The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 2

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

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.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

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.

[Osem]

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

Too true!

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

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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.

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Osem

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

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.

[Osem]

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

"I believe that this is one of the most serious transport disruptions that we have faced," Brown told reporters.

"It's got financial consequences as well as human consequences and we will do everything in our power to make sure all the arrangements are in place to help people where possible to get back home."

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....

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...

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

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.

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%.

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?