The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I see your Cameron with a Brown



And raise you a Kinnock....

Now THAT'S what I call funny!!

In my mind's eye I can see a picture of Mandelson with head in hands too....



---------- Post added at 21:38 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

The head of the International Monetary Fund has warned that the crisis in Greece could spread throughout Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8648029.stm

Spain's credit rating has been downgrded - how long before the UK's is I wonder? The EU needs to get to grips with this issue but was it ever really going to be possible for such big club of diverse members to act promptly and decisively in such matters??.. The Eurosceptics in parliament must be lapping this up.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hiroki

Haha I thought that GB thing was funny

Even more likely to vote for him now

You think him insulting someone behind their back then giving a crawling apology is funny?

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Hiroki

Couldn't give a toss, I thought it was funny and that's all that matters to me.

We don't know what the woman said and GB could be right in calling her what he called her.

---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------


Hey I like the bloke and he is the best chance this country has

The other two parties in the running are jokes.

This guy is so disliked his own party has avoided using his image in adverts as much as as possible, but you like him and think he's the best change the country has.

So, very simple question, would you care to explain your opinions to the rest of us?

Here's a post of mine explaining why his economics have been abysmal, perhaps before you were old enough to take an interest in politics or economics but if you stay in the UK you'll be picking up the tab for his mistakes.

So, again, why would you vote for this? I really don't understand? You are aware that sooner or later your taxes have to pay if by some miracle he decides to live up to his promises on public services, and your taxes will be paying the interest bill and debts he chalked up, along with sustaining his massive public sector spending.

So, please, convert me. After all votes are a pretty important thing, this is a pretty important election and I struggle with the idea you want to vote for someone whose own party dislikes him and whose own minions are presently plotting to dethrone him.

You were aware of Labour's avoidance of his image in leaflets and his successors touring marginal constituencies to chalk up support from the candidates to unseat him, right?

Originally Posted by Osem

You could just write that on your ballot paper...

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:37 ----------





In terms of the election I think it'll hurt the Lib Dems most, New Labour only slightly less and the Tories least of all. It remains to be seen what sort of European 'unity' will emerge from this growing crisis but I suspect there are going to be a lot of arguments and dithering before anything's done. Merkel has already delayed the decision on the Greek bail-out until after some important elections at home and I predict more delays and hiccups will follow if the crisis spreads.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport..._greek_ba.html

Newsflash:

Gordon Brown's on his way to Rochdale to apologise to that nasty 'bigot' in person.... I wonder why he'd do that

If I Write on my ballot paper it goes down as a spoilt paper, therefore defeating the object.
What I want to see, and others, is the ballot paper with a legitimate box for " None of the above "

[Osem]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

If I Write on my ballot paper it goes down as a spoilt paper, therefore defeating the object.
What I want to see, and others, is the ballot paper with a legitimate box for " None of the above "

Yes I realise that's what you'd like but there isn't a box for that so the only way you can currently show you could be bothered to vote but didn't like the available options is to spoil your paper.

Originally Posted by Mick

No I *know* she wasn't - I heard the whole interview and nothing she said was bigoted, all her concerns were genuine questions asking a government which has failed her as a supporter/voter for the Labour Party over the years.

Whatever it was the woman said, is this the man we want as a leader?
He should have risen above it, instead he was found out.
" Who was it who put me there? "
Does this sound like someone who should be leading the country?
Sorry Gawd, but leading this country out of the current mess is more important than moaning about awkward questions.

---------- Post added at 22:01 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Yes I realise that's what you'd like but there isn't a box for that so the only way you can currently show you could be bothered to vote but didn't like the available options is to spoil your paper.

And I know what you are saying, but that method has no effect.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

So, please, convert me. After all votes are a pretty important thing, this is a pretty important election and I struggle with the idea you want to vote for someone whose own party dislikes him and whose own minions are presently plotting to dethrone him.

How ironic it is that Brown became PM unelected but, if by some major miracle New Labour win the election, he'll probably be removed having been finally elected... lol

[nomadking]

Makes you wonder what sort of things he says(and does) that we don't get to hear about.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Makes you wonder what sort of things he says(and does) that we don't get to hear about.

Precisely, which justifies why I and many others just get on with our normal lives on election day.

Originally Posted by Osem

Oooohhh so cynical...........

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

[Charlie_Bubble]

When it rains for Labour, it pours!

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

And I know what you are saying, but that method has no effect.

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?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

And I know what you are saying, but that method has no effect.

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..

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Makes you wonder what sort of things he says(and does) that we don't get to hear about.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

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?

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.