2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

Local radio stations are already under enforced neutrality due to the terms of their broadcasting licences, same as TV. As for the Press - how would you legislate for that? Would the political parties be prevented from printing their own in-house magazines? What about independent, but politically partisan pamphleteers?

Interesting today that it is being branded about that Labour, the losing party are desperately trying to cling on to power is the 'Robert Mugabe' style of politics, scrambling around to trying to remain in power, even though they lost the election. Bloody hypocrites.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by SB_07

Do people forget the Conservatives ruined this country before Labour.

No, but in the case of Gordon Brown's government, the country was ruined by Tony Blair's government.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Chris

Local radio stations are already under enforced neutrality due to the terms of their broadcasting licences, same as TV. As for the Press - how would you legislate for that? Would the political parties be prevented from printing their own in-house magazines? What about independent, but politically partisan pamphleteers?

Printed material from the parties is reasonable. However free and biased publicity from the press is not. I only read the local Cameron Gazette (Witney Gazette) and avoid all national papers. Whilst I can appreciate a local MP is a newsworthy item for the local paper, during the election this should stop.
Our local press put a huge interview with DC in the paper (nicely timed with the postal votes) with nothing similar for any of the other candidates in subsequent weeks. I am fully aware I live in blue balloon on a string territory (both hubby & I work here so no silly suggestions of moving to be able to have my vote count) so no matter what we will get a Tory, however just for that short period a bit of neutrality would be wonderful.

[nomadking]

Bias can take the form of censorship(ie not reporting a story in the first place) or just the use of certain words to change the emphasis of a story(BBC are major offenders).

Originally Posted by Mick

Interesting today that it is being branded about that Labour, the losing party are desperately trying to cling on to power is the 'Robert Mugabe' style of politics, scrambling around to trying to remain in power, even though they lost the election. Bloody hypocrites.

Oh Jeez. It is not comparable Robert Mugabe. Some of the hyperbole people use in this country is ridiculous, I heard people on Radio 4/5 comparing the trouble people had voting to a 3rd world country where we would send UN Inspectors in Such comparisons do us a disservice because all it does it further enrage people on an already sensitive topic as well as being a vast exaggeration.

The Tories should from the next government. However there is nothing legally wrong with what Labour are doing, this is the result of our electoral system.

I think it helps if we accept that people didn't win or lose the election but that one party won more seats than another. It feels like a game rather than a democracy the way people seem to behave, that it's winner take all if they got the highest score.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Although the question was not directed at you, I presume you are happy having your pay frozen then?

Yes, hysterically so, as I feel I am vastly overpaid and need to be brought down to earth.

Or, in the real world, where really dumb questions like that don't get asked, but someone feels the need to do so anyway, I would state that I don't believe anyone would be happy to have outgoings rising (utilities, council tax, food, fuel, etc) due to things without my control, whilst income remains static. However, I understand that money has to be created to be distributed, and if that money isn't there, it can't be distributed.

Therefore, I accept that my pay will be frozen, that my outgoings will have to reduce (apart from those I have no control over) - anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fool's paradise (imho). One (or the country) can't spend what it doesn't have (well, it can, but then Mr Default comes to visit, which is not a good thing).

hth

Alan Johnson (via the BBC) has just said

What the voters have said is, 'We're not giving anyone an overall majority'," says Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

I don't remember anyone saying that - does anyone else?

[injuneer]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Some of them have been made promise after promise from all parties and have still seen no change in their circumstances,some of them after years of supporting one side or the other.If I lived on one of the really terrible estates in an inner city where nothing seems to improve, I think I might also wonder what the point was in voting.

Maybe if we had a fairer system more people would vote? In my constituency my vote was worth 0.03, so hardly worth voting at all!

[Lord Nikon]

Perhaps more people would have voted had there been an option on the ballot paper to say "I have no confidence in any of the above to represent the views of the electorate or to run this country as it should be run' - however, a lack of confidence in any of the electorate available on the ballot paper can only be represented by a refusal to vote for them, an action which currently is only interpreted as abstaining / disinterest.
To determine who is abstaining and who does not have confidence in the parties / representatives available that option must be added to the ballot paper in order to gain a more accurate representation of people's motivations.
Realistically what were the options?

Labour - who have consistently driven the country into the ground and are led by a man so arrogant he refuses his own party's calls to resign?
Conservatives who haven't got the best track record in the past and don't seem to have a strong enough leadership at the moment
Lib Dems - Who would take us full throttle into Europe despite overwhelming public opposition
Fringe parties such as UKIP / BNP who have some very objectionable views

There should be a vote for 'none of the above' whereby if 'none of the above' gains the majority vote there is to be a new election and none of the current candidates are able to stand again, and the parties must re-evaluate their election campaigns. Furthermore, elective promises which are made MUST become publicly accountable with an annual review - what steps are being taken to fulfill those promises, how much progress has been made, etc, It is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people and it's now the 21st century, time to make them act like it.

Originally Posted by Damien

Oh Jeez. It is not comparable Robert Mugabe. .

Oh Jeez nothing - It most certainly is.

Losers clinging to power and trying to cling to it even more by stitching up the electorate is very much Robert Mugabe style politics.

[punky]

The idiots are back, this time protesting the Murdoch-owned Tory mouthpiece that is the...err... BBC.

Some old banshee was going on about something during the Prescott interview instead of doing some housework.

[Derek]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/8674891.stm

Sheffield City Council's boss has given up his £20,000 returning officer fee after long queues stopped people voting at the general election.

20 grand fee? Not a bad earner for some people.

Originally Posted by Derek S

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/8674891.stm



20 grand fee? Not a bad earner for some people.

Could that not be said for most politicians?

[punky]

Now someone's calling Hague and Letwin liars and murderers?

*sigh*

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by punky

Now someone's calling Hague and Letwin liars and murderers?

*sigh*

That Scottish dude who ended up arguing with some English nationalist?

Lovely isn't it? Crazy season is in full swing.