The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4

[Hom3r]

I can honesty say I'll be glad when I can turn on the TV without being bombarded by all this election crap.

I personally think we should adopt something the USA does, and that is the week before voting there is no coverage in campaigning (any media).

[Peter_]

The apathy at election time in this country is astounding especially when you see such low turnouts, we should do as many other countries do and adopt a policy of fining people who do not vote.

I ensure that my vote is cast by registering for a postal vote and my vote was sent back a week ago.

[mikegreen]

I'm voting for the guy that managed to keep his suit jacket on.

Cameron looks a real wilf in his rolled up cheap cream shirt. Does he think rolling up his sleeves makes him appeal to the both the common man (of course they don't wear suits, just shirts) and the toff (the kind of look sported at the weekend, kinda casual like).

At least Brown looks sharp, dress wise.

As for Clegg, the least said the better innit...

[Hom3r]

What I want to know why our vote tomorrow isn't private.

You look when you go and get your ballot paper tomorrow, they will take it out of a "cheque book" type book and when you state your name, they will write a number on the stub.

On both the stub and ballot paper are punched holes unique to that paper/stub.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I can honesty say I'll be glad when I can turn on the TV without being bombarded by all this election crap.

I personally think we should adopt something the USA does, and that is the week before voting there is no coverage in campaigning (any media).

Are you kidding? The trade off in the USA is that you get campaigning for an entire year before the election. Do you really want that?

Originally Posted by Hom3r

What I want to know why our vote tomorrow isn't private.

You look when you go and get your ballot paper tomorrow, they will take it out of a "cheque book" type book and when you state your name, they will write a number on the stub.

On both the stub and ballot paper are punched holes unique to that paper/stub.

I'd presume that it's to minimise electoral fraud....

Originally Posted by Hiroki

I don't really need to give a reason

No, you don't ... but this is a discussion forum. The clue's in the title.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Chris

Are you kidding? The trade off in the USA is that you get campaigning for an entire year before the election. Do you really want that?

True, but don't they have a sort of pre election, to see which of each parties canditates you wan't to run for president?

They have primaries, yes, and they serve to extend the whole bandwagon, but the campaigning is underway long before that.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

What I want to know why our vote tomorrow isn't private.

You look when you go and get your ballot paper tomorrow, they will take it out of a "cheque book" type book and when you state your name, they will write a number on the stub.

On both the stub and ballot paper are punched holes unique to that paper/stub.

Not here it doesn't.
They tick your name off the address list and hand you the ballot papers.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

It has probably taken this long to get GB to a point he could look and sound sincere thats why we havn't seen it from the begining. Also i never said labour and the lib dems were close i said they had both had spells of cosying up to each other prepping the ground for a coalition

Well maybe although it's mostly Labour buttering up the Lib Dems.

I don't see a hung parliament as a best of both worlds more a worst of both worlds where bargaining is more important to maintain the coalition then actually getting doen what needs to be done.

Action that needs to done in whose mind? Again, if the share of the vote is too low then any government cannot really claim much of a mandate. It's bad enough Labour got a majority with 38% of the vote last time. Other countries have successfully have collation governments, it tends to provide some balance to a single party ruling the shop passing whatever they want.

I like the general idea of a the big society in which we all play our part in our communitys and surely after all these years of people complaining about the growth of government and it's interference in our daily lives we should all be supporting that sort of idea.

I don't really understand it. You can get involved with your community, via charity or other schemes. I don't have time to help run a school, I elect people to manage the education system and my taxes go to pay professionals to do the job for me. People don't want to set up their own schools, manage their local NHS trust, they want good schools and good hospitals. That's better achieved with adequate funding and leaving it free of political interference than with gimmicks.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Damien

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BA2J...ture=topvideos

Where did he pull that from!? He needed to be like this from the start of the campaign.

That speech was a desperate last chance at getting votes, I wonder if he actually wrote it?

Originally Posted by Product 13

That speech was a desperate last chance at getting votes, I wonder if he actually wrote it?

Probably not but I felt he had conviction when he said that. Something few have managed in this campaign, apart from maybe Cameron getting annoyed in the debate.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't really understand it. You can get involved with your community, via charity or other schemes. I don't have time to help run a school, I elect people to manage the education system and my taxes go to pay professionals to do the job for me. People don't want to set up their own schools, manage their local NHS trust, they want good schools and good hospitals. That's better achieved with adequate funding and leaving it free of political interference than with gimmicks.

It's not either/or Damien, I'm suprised you hadn't realised that.
They're not saying local people must run schools and hospitals, they're saying you can if you want to.
You say you want schools and hospitals free of political interference, yet are misunderstanding the policy from the one party which is actually offering you that.

Originally Posted by mikegreen

I'm voting for the guy that managed to keep his suit jacket on.

Cameron looks a real wilf in his rolled up cheap cream shirt. Does he think rolling up his sleeves makes him appeal to the both the common man (of course they don't wear suits, just shirts) and the toff (the kind of look sported at the weekend, kinda casual like).

At least Brown looks sharp, dress wise.

As for Clegg, the least said the better innit...

Who cares about policies, as long as they are in a suit..... - I can understand your viewpoint, though, as the New Communist Party likes people in suits; you know, Kim Jong-Il, Mao Tse-Tung, etc....

btw, your red-tinted glasses need adjusting - GB looking sharp must be an oxymoron..... As the BBC said in 2007

When Chancellor Gordon Brown and his charismatic boss Tony Blair arrived in Downing Street in 1997, the contrast between them was marked.

There was Blair, a married father-of-three, jovial, smiley, well groomed - and bursting with enthusiasm. Then there was his older, single pal Brown - portrayed as a serious, brooding Scotsman, with his less orderly hair, crumpled suits and gnawed fingernails

And further down the article, it states

This seemed to be part of a conscious effort to present a lighter, more approachable image - which has also seen his traditional dark suits, white shirts and red ties make way for a more casual look with chinos, open neck shirts and the occasional pink or purple tie.