo) are the two areas on which I disagree with the LDs. Neither of them are my most important issue, but nonetheless it's off-putting. Still, none of the parties match me completely.
why don't you agree with building nuclear power plants?
Energy security is probably the biggest issue facing us, due to the sheer time it takes to plan and build.
Matblack
07-04-2010, 17:13
This is interesting
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Voting record (from PublicWhip)
How Ann Widdecombe voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted moderately against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1071)
Voted moderately against introducing a smoking ban. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=811)
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1049)
Voted very strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=975)
Voted moderately against Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1053)
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=984)
Voted moderately against laws to stop climate change. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1030)
Voted a mixture of for and against introducing ID cards. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1051)
Voted moderately for greater autonomy for schools. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1074)
Voted moderately against introducing foundation hospitals. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=363)
Voted strongly against introducing student top-up fees. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1052)
Voted very strongly against equal gay rights. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=826)
Voted moderately against a transparent Parliament. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=996)
Voted strongly against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1079)
Voted strongly against a wholly elected House of Lords. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=837)
Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
Well the old bitch has done 2 things I actually agree with and a shed load of stuff I don't. Unlikely we'll get a change though it would take a 15% swing
MB
Dymetrie
07-04-2010, 17:21
So she was on my side here:
Voted moderately against introducing a smoking ban. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=811)
But showed her true colours here:
Voted very strongly against equal gay rights. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=826)
*sigh*
or not at all Grandad
Too right. You know what help I get if our business goes tits up? Nothing. Not one bit as I'm self employed. That's the thanks we get for trying to run an business and employing people.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
That's a great site :)
Voted moderately against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1071) - good
Voted moderately against introducing a smoking ban. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=811) - good, smoking band should be in public places not private bars, I would even support a total public smoking ban, but private clubs should be allowed to do what they want.
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1049) -good, you have to vote with teh evidence you have been given, so this vote is good.
Voted very strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=975) - good as the evidence at the time has been shown to be wrong.
Voted moderately against Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1053) - bad, it should of been strongly against. there is no need to erode rights.
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=984) - good
Voted moderately against laws to stop climate change. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1030) - good but bad. although I don't think we need laws to stop climate change, I think we do need laws on energy effeceincy and energy security. So same laws different reasons.
Voted a mixture of for and against introducing ID cards. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1051) -good depending how she voted. ID cards aren't a totally bad idea, just the way they are implemented.
Voted moderately for greater autonomy for schools. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1074) - good
Voted moderately against introducing foundation hospitals. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=363) - no idea on issue
Voted strongly against introducing student top-up fees. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1052) - meh university needs a total reform.
Voted very strongly against equal gay rights. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=826) - BAD, what the hell
Voted moderately against a transparent Parliament. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=996) - bad
Voted strongly against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=1079) - good I think it provides balance.
Voted strongly against a wholly elected House of Lords. votes (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1701&dmp=837) - meh as above.
Voted very strongly for the hunting ban. - Bad, report came back showing the method was no worse than other legal methods, so either none or all should be banned. Nothing but a popularity law.
wow I'm quite shocked how much I agree with her.
Del Lardo
07-04-2010, 17:33
why don't you agree with building nuclear power plants?
Energy security is probably the biggest issue facing us, due to the sheer time it takes to plan and build.
I think he does agree but the Lib Dems don't
I think he does agree but the Lib Dems don't
Doh' I thought they supported it.
That's a massive bad policy from them
Matblack
07-04-2010, 17:42
Doh' I thought they supported it.
That's a massive bad policy from them
Agreed
MB
Here's their policy on power. I agree with it except nuclear. we need both renewable and nuclear. I also agree with renewable will provide jobs and massive exports to other countries. That certainly is a deal breaker, that is probably my number one policy I need to vote.
Although I don't agree that oil is going to run out and that it is all doom and gloom. I do think energy security and eventually peak oil will be a problems. And that we need to start the shift know and not just national grid but transport.
Climate change is getting worse and could destroy our way of life. Our children will suffer most if we don’t act now.
Liberal Democrats believe that there is a huge opportunity to get out of this recession by going green, strengthening the economy, creating new jobs and improving the quality of people’s lives.
Many people still struggle to pay their fuel bills. Liberal Democrats will require energy companies to simplify the complicated tangle of different tariffs, requiring them to charge families less for a basic amount of energy used, to encourage responsible use. We will also introduce a fair social tariff system for disadvantaged families. We will roll out smart meters to all households within five years and insulate all of Britain’s homes to a decent standard within 10 years. We will immediately raise the requirements of Building Regulations to ensure that all new homes are energy efficient and use ‘Green Loans’ to encourage people to invest in home energy efficiency and micro-renewables.
Both Labour and Conservatives support the construction of new nuclear power stations. More nuclear power will soak up subsidy, centralise energy production and hinder development of Britain’s vast renewable resources. Nuclear has a dirty legacy and increases global security risks. We oppose construction of further nuclear power stations.
Liberal Democrats will drive a massive programme of investment in renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar. We will also transform the National Grid into a smart decentralised grid which will respond dynamically to the changing patterns of energy demand. Smart metering and guaranteed prices will unlock the potential of local and community energy generation, giving people control over the energy they use.
We will invest now in the green technologies of the future delivering hundreds of thousands of new and better jobs in the years to come. A zero-carbon Britain will also be energy secure, with action at the EU level, to deliver an energy independent Europe breaking our current dependence on fossil fuels.
We will prioritise achieving a global agreement providing leadership for an international framework that will enable each country to manage a transition to a low-carbon economy. We will help developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Briggykins
07-04-2010, 18:30
Well the old bitch has done 2 things I actually agree with and a shed load of stuff I don't. Unlikely we'll get a change though it would take a 15% swing
MB
Interesting...I never would have thought she'd be for the hunting ban. I assumed she'd be one of the most vehement opposers of it. Shows how much I know!
Matblack
07-04-2010, 18:38
Interesting...I never would have thought she'd be for the hunting ban. I assumed she'd be one of the most vehement opposers of it. Shows how much I know!
She is very pro-'gods little creatures' but she'd happily shoot a homosexual; what can I say, she's a nutter.
MB
Psymonkee
07-04-2010, 18:39
How Menzies Campbell voted on key issues since 2001:
* Voted strongly against introducing student top-up fees. votes
* Voted very strongly for laws to stop climate change. votes
* Voted very strongly against Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes
* Voted moderately against the hunting ban. votes
* Voted very strongly against introducing foundation hospitals. votes
* Voted very strongly against the Iraq war. votes
* Voted very strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war. votes
* Voted moderately for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. votes
* Voted moderately for a wholly elected House of Lords. votes
* Voted very strongly against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests. votes
* Voted strongly for equal gay rights. votes
* Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament. votes
* Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban. votes
* Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools. votes
* Voted very strongly against replacing Trident. votes
* Voted very strongly against introducing ID cards. votes
Large amount of thumbs up from me actually! :)
Don't know enough about certain issues (foundation hospitals, top up fees) but actually quite pleased with what I see!
Matblack
07-04-2010, 18:41
Can't go wrong with Ming the Merciful he's a top chap :)
MB
Large amount of thumbs up from me actually! :)
Don't know enough about certain issues (foundation hospitals, top up fees) but actually quite pleased with what I see!
The top half seem to be things I would disagree with him and the bottom half agree with him
Boo
Voting record (from PublicWhip)
How Louise Ellman voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards. votes
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. votes
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war. votes
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes
Yey
Voted strongly for introducing a smoking ban. votes
Voted strongly for the hunting ban. votes
Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.
She also voted yes on DEBill. On the whole shes not great.
The real issue I have is that I vote in May but move house in June. So if I vote for a Liverpool person it won't affect where I plan to live only where I work.
Briggykins
09-04-2010, 08:52
Hmm, just found out that we're moving into a new constituency (an apparently random collection of Devon towns and villages) with all-new candidates, so it's a bit of a shot in the dark as to how they'd vote. Also the Labour candidate (the splendidly named Digby Trout) apparently doesn't exist.
How Richard Benyon voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident
Voted moderately against Labour's anti-terrorism laws
Voted strongly for laws to stop climate change.
Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.
Voted very strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted moderately against introducing a smoking ban.
Voted very strongly for greater autonomy for schools.
Voted very strongly against equal gay rights.
Voted very strongly against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.
Voted very strongly against introducing ID cards.
Voted against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
Voted a mixture of for and against a wholly elected House of Lords.
Not really sure what to make of that, but he's been much better on local issues which I'm happy with.
My views are somewhat Labour-inclined. I have a big problem with the Liberals in that they make too many U-turns for my liking. Yes, everyone has to react to circumstances but if you truly believe in something then you believe in it.
This was something I noticed yesterday when I was reading Conservative policies. It kept mentioning how Labour has failed us and how they weren't doing what they were supposed to. Of course we blooming know where they have gone wrong. I don't won't to hear about them. I want to know what YOU are going to do, not what they should have.
Totally agree. I'm fed up with negative campaigning. It stinks of 'we don't have a clue what we're going to do, so we'll just say we're not the other lot'. In reality they're all slaves to circumstance and they're all going to have to make cuts - big ones. But they think 'it's going to hurt' doesn't win votes, so we can't do that. They're probably right, but that doesn't help those of us who can see past the obvious.
Labour have never got in around here, and likely never will. Despite my views I won't vote for them anyway - they're as guilty of causing this mess as the bankers are and seem unable to face the fact that cuts must happen - sooner than later.
That leaves the status quo then (Conservative) - despite my concerns about their seemingly vacuous manifesto. I don't know enough about the smaller parties to even think about voting for them.
I think we need a "none of the above" option. They go on about dwindling voting numbers but I bet you'd see a whole lot more turn out if that option was on there. Of course it will never happen because seeing that option win would mean they'd have to change something in the system.
A mate of mine attends every election back home and takes in a big black marker and writes "VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE" across the slip and posts it in the ballot box :D
Which promptly goes in the 'spoiled ballot' pile and is never seen again. At best it's a statistic, at worst a piece of paper in a bin - some officials announce the number of spoiled ballots, some don't.
Not that any other vote ends up being more than a statistic of course - perhaps unless there's a majority of one. :)
Another interesting site/quiz thingy: http://votematch.org.uk
This time round my views were leaning towards Lib Dem which was understandable :)
Briggykins
13-04-2010, 12:55
Hmm, on the Votematch one I'm Labour, whereas t'other I'm Lib Dem. Interesting.
Surprisingly Votematch rates Labour as the one I'd least likely vote for (which, admittedly, right now is true). Apparently, I'm most likely to vote Lib Dem. :)
Lib Dem
Tory
Green
Labour
Not quite what I was expecting, Lib Dems top was though :)
Del Lardo
13-04-2010, 15:28
Conservative Party:
56%
Labour Party:
32%
Liberal Democrats:
21%
Winner is no great surprise for me but am surprised that Labour beat Lib Dems. Strange thing is that I will probably end up voting Lib Dem as Conservatives have no chance round here and my opinions on Labour aren't suitable for BD.
Con 53%
Labour 51%
Libs 23%
If I include the ones I wouldn't vote for
British National Party: 56%
Conservative Party: 51%
Labour Party: 49%
UK Independence Party: 45%
Liberal Democrats: 26%
Green Party: 13%
I suppsoe the reason the BNP come out high is that they include a lot of populist policies amongst all their crap
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm#subject=key&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem
This is quite good - makes it easy to have a quick overview comparison.
Knipples
18-04-2010, 20:35
Stupid, but it made me laugh!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/game-downing-street-fighter
Not sure where else it's happening but it seems in all 3 constituencies for Swansea, the BNP are being a bit subtle about their party.
Rather than listing themselves as the BNP (and all the connotations that come with it of course), they're registered as Support Our Troops Bring Them Home with no mention of the party name.
Underhanded tactic which I'm not surprised that they've done but they'll no doubt get more votes because of the one issue they're pushing :/
Didn't realise till just now that parties can register themselves as such things with the Electoral Commission.
Pretty settled on who I'm voting for now anyhow :) Same as last time round.
Parties can try to call themselves pretty much whatever they want - though I'd imagine vulgarity wouldn't get them far.
BNP aren't even bothering here, although UKIP are. It'll be interesting to see how far our Independent candidate gets (he runs a shop in the town and certainly isn't afraid to express an opinion).
Rather than listing themselves as the BNP (and all the connotations that come with it of course), they're registered as Support Our Troops Bring Them Home with no mention of the party name.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8638381.stm
Only took the BBC 2 days to notice then ;D
Briggykins
24-04-2010, 15:14
Only took the BBC 2 days to notice then ;D
It didn't happen near London, you've got to be impressed they noticed at all :)
I've voted. My postal ballots turned up yesterday; I'll be putting it in the post today.
It took less than 24 hours for this to happen to poor Mr Cameron's attempt to sway the voters of Sheffield.
http://nikonizer.yfrog.com/Himg709/scaled.php?tn=0&server=709&filename=m0j.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640
Unlucky sir.
Unlucky? I'd be thinking "idiots" myself.
And I'm not talking about the Conservatives.
well yeah, there are some idiots around here, but theres also no conservative supporters.
Stan_Lite
29-04-2010, 05:44
theres also no conservative supporters.
Bit like Scotland then :D
Bit like Scotland then :D
Would I be off the mark in presuming that Scottish conservatives would be most likely to vote for the SNP?
Stan_Lite
29-04-2010, 08:52
Would I be off the mark in presuming that Scottish conservatives would be most likely to vote for the SNP?
The SNP have long been labelled as "Tartan Tories". They have tried, in recent years, to convey a more Socialist image but, in my opinion, this is simply a veneer to make them more electable in Scotland. It worked in the Scottish parliament elections in 2007 but, looking at recent polls, it would appear the Scottish electorate have seen through the red veneer to the blue undercoat.
It's difficult to compare voting trends between Westminster and Holyrood elections due to the different politics involved. Many people who voted SNP in the Scottish elections would never vote for them in a Westminster election (including myself).
Dymetrie
29-04-2010, 18:28
Despite the below, I am still taking this election srsly :D
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/3-400x211-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/4-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/5-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/11-400x240-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/22-400x241-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/lolclegg21-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/lolcleggs51-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/clegg61-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/lolCLEGG41-400x240-1.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o237/dymetrie/LOLCleggz/21-1.jpg
Matblack
29-04-2010, 18:53
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs454.ash1/25010_107712272603922_106723176036165_49080_196011 7_n.jpg
MB
Matblack
29-04-2010, 18:55
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-sjc1/hs414.snc3/25010_107712245937258_106723176036165_49074_646509 9_n.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-sjc1/hs434.snc3/25010_107712255937257_106723176036165_49077_580622 7_n.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs434.snc3/25010_107550549286761_106723176036165_48582_435520 9_n.jpg
MB
He eats battle biscuits? He must be good :D
why are the others not making more of a deal re the Lib Dems commitment to the Euro ?
surely that would be a vote stopper for most folks
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs434.snc3/25010_107550549286761_106723176036165_48582_435520 9_n.jpg
MB
excellent ;D
why are the others not making more of a deal re the Lib Dems commitment to the Euro ?
surely that would be a vote stopper for most folks
just seen that Clegg has promised a referendum before entering the Euro, this effectively makes it a non starter which is good news
I do worry about anyone that thinks it is a good idea though
I must say though that I like the immigration policy
an amnesty that allows illegal immigrants to stay as long as they haven't committed a crime
I have worked out his sneaky plan
- All illegal immigrants please report to XYZ and as long as you have not committed a crime you can stay"
- Right Mr xxxxx , it appears you have committed a crime
- "Have I ?"
- yes, offences under the immigration act, on yer bike ;D
sorry, just my devious mind at work ;)
I'm all for Europe - but then I feel European, definitely not English, but perhaps British.
As for the Euro, it's a stalemate for me... I honestly don't know, and until all the houses of commerce around the European nations get together with the UK and agree some key points I doubt much progress will ever get made either way..
Simple fact is we couldn't join the Euro at the moment even if we wanted to. Too much debt - and too much more being created.
Not that several countries in the Eurozone aren't worse off - Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland. Even Germany is breaking the rules (though not by much).
As for the Euro, it's a stalemate for me... I honestly don't know, and until all the houses of commerce around the European nations get together with the UK and agree some key points I doubt much progress will ever get made either way..
The lack of being able to control fiscal policy to suit your own financial situation is just not a good idea, I think that is now beginning to make itself seen with recent events
The situation with Greece just about highlights the dangers (and strengths) of a single currency. The Euro has been good for Greece, it's strength has kept it's economy going.. but now it's really going down the crapper, the rest of the Euro using countries are being dragged down along with it. Your average tax payer in Germany (for example) is now suffering because of the actions of the Greek government.
That said I'm pro-Europe, but most definitely not in it's current ridiculously bloated bureaucratic mess. As much as I'm pro-Europe I think possibly the only way to fix the EU is to dissolve it entirely and rebuild it from scratch.
The situation with Greece just about highlights the dangers (and strengths) of a single currency. The Euro has been good for Greece, it's strength has kept it's economy going.. but now it's really going down the crapper, the rest of the Euro using countries are being dragged down along with it. Your average tax payer in Germany (for example) is now suffering because of the actions of the Greek government.
That said I'm pro-Europe, but most definitely not in it's current ridiculously bloated bureaucratic mess. As much as I'm pro-Europe I think possibly the only way to fix the EU is to dissolve it entirely and rebuild it from scratch.
Good point well made - agree with that. :)
spot on, we need to all work together but not in the current format
Making one currency fit 16 economies was asking for trouble - and trouble is what they've got. While shoring countries up isn't pretty it's better than the other option - this time, there's no 'get out' clause to ponder while singing in the bath.
Del Lardo
05-05-2010, 09:36
Finally something worth talking about. Labour and the Lib Dems will both ban Page 3 as they think tits are the work of the devil or something therefore the only way to vote is Conservative.
THIS LINK IS NS@W (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2959490/Save-these-girls-brfrom-dole-queue.html)
Just found out that I have to fly to Germany tonight so I won't be voting, not that it would have made any difference as Lib Dems are pretty much guaranteed to win Cambridge.
My dad popped his voting paper in the ballot envelope, sealed it, put it in the postage envelope, posted it, and two days later... it dropped through the letterbox. ;D
No idea why they make it possible to do that - their address on one side of the ballot envelope and yours on the other. Surely we're advanced enough now to misalign two pieces of text so one shows through the window in a certain orientation and the other won't when it's flipped? Then again, my dad is advanced enough that he shouldn't have made that mistake!
Luckily my brother is in South America at the moment so he nabbed his envelope instead and reposted.
Finally something worth talking about. Labour and the Lib Dems will both ban Page 3 as they think tits are the work of the devil or something therefore the only way to vote is Conservative.
THIS LINK IS NS@W (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2959490/Save-these-girls-brfrom-dole-queue.html)
Oh dear. Poor Murdoch is getting that desperate? Historically he has used the Sun to swing votes, or put its weight behind a party once it's become clear that it's going to win. At the same time the tone of the articles change to make it appear that the Sun has always, always stood for the party that wins, and then in classic Murdoch egotism, the day after espouse: "It was The Sun what won it", as if the Sun journalists were what resulted in the win instead of the reality of being ass-licking glory hunters. What is the most stupid is the readers all lap it up, because it makes them look smart, makes them look like their choice of news paper is the one that is on the winning side, the right minded one.
Every time it's left Murdoch with number 10 in his back pocket. We've had decades of him meddling in government. This year it's the Tories that he's got influence with, and very early on he swung support of his papers most behind. With Labour waning it was a sure shot, anyone with half a brain can see that a good percentage of the population is tired of them, that people are calling out for something new (much like the election back in '97). It was for a good while all about the Tories.
Then all of a sudden, along came that first debate and the Lib Dems suddenly appeared to be David to the tory-labour Goliath. Immediately not 1, but 4 Murdoch controlled newspapers all came out with dirty accusations against a party leader they'd entirely ignored. Suddenly the safe bet Murdoch had made wasn't so safe any more, and it was all guns to the fore. Murdoch (or his cronies) can't stand the idea that they won't have as much influence in Government as they have before. After all, politicians have good memories even if the readers don't. They remember who supported their campaign and who didn't.
1 paper doing it would have looked legit. 2 would be unusual, but 4 all simultaneously? If he was that dirty he would have been picked up before.
When newspapers try to call out Murdoch on his attempts to dictate the election (e.g. The Independant: "Rupert Murdoch won't decide the election – you will"), his sons went in like little bully boys to threaten and bluster, almost Mafiosa style "The boss heard what you said and he doesn't like it".
So now we're getting to the last few days and out come the desperate cries, the last ditch attempts to persuade the Sun readers that something bad is going to happen if they dare to oppose the holy Murdoch's dictates.
Whats the best way to lead Sun readers by the nose? Threaten that most holy of The Sun institutions, page 3.
It is utterly, utterly pathetic. What is worse is it will damn well work too. There will be Sun readers who will vote Tory just because of it.
Murdoch
'His' coverage after the 2nd debate was about as blatant as you you can get - conveniently ignoring any polls which didn't toe his line. I'm sure he'd have rigged the debate itself had he been allowed to.
Well I was the early bird today as I have a fair bit of stuff to do tonight. Vote cast at 07:04 this morning.
Matblack
06-05-2010, 10:06
'His' coverage after the 2nd debate was about as blatant as you you can get - conveniently ignoring any polls which didn't toe his line. I'm sure he'd have rigged the debate itself had he been allowed to.
I was utterly disgusted by the Sky coverage, the 'impartial' chair even went as far as drawing attention to coverage of Nick Clegg in the press and attempting to smear him during the debate, he put Clegg in a position where he had to defend himself not from a question from the public but from scrutiny by one of Murdochs own papers. When the debates happen next time lets hope Sky aren't given one.
MB
leowyatt
06-05-2010, 13:10
Well I've found our local election cards but not the general ones :/
Spoke to the election office and we can vote without a card and no ID is required. Is that a bit iffy to anyone else?
Spoke to the election office and we can vote without a card and no ID is required. Is that a bit iffy to anyone else?
Funny really. You can be stopped by the Police for taking a photo but you could just turn up at a Polling Station pretending to be someone else and use their vote.
leowyatt
06-05-2010, 13:30
exactly my point pete, what happens then if you turn up and your vote has already been cast? :huh:
Dymetrie
06-05-2010, 15:03
Well I was the early bird today as I have a fair bit of stuff to do tonight. Vote cast at 07:04 this morning.
Pfft... Slacker!
I was at the polling office at 0702 this morning, and was the fourth person in my ward to vote (the second seemed somewhat confused and was still there when I left:p).
exactly my point pete, what happens then if you turn up and your vote has already been cast? :huh:
Well you need to get up early, like me and Mubs :D
Del Lardo
07-05-2010, 08:53
I've come to the conclusion that my decision to get blind drunk in Germany was far better than sitting in the hotel watching the results coming in. This despite one of my more interesting hangovers ;D
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.