Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I have no doubt labour and the lib dems will form a coalition government if we allow a hung parliament and that will be bad for this country. Labour have reversed their view on a number of issues to cosy upto the lib dems in recent months because they believe the best they can get is a hung parliament. As for warming to Mr clegg not going to happen for me anytime soon because despite his claim they are in this election to form the next government they are cosying upto the labour party and are welcoming the attention coming from labour in effect stitching this country up.

No surprise on brown doing that i mean the guy has never been elected to be leader of anything so he has the form. Also the more people that are up on such things look into the lib dem manifesto the more it seems to not add up and is despite their claims not the shining pillar of honesty they are constantly shouting about. Not totally convinced by the tories yet either i may well end up doing in this election what i did in the last and spoiling my vote but i am more for the tories then i am for the other two right now.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Examples?

This seems responsibly valid: http://www.channel4.com/news/article...+focus/3612992

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I have found out that it is "The Lexalytics Twitter sentiment tracker," but I can't seem to find the one he was using. It showed that Gordon Brown hit the floor on the question about immigration, but did much better throughout the rest of the debate.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

This is not unlike the poll here, which now has LibDems and Tories tied, compared to 36% for the Tories and 18% for the LibDems in the last poll.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rformance.html

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I think that poll has changed. The figures were released prematurely, before weighting. The poll was apparently taken only from those who watched the debate. Which effectively means it was asking who won the debate. The updated figures are now:

Con 35
Lab 28
LibDem 24

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Erm That's exactly what it says in the quote. It gives the weighted and unweighted scores and explains the difference between them.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Lib Dem numbers are extremely soft at the moment though. Hopefully Lib Dems will get some momentum.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

After last nights debate, it goes to prove that the Tories won't come forward with any finance and talk all a load of crap, Gordon Brown did have a fight, but to me Clegg came out on top and for that my vote is going to him.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

We were evidently watching somewhat different debates Arthur. From my POV Cameron and Brown were both sound bite machines, just that Brown's sound bites were also interspersed with somewhat more bovine excreta than Cameron's and his attempts to get Nick Clegg to join him in attacking Cameron were amusingly rebuffed making him look like a total mammary.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Watched sky news and itv news with economists on both saying the lib dem figures in their manifesto didn't add up anymore then the one's from the labour party or the tories figures. Also a number of economists with the murdoch rags have questioned them and said the figures don't add up but given they are murdoch rags i never base much in what they say. Aired on the day they launched their manifesto and to be honest i don't think any of them are being truly honest with us about finances because the truth is going to be so harsh that the first that did come out and be totally honest i think would be slitting their political throat.

As for the debate's i honestly think they are a waste of time eight questions over 90 minutes is not enough time for a proper response with any sort of detail which is why the lib dems will love it and do well out of it. I watched last night and saw brown just parroting the same stuff he always does and clegg saying quite a few times "it's ok to talk about doing it but you need to do it" which is a bit funny coming from someone in a party that hasn't had t do a damn thing for a longtime and if they were to get into power i doubt very much they would do all they say they will.

None of them right now are beyond doubt convincing and mine and i daresay many other peoples votes are still there to be had.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

You're right sadly. As soon as Nick Clegg mentioned, briefly, cutting of a welfare benefit, the real time polling for him dropped like a brick.

Unfortunately a lot of people are far too used to Labour's profligacy and the idea of having to stop mortgaging our children for our benefit doesn't appeal.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Well that's the Labour way isn't it - chuck money at issues and don't be concerned with getting something approaching value for it. It's a pity that those who vote blindly for that sort of thing can't/won't see the bigger picture but the reality is that the axe is going to fall and, although brown and his cronies would like us all to believe that only the fat cats will pay, ordinary, decent hardworking people are going to be worse off as a direct result of New Labour's ineptitude and mismanagement.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Now I've had a chance to listen to some of the debate's 'high points' what struck me most about the 3 leaders was the way in which Brown so sickeningly cozied up to Clegg. For a man who won't even refer to their party by its correct name, I thought it was a very shallow and cynical tactic which backfired badly. I'm glad Clegg didn't buy it and even more happy that Brown was exposed for the inept political opportunist he is. It just goes to show how desperate to cling onto power this guy is.

I think Clegg probably did come across best, just, but that's mainly because the other two took their eyes off that particular ball and engaged in some of the sort of point scoring the public have become fed up with. The Lib Dems' major policies will obviously come under far more scrutiny from now on and it'll be interesting to see if/how his current personal popularity translates into votes when it comes to the crunch on the big day. If people worry that voting for Cameron's team is voting for inexperience in very tough times, how much less experienced in government are the Lib Dems? I also think a lot of people will be concerned about an amnesty for illegal immigrants in particular as well but we'll see about that won't we.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I think another thing where Clegg came out best was the fact that he was able to point to the manifesto and say 'we've pointed out where we are going to make cuts and what we're going to do with it'. Brown and Cameron were left trying to outdo each other talking about hypotheticals, and Clegg landed a sucker punch by saying they were trying to fund the NHS by saving on paperclips and pot plants in Whitehall. Priceless, I thought. But, as you say, It'll be interesting to see how things pan out. I think Clegg will come under more scrutiny in the next debates.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I reckon the gloves will come off - Brown and DC have been widely criticised for their own performances and letting Clegg off the hook. I don't see the latter happening again.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Has apathy set in already? Only 54 votes so far this week versus 103 at the close of week 1.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Anyone remember when David Cameron spoke during the debate about how he met a "40-year-old black man" who came here at the age of six and served in the Royal Navy for 30 years?

Seems the sums were wrong (& the message):

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news...l/article.html


---------------------

Who else has David Cameron met?

http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

LOL :D

[Reminds me of the "Daily Mail headline generator"]

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

David Cameron also mentioned something about 40 police offers in the Police HR department who did nothing but push paper around, turned out their job was to train other police officers...

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent at the moment though. The thing that bothers me most about Cleggy is his immigration policy, an amnesty is for illegals isn't the way to go, Spain has tried it IIRC and are now on their seventh amnesty.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

And we didn't need many helicopters 10 years ago - things, as they say, change......

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

We may not have needed as many but we still had some, where as we have never had an independent nuclear deterrent.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

What, to push paper around? :confused: :D

Well in addition to topics such as the economy (without which everything else falls), immigration and defence, I hope they're going to start explaining how they're going to ensure the lights don't start going out in a few years due to old generating capacity not being replaced speedily enough...

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

FYI

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Although for us to have a truly independent nuclear deterrent, wouldn't we really need to have our own missiles (rather than American Trident D5s), fitted with warheads not just made in the UK, but also fully UK designed?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Just to save me searching the web and this thread, is there any possibility that the Lib Dems can win? Or is it a "wasted" vote?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I don't think the recipients of our SLBM's MIRVs would actually be bothered about the manufacturing process, more about the authorisation and delivery....;)

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------

No vote is wasted if it's for a party you wish to support, but I don't think they can win.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Well, surely it depends on where you are, whether it is a wasted vote or not (& depending on what you see as "wasted").

If your constituency is a two-horse race between Labour & the Conservatives, then a vote for the Lib Dem candidate could be considered to be wasted.

But if it's a tie up between Lib Dem / Labour or Lib Dem / Tory, then a vote for the Lib Dem candidate is not wasted.

As for them winning overall... highly unlikely, even with their current poll success (which of course may not last, & may not be accurate), simply due to the UK's voting system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8626154.stm

But even though it's unlikely that the Lib Dems could win, they could end up holding the balance of power in a hung parliament, with their support being needed by the majority party.


LOL, I guess you have a point!

Has Mr Cameron said anything more about China, btw? ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

They can't win, for all sorts of reasons. There's a very good video clip explaining why on the BBC Election website. I recommend you have a look - it's under 3 minutes long.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8626256.stm

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Thanks matt, Id heard they definitely couldnt win but with the growing support it got me thinking. "wasted" was a strong word I meant even if I vote for them would it have an affect? My voting power in my region is very low and Im in a labour constituency so I guess not :(


Thanks chris, will have a look later when the mrs hasnt got britains got talent blasting out, cant concentrate with YMCA ringing in my ears :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

They will not be needed if clegg has his way as we will not have any :mad:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

If we find that we did need them in the future, we could just nip down the shops to buy some.:rolleyes: Sometimes you have to implement things in advance, because if you find that you urgently need something it may take several years to get them and it could be too late by then.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

As I & others posted earlier, more than once, Clegg did *not* say that a Lib Dem Government would scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent. He said that they say no to a like-for-like Trident replacement.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/defence.aspx

http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/...%20Defence.pdf


http://network.libdems.org.uk/manife...festo_2010.pdf

I'll also repost an earlier reply I made to you:

Given the state of the economy, & given the kind of cuts needed, is it *really* worth spending that much money on a full like-for-like replacement of Trident? [Note that they haven't said "We will completely & utterly scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent".]

And besides... Who would nuke us? Seriously? Surely the biggest nuclear threat against us at the moment is the threat of a terrorist nuclear attack, rather than an attack by a nation? You can't nuke terrorists in retaliation...

But if we were nuked, and we did not have our own nuclear deterrent anymore whatsoever (which isn't what is actually being proposed), then as we are a member of NATO & an ally of the US, the US would retaliate for us, as an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

------

So even if we had none, there is still a deterrent, as the US has them, as France has them. An attack on one NATO member = an attack on NATO = NATO retaliation.

Canada, Germany, etc. make do without them. Why do we need them? It is not the Cold War anymore. Would Iran or N. Korea really attack us? Why? If they did, they'd get nuked in response (by us if we still have nukes, by the US if we didn't). I think nuclear terrorism is a greater threat myself, & what use is an SLBM against a terror attack?

But, saying all that... as I said earlier: The Lib Dems are not proposing scrapping the UK's Nuclear Deterrent, they are not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament, etc...

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

If it's in their intrest to do so, financially and politically (Falklands anyone?).
If we were nuked, exactly how would we object to other NATO members for not coming to our aid for fear of themselves being nuked?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I just cannot trust him. He reminds me to much of the biggest lier of them all Blair

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/groups/...-dem-responses

http://news.independentminds.livejou...m/6780913.html


Now if that is the consensus among the libs then its role over and give in time if we are ever up against the wall
I cannot trust them and never will.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

OK, fair enough, if we no longer had a nuclear deterrent and if we were then subjected to a nuclear attack, and if our NATO allies decided "You know, I think we'd best stay out of this one...", we would of course be a bit screwed...Then again, one you've been nuked, what use is retaliation, other than post-mortem revenge?

I've always thought that the point of a nuclear deterrent was that it was meant to be, well... a deterrent.

We have these weapons to deter other nuclear states from attacking us, as they know that even if they flattened the whole of London (or more), our Vanguard subs out on patrol as a continuous at-sea deterrent would be able to swiftly retaliate with a load of Trident SLBMs, hence deterring anyone from attacking us in the first place.

If we no longer had any nuclear deterrent whatsoever (which is not what the Lib Dems are proposing), we would still be a member of NATO, our NATO allies the USA & France would still have nuclear weapons, and so there would still be a deterrent against attacking us. Any nuclear-armed rogue state would know that even if we did not have nuclear weapons any more, our allies would still have them, & would be assumed to come to our aid under our mutual/collective defence agreements.

I find that Cameron reminds me far more of Blair than Clegg does...

[btw, the final quote you've bolded is that of Liam Fox, the Conservative Party's Shadow Defence Spokesman, who as you quoted has "held out the prospect of a cut in the number of nuclear warheads.".]

If it was the consensus among them, it would be party policy & their website & manifesto etc. would say something like "We believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament & wish to totally scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent". It isn't. They don't.

Some Lib Dem MPs & prospective parliamentary candidates are in favour of getting rid of our nuclear deterrent completely, but not all of them.

[Just as some Labour MPs are in favour of disarming, even though it is not party policy. Just as some Labour MPs are not in favour of Trident renewal, even though it is party policy, etc.]


http://www.thebulletin.org/web-editi...on-to-the-vote

When the vote to renew Trident came up in the Commons, 88 backbench Labour MPs voted against the Government's white paper on renewing Trident, rebelling against the three-line whip imposed by the party. The vote only passed because of Conservative support... however the Conservative party also imposed a three-line whip, & the article I've linked to says that "...with several past and present Tory MPs speaking against Trident renewal and calling for greater resources to be devoted to more effective non-nuclear means of defense and deterrence..." and "the use of a three-line whip to mandate support for another party's motion is very rare and indicates that more Tory MPs might have opposed Trident if left to their own judgment.".

[Also, note that voting against renewing it now does not equal voting in favour of scrapping the deterrent altogether]

This is also interesting regarding the renewal decision a few years ago: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...nt-436428.html


As mentioned earlier, if we did not have nuclear weapons, would it matter? Why do we need them? We're in NATO. The US has them. France has them*. But no-one else in NATO does & they get along just fine. Who would we use them against? It's not the Cold War any more...We can't use them in retaliation for a terror attack. We could use them against a nation, such as Iran or North Korea, if they for some insane reason chose to attack us, but without nuclear weapons of our own we would still have our nuclear-armed NATO allies as a deterrent against attack (or as retaliation for an attack). Why do *we* need them?

*[Actually... sod it... If France has them, then we MUST have them! ;) ]

I'm not actually advocating nuclear disarmament by the UK (I've not been in CND since my student days over a decade ago, & personally I do accept the need for some sort of nuclear deterrent), I'm just trying to show the other side to "WE MUST HAVE THEM!!!!!!!".

Regardless, however, unilateral nuclear disarmament is not Lib Dem party policy, it is not Lib Dem party policy to totally ditch our nuclear deterrent. They simply think that we should not spend ££££££££££££££ on a like-for-like Trident replacement, given the cost and given the rather different situation in the world since the end of the Cold War & since we first got Trident (& Polaris before it).

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

FYI

So, what about independence of operation? Could Britain fire Trident if the US objected? In 1962 the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, said that the British nuclear bomber force did not operate independently. Writing in 1980, Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul said it definitely could not be used without US authorisation. Today former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

Confidence tricks work best on people who want to believe in them, and the British elite and much of the public are desperate to believe that Britain's bomb gives them great-power status. Instead Britain gets the worst of all worlds: weapons that can't be used when the chips are down and a US-led policy that rejects disarmament in favour of pre-emptive war. And now, with Trident becoming obsolete, the government wants to renew the deal - behind the old, dishonest mask of independent deterrence.

---------- Post added at 06:56 ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 ----------

This is moving the goalposts. For generations governments have tried to prevent the public knowing how much nuclear weapons kit the UK gets from the US, so that they could sustain the myth that our deterrent was home-made. Now, suddenly, it doesn't matter if the missiles aren't British.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

As others have said "No vote is wasted". Your vote will help to highlight the ridiculous system where a relatively large number of voters do not support the MP they end up with. I will continue to vote against the Tories as I have done since being able to vote and look at who I have for an MP.

:(
<---

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Just seen the polls which put Lib Dems in the lead (obviously incorrect) but the interesting thing is that although in that the Lib Dems would get the most votes they would still be the third party but quite a wide margin. Joke.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

But there is nothing in that (Spectator, not v. unbiased, imho) article that states the UK could not fire the MIRVs independently, except a bit of FUD and hyperbole The crux is about deployment and use, not manufacture - that is like stating we don't have an idependent Air Force or Army Air Corps, as none of their main technology (Fighters, Transports, Helicopters) are solely manufactured in the UK, or that we don't have an independent Army because they use Belgian LMGs and GPMGs, Italian LMVs, American MLRSs, French SAMs, and American Anti-Tank Missiles. ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

If we are going to talk Blair seem a likes then I reckon Cameron comes closest..I've see nothing but spin from that gent since he became the leader of the Conservatives.

Him I trust no more than GB,and I'm not sure I trust Clegg that much more.

However I think I will vote possibly Lib Dem in the hope that it might wake up the other 2 can't tell apart political parties especially if enough people also vote for Lib Dem as well.

So basically I'm not voting for a winner just a basic kick up the bum to the present generation of politicians who really cynically don't give a turd for the ordinary voter except at election times.

I'm also wondering if the MP expenses scandal will affect the number of people voting.Will they be so incensed that they actually bother to vote in larger numbers than in recent years OR will the numbers reduce even more due to a belief that democracy doesn't exist for those in the terraced housing and the council estates all over Britain.

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

And the punch up starts in earnest.:D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8627745.stm

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Loved GB's quote from your link, Maggy Well, it would, wouldn't it - I would mean he would no longer have a taxpayer fully funded London residence....:D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

He may have to go into the private sector, where overspending by billions a year for years on end has such consequences as bankruptcy or being kicked off the board by a shareholder revolt. Regrettably the UK population seem a tad more gullible and willing to forgive.

It is amusing to note all this nonsense is over about 1% of the entire budget - clearly total destruction of life as we know it. Reflects on how left-wing Brown is that he is making such a big deal out of such a relatively small sum, and indeed on how lightly Conservative Cameron is that that is all he advocates initially.

I do wonder when we became so scared of such a small reduction in the budget, 1%, 6bn, while most apparently have no issues with Labour planning on only running deficits of 5.5% of GDP, >80bn/year in 4 years given the positive reaction to Labour's economic plans.

To hell with the bills, let's see if we can get our sovereign credit rating into the B's before 2020, AAA is far too elitist for the reverse snobbery that seems to pervade right now.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I love his nick name

Nick C-legg over!

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

For someone who's so concerned about a relatively minor cut in public spending, it's a pity the possibility of financial meltdown didn't galvanise him to better regulate the banking sector during all those years of supposed 'prudence' when he was dining out on City tax receipts. If it had, we wouldn't be in this mess!

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

If anything shows the folly of judging things by opinion polls, this (imho) is the perfect example - Times A note of caution, again imho, from further down the article btw, I think it is a good thing to get away from the duopoly of modern-day politics - gives the voters more choice, and hopefully more will vote/get involved.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Mind Churchill lost out because everyone who came back from the war was disillusioned by what they found when they got home.Lack of housing,old workplaces gone,schools destroyed,ruined cities,food shortages and rationing continuing on for years.Having gone through the fighting I think they just wanted something different for their children and Winnie was part of the old ways..

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Who came out on top of this particular debate is one thing but the fact that so many people* can, apparently, decide they're now going to vote for the Lib Dems on the basis of a few minutes exposure for Clegg on TV baffles me. I can fully understand people who're mightily fed up with the current state of affairs might just want to try another way but surely the time to make such a decision is poling day when all the policies have been better scrutinised and the arguments had.


*I'm referring to the many people I've heard on the TV and radio over the last few days who've said they've now made up their minds to vote for the Lib Dems having previously not done so.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Oooh i can hear a squeaking sound :). Few bottoms squeaking isn't there and not just on here :D.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Well I'd imagine that'll be the 3 party leaders you can hear. Brown and Cameron did not do well and Clegg now knows the gloves will be off next time and that his days out of the spotlight are over.. :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Does anyone else think voting should be mandatory ? it doesn't take long does it , I have got leaflets here off a captain someone an independent :D might give him a bash

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

Failing that a ban on whining about politics if you didn't vote will do.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Your private life is entirely your own business....:D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Another mandatory fan here.

Was in Greece during an election one year & the enthusiasm & commitment to the election was brilliant, even if your morning coffee was disturbed by the sound of loud speakers blaring out Kappa Kappa Epsilon (A Greek Communist party) :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

the right to vote is as important as the right to not vote if you don't want to
so it's a no for me

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

But you can "not vote" by spoiling the ballot paper or putting a blank vote - by not turning up to vote, you are (imho) not participating, and disenfranchising your/oneself. It depends if you believe that voting is a civic duty, rather than a civic right.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Hmm. I think people have a right not to vote too. I'm not sure compulsory voting would be a good idea (although I do think that everyone should vote).

Perhaps if it were compulsory there should also be a "None of the above" option.


------------

Cameron & Brown have finally given in & agreed to face Paxman:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8626511.stm


Fear of the "Yellow Peril" has caused the right-wing press to ramp up the anti-Clegg articles:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...posh-Dave.html

OMG!!!!!!

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/04/now-...clegg-and.html

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

There is, you can either leave the ballot blank or spoil it.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Good point re. spoiling the ballot paper. If you don't want to vote, I think that is much better than simply not bothering to turn up.

It does wind me up when people I know whinge about things, & then when asked "So, who are you voting for then?" reply "Oh, I never bother voting. Can't be bothered / don't like politics / etc.".

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------

Yup, agreed with FW on that above :)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I spoiled my vote last time althoug in my mind it is not voting full stop by doing so and i would much prefer a "none of the above" option that would show total discontent rather then being dismissed as so many spoilt votes are now. As for clegg's new found popularity i do find it funny that little more then what twenty minutes of that of him talking has swayed so many people and they really need to do more then park their backsides in front of a tv and decide.

None of them right now are completely convincing but GB is a complete non issue for me so it is between the tories and the lib dems. I just still think there is too much of the old liberal thinking left right now in terms of "we can say what we want because we know we won't have to implement it" and also the heavy reliance placed on vince cable as the sensible face of the party is a little worrying the man has got it wrong in the past like all of them he is not infalable.

I like the tory idea of us all together and more power to the people rather then central government but i need them to be a lot more clear about the finance side of it before coming down firmly on their side. I am liking the talk of coming down on those getting benefit that shouldn't be but would also like a reassurance that it will be done properly not a nice convinient huge brush sweeping up everyone in the process.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

a "none of the above" option works for me aswell ,it would be helpful to know that a voter has deliberately chosen to not vote for the candidates as there are numerous reasons why a ballot paper can be deemed spoiled

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

The sad thing thing just an election result would keep them as a small minority in parliament.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Anyone else have any... interesting... candidates?

In Cambridge, we've got the usual, with the three main parties + UKIP + Green, an Independent, and...

...Political Blogger "Old Holborn"...

http://www.oldholborn.net/2010/04/ol...endent-in.html

http://www.oh4mp.com/

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2010/04/33.jpg


Should be interesting!

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I seem to remember last week that the Prime Minister had said that he would welcome such an interview and couldn't understand why the Leader of the Opposition had declined.

---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

As I have always said, "those who do not bother voting, get the government they deserve." If they do not vote, they relinquish their right to complain.

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:44 ----------

One can always write, "none of the above" on the bottom of their ballot paper.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Your memory appears to be playing tricks on you ;)

Gordon Brown did not agree until late on the night of the 16th April, (after the Nick Clegg interview was broadcast), and David Cameron agreed the next day.

Are you Baron Mandelson of Foy's sock puppet, as you appear to enjoy a good spin......:D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Which would be the same mutual/collective defence agreements which didn't deter Argentina and didn't bring the US to our defence right?
Of course that'd never happen again would it?
Especially with the thought of our "allies" themselves becoming a target for nukes.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

What you are referring to is an official agreement to do the interviews. What I am referring to is what Gordon Brown said, during the week, when asked by a reporter during an interview, if he would like to have an interview by Jeremy Paxman, the same as Nick Clegg had. He replied as I have said above.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Linky, please? (as a fairly thorough search on the web can't find anything before Friday evening)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I have no link I'm afraid, it was on the television news, not sure which channel, heck I can't even remember what day it was; it may have been after the debate. But, as I understand it, there is no confirmation that Cameron has actually agreed.

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 21:06 ----------

Just found some stuff about Brown agreeing on Friday to Paxman interview.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/4083/

P.S. I have not had any to time to vet the source, I have no idea who they are (I am sure someone will find a bias somewhere), but it does seem to indicate that Cameron may be just jumping into it, even though many a Tory wishes he wouldn't.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

So we are in violent agreement that GB agreed on Friday, rather than last week, and then DC agreed the next day.....:D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Looks like it.... :rofl:

The trouble with you is that you keep letting facts get in the way of a good argument..... :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Which, depending on ones perspective, was last week. But I believe the inference was, it was some simultaneous decison. The interview I heard was more of a, "have you considered.....?" "I would welcome a chance.....I don't understand why Cameron hasn't...."

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...nding-row.html

Of course it's all rubbish because, as we all now know, Gordon brown has always had:

:rolleyes: :mad:


* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7108650.stm

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Perhaps someone should have told Brown that we know praise doesn't buy equipment, or save lives

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Sadly neither does Tory cuts..;) I couldn't resist that one Xaccers.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Well i know it to be real, I have seen my lad buy equipment he needed for both tours he did in afghanistan. Some of the stories he has told me of lack of equipment and AMMO would shock you. Thankfully he has decided to leave the armed forces and one of the reason is lack of kit and support.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Violent agreement..that's one I must remember.:D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

No doubt you'll be passing on his and your own sincere thanks to Gordon Brown via your New Labour candidate... :rolleyes:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Sorry Flyboy, I appreciate we don't see eye to eye on many things but this is ridiculous and looks, feels and sounds like political spin.

When speaking on a Sunday and referring to the previous Friday, two days before, one is talking about this week. Last week being the week prior to the current one.

Under commonly held wisdom and the official international standard ISO 8601 the week runs from Monday to Sunday, 'this week' is usually considered to be referring to the current period of Monday to Sunday and 'last week' the previous period.

An exception to this is when one uses a term such as 'In the last week' where speaking about time relatively rather than absolutely in which case the statement is taken to refer to the previous relative period of 7 days to the current day rather than an absolute week of Monday to Friday.

Your comment about 'perspective' is quite weak and reminds me pretty strongly of a politician. 'We weren't wrong, it's a matter of perspective...'

But of course you know all this. :)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Thank you, Ignitionnet - you saved me a post, and put so much better than I could have.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

It depends on the cuts, surely you can see that?
Cut spending in the right places and reallocate some of that saving to the armed forces.
So Tory cuts can save lives and buy equipment.

Where as, change where you give nothing but praise, and it still makes no difference.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

This is a nice letter.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

:tu:

... and let's not forget who's ultimately responsible for the financial mess that's necessitating the cuts!

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Oh for the love of...Can we please avoid mentioning Thatcher again











:D;)
* I know that it is of course not Thatchers fault before anyone starts

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

If the new labour candidate shows his face at my door i will let him know of that you can be assured. ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Something else that's obviously also Maggie's fault ... creating the impression that you can use a naval task force to persuade people to re-elect you. I don't think it will work for Gordon though. Still, I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

the only way it would work is if Ark Royal accidently fired off a few shots in the general direction of paris :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

If I was on a French cruise liner, I would be getting very worried around now........;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

He doesn't have to do much. Cameron and the Tories abysmal campaign thusfar is doing all the work for him. All Labour have to do is recite the same tired BS about evil Tories and promises of unfunded public services over and over again and despite their abysmal failure over the past 13 years and the massive debt they have placed on our children they will end up with a hung parliament, form a left-wing coalition with the Lib Dems and finish the job of destroying the 'Great' in Britain.

I didn't mind the Lib Dems then I read their economic policy :erm:

One thing Labour have done superbly is convince the masses that they really need the Government to do virtually everything for them, and make far too many far too comfortable living either with the assistance of or entirely dependent on the tax payer.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

:clap:

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

I think Clegg's refusal to give any indication who his party would be likely to support in the event of a hung parliament may come back to haunt him. At the moment he seems to be trying not to put off the large number of red and blue waverers who're seemingly thinking about the Lib dems as a serious option. As decision time comes closer, however, I think he may just lose a proportion of both unless he nails his colours to the mast.

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 ----------

Too true!

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Surely it's unwise for him to support a party without knowing the results, I shall imagine he will go for the party with the bigger mandate.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Given the total lack of any real and achievable commitment on pretty much anything from the other two I guess he felt he needed to follow.

This is the problem really, the Labour campaign and manifesto is so full of BS that attempts to introduce commitments and facts to the equation just don't get you elected as you're against someone promising the earth and an electorate a large proportion of which are gullible enough to believe it. This is also largely the Tories' fault as they aren't doing enough to call BS on Labour's policies instead trying to be positive and take the moral high ground, which given they're against the Dark Lord isn't really going to work.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 ----------

I honestly don't see how he could support Cameron looking at the massive gulf between them. I struggle to reconcile his far more positive attitude to Europe along with socialist economic policies with Conservative points of view.

This is quite amusing. No real surprise to most who watch the BBC's output either :)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Depends what you call a mandate - last time out the Tories got lots more votes but a lot less seats.



---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------

I tend to agree, in which case people who support that view will see his unwillingness to say so as a rather cynical tactic. I really do think Clegg's in between a rock and a hard place on this and may wind up putting off a lot of potential voters due to his lack of clarity on such a major issue.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Again, given the lack of clarity from the other two on most major issues I can't see it being a problem. They are either vague or full of excrement in the case of Brown and vague, impotent and unimpressive in the case of Cameron.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Well no, Labour got more votes than the Tories although the share of the vote was not reflected in the seat distribution.

As annoying as it is for the Conservatives the Liberal Democrats are screwed. Even if they won the election in terms of votes, even by a nice margin, they would remain the smallest party. With roughly 100 to 110 seats. Labour got a nice majority with a smaller share of the vote and an equivalent share for the Tories would give them a majority.

I think it's a horrible system and it needs to change. It's understandable to have a slightly unbalanced system when an election is close but not one that effectively makes it impossible for a 3rd party to ever win an election. Hopefully the result of this election will highlight this and geniune reform will have to result from the uproar that follows.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Pardon my momentary mental lapse - I evidently can't multitask... :)

It wasn't last time out it was 1974 (well to me 1974 seems like only yesterday.. ;) )

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

Didn't want to drag the Volcano thread into the political debate and get it locked so decided to post this here:

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/news/topne...-cash-aid.html

However, apparently, according to BBC radio, the HMS Ark Royal and HMS Ocean are still on standby and NOT yet on their way to rescue stranded travellers.... :confused:

Of course this could be wrong but if it isn't this wouldn't be the first time Brown had given a wrong impression would it...

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

But he hasn't declared how he will decide what method to use, whether it is number of votes, or number of seats. That said, I thnk he is more inclined to side with the party who are most likely to support the Liberal Democrat ideals.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

If l was a betting man, l would place a £100.00 bet on Lib Dems pulling off a shocker in the General Election.

In all my years of voting, l have never seen the parties so close together like this time, the battle used to be a two horse race, but now the Libs have come up on the outside and they are within 5/10 points of Tories, then Labour.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

Sadly due to the dubious nature of our system and the manner in which it has been rigged even if the Lib Dems took the popular vote by some distance they still wouldn't be in power. Even if either opposition party took a considerably higher percentage of the vote than Labour did last time they wouldn't have a majority.

Labour would be the biggest party even if it finished Conservatives 33%, Lib Dems 30%, Labour 27%.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2
 

But surely if the Lib Dems believe in proportional representation, in the event of a hung parliament, they should ally with the party that had the most votes in this election?