Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Maybe, but I bet she has her pension credit issue resolved now... ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Surely the same as not being arsed to turn up I guess, I really do not get all of this 'none of the above' business.

If you do not want to vote for any of 'the above' then don't vote, the turnout figures will do that for you surely?

Or would someone like to explain it to me?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

and you think 'none of the above' would have more?.. I reckon it'd have about as much effect as Bliar's petitions on the No10 website.. ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

I wonder why none of the debates took place in London. It's seems to be a deliberate statement to avoid the City to avoid criticism of being too focused on London and the South East but given the population density it seems an odd omission.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Which brings us back to Andrew Rawnsley's claims which were strongly refuted by Brown's cronies of course...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ndrew-rawnsley

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------

It's just the politician's idea of a consolation prize to the regions for London getting the Olympics.... :D

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Both are pointless, but...

Basically if you don't vote, you're just in the group of "non-voters" and if the members can't be bothered to turn up and spoil their ballots, then they're not likely to vote no matter what, so it's better to concentrate on swaying those who do bother to vote. A non-voter isn't a threat to anyone, the numbers of non-voters can be shrugged off as being never likely to vote anyway so no potential votes are lost.

If there was 80% turn out and 40% spoilt ballots, then that says there's loads of potential votes that a party could have.
These are people who can be bothered to go to the polling booths, and so would vote for a party if they were impressed enough by them.
The media are more likely to pick up on the issue and hammer the politicians with it as it's a clear vote of no confidence.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Thanks Xaccers :) I understand that better now.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Somebody with sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8639348.stm

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

While this argument is sound in principle, its central weakness is in the likely number of people in any constituency who are politically motivated enough to come out to vote and yet not to align themselves with any of the candidates on the ballot.

A typical constituency in England has about 70,000 voters. To expect 28,000 people to turn out with the deliberate intention of expressing support for none of the above is a bit optimistic, I think.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

But would it not be nice to have the choice?;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

You do have a choice. You can put up a deposit and stand for election yourself. Or support someone else who has chosen to do that. I think it's fair to say there is an independent on the ballot paper more often than not, in any given election.

In the final analysis, personally I just don't think the number of people who would actually turn out and then select 'none of the above' would be worth the amount of Parliamentary time that it would take to pass the measure into law.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

He never did stand on his head & juggle ice-cream :(

Brewster beat to him it...

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/rangers/brewster.jpg

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

Brewsters Millions - Man they don't make films like that any more! Top film.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3
 

This little fiasco reinforces the subtext of the Neo-Liebour and liberal elites smearing of anyone who disagree's with the policy of open (and uncontrolled/barely controlled) immigration, being a fascist/bigot/xenophobe/racist.... So much for the governments anouncement of 6 months or so ago, that we, the British people needed to have and open and frank debate about the impact of migration into the UK, without that subtext of smearing that has come from the supporters of immigration.... It seems Gordon, in an unguarded moment may well have stated what he truely believes, and for a change not what he thinks the plebs want to hear.

As for his announcement of contrition outside the ladies house.... He looked as genuine as one of my copies of The Mona Lisa.... Namely, not very....