The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2

[Tezcatlipoca]

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

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

Despite his Anglo-Saxon name, Nick Clegg is by blood the least British leader of a British political party, the son of a Dutch mother and a half-Russian merchant banker father.

OMG!!!!!!

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

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Matt D

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.

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

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

Yup, agreed with FW on that above

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.

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

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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.

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

[Tezcatlipoca]

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/




Should be interesting!

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Matt D

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

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Matt D

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

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......

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Matt D

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.

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.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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......

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.

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

[Flyboy]

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.

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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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

Looks like it....

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