The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 3

Thanks Xaccers I understand that better now.

Somebody with sense.

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

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If there was 80% turn out and 40% spoilt ballots, then that says there's loads of potential votes that a party could have.

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.

Originally Posted by Osem

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..

But would it not be nice to have the choice?

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

But would it not be nice to have the choice?

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.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Osem

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..

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

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Somebody with sense.

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

Brewster beat to him it...

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

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

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....

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Somebody with sense.

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

More like nonsense.

[mikegreen]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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 ----------



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?

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.

Taxes will have to pay (rise) and that will be irrespective of which party gets elected. And things will get rougher. All as a consequence of a global economic screw up, not something GB cooked up personally (although he could in hindsight have done things differently but then hindsight is a wonderful thing).

It's this annoying emphasis on "personalities" in politics that irks me. I am fully aware that Brown is not blessed with one (a personality) but surely it should be about parties and their policies and not about how a particular political figure behaves or projects.

It's going to be interesting whatever happens. Personally I would not like to see the Tories back on the throne or the Lib Dems sat in it for the first time but then I have very little faith in Labour either.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

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....

Correct!

I've just been listening to a succession of shameless New Labour stooges, culminating in that wholly unpalatable hypocrite Charlie Wheelan, claiming everything from Brown's not really like that to it's all been exagerrated by the media. I wonder if former spinmeister Wheelan would have been so understanding of such insults and critical of the the media's role in this had it been Clegg or Cameron who'd slipped up and were getting hammered? No, he'd have been gleefully leading the vitirolic personal attacks and calling for heads to roll just like his former colleagues in the New Labour's miserable grubby smears section Draper and McBride.

This episode has shown up just how these people will say or do anything to try to get votes. The don't give a stuff about the electorate, less still the electorate's concerns. Anyone who disagrees is fair game for any amount of personal attacks - political collateral damage! Only when they get caught out do their true colours show.

Even during his 'sincere' personal apology, Brown's spinners were trying to persuade Mrs Duffy to pose for a handshake photo-opportunity with him. I wonder how much of the 40 odd minutes he spent with her were motivated by and devoted to the 'apology' and how much to trying to persuade her to make a public showing of forgiveness to recover the situation and boost his image? For some people a sincere apology was all that was required from Brown but he couldn't even manage that without blatantly trying to salvage what's left of his tattered reputation.

What this shows yet again is that despite all the regurgitated promises to listen to the people, to respect those with concerns about immigration, encourage debate about it and take action to control it, New Labour's agenda is quite the reverse. They care nothing for the views of the people of this country and gerrymandering on a national scale is what they're about. The utter cynicism and hypocrisy of these people really knows no bounds. They care about one thing and one thing only - their own survival and even their own deluded supporters are fair game!

New Labour - A Future Fair for All (as long as and only when you happen to be of some use to them that is...)

---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

But would it not be nice to have the choice?

Possibly but it'd be even nicer to have someone worth voting for in every constituency...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

And it's in the majority winner's interest to keep them out of the polling stations lest they vote for the other bloke.
I have often wondered if Labour's plan has been to increase voter apathy so that it comes down to which party has the largest number of die hard supporters that would vote for a banana if you painted it red.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And it's in the majority winner's interest to keep them out of the polling stations lest they vote for the other bloke.
I have often wondered if Labour's plan has been to increase voter apathy so that it comes down to which party has the largest number of die hard supporters that would vote for a banana if you painted it red.

Me too!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And it's in the majority winner's interest to keep them out of the polling stations lest they vote for the other bloke.
I have often wondered if Labour's plan has been to increase voter apathy so that it comes down to which party has the largest number of die hard supporters that would vote for a banana if you painted it red.

Another tempting idea, except that the conventional wisdom is that it tends to be Labour voters who are more prone to apathy.

Low turnout is a symptom of voters becoming disengaged with the whole political process. They think they can't change anything, due to a lack of real choice, so therefore why bother. I just don't see how adding a 'none of the above' to the ballot paper is going to change that.

Radical electoral reform, not tinkering around the fringes, is the only way we're likely to get any reversal of that apathy.

---------- Post added at 09:58 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

This thread is now closed. Please continue discussion in the Week 4 thread, here: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20...-week-4-a.html

Remember to vote in the new poll!