2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[Ignitionnet]

Loving the attempts at class warfare from the usual suspects in this thread

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Toffs in government will look after toffs first, them the small 'uneducated' man last.

By uneducatated I mean those who never attended "Oxford, Cambridge, Eaton etc"

Such fantastic stereotypes. Must be a lot of toffs in the UK given the amount of votes that the Tories received.

---------- Post added at 14:56 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And then so many Merseysiders disagree, eh.

Putting an extra million people on the public payroll, lying profusely about being able to guarantee things regardless of the state of the economy and being a party traditionally associated with generous welfare, etc, tends to win votes in less affluent areas, especially those that suffered under Thatcher's programmes.

See my previous comments regarding vomit coloured turds with red rosettes.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And then so many Merseysiders disagree, eh.

Memories run deep, but those of us that are enlightened can see what happend back then for what it was.

[peanut]

I voted Labour as I don't have what's classed as the normal trapping of Mr Avg eg, car, mortgage, kids, business, highly paid etc etc. I can say I'm better off now than I was 5-6 years ago so why should I rock the boat so to speak.

I haven't spoken much in these political threads as my ignorance would shine through quite clearly. And from what I've seen, there's too much 'superiority' over those that don't take that amount of interest in politics. It sounds like anyone with a difference of opinion (eg non Tory) gets slated and ridiculed here.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant when it comes to politics, as those that know it all basically means they are just that bit too boring for my own liking.

From what I can gather, the Tory's thought they'd win clearly, and they haven't. Labour did well considering, they ain't out yet which means something I suppose. Lib Dems, well, I'd have thought they'd have done a bit better. Apart from that, I don't care enough from here on in as I've done my bit and there's nothing else I can do.

[TheWatcher]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Fewer actually.
As I said, all they have to do is be more popular in more constituencies.
What would you say to adjusting the borders so each constituency had the same population?

That would be a good idea.

[wwe]

does this mean david cameron is the new pm?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheWatcher

That would be a good idea.

It's a tory idea.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by wwe

does this mean david cameron is the new pm?

No.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by wwe

does this mean david cameron is the new pm?

http://news.bbc.co.uk is your friend.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by wwe

does this mean david cameron is the new pm?

No, Brown would have to resign, and Cameron would have to win a vote of confidence in the commons (ie have the Queen's speach passed by the house)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by wwe

does this mean david cameron is the new pm?

No GB is still PM for the time being.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

At least the Labour party want to have the opportunity to change that.

It's as if the last thirteen years didn't happen - jam tomorrow, eh?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Most of whom will be in the cabinet. There is not one party who have so many originating from the same school as the Tories. Twenty-one is a huge number in comparison.

Oh, look - you're moving the goalposts; it's gone from a party made up of Old Etonians to a Cabinet. Why change the story - inconvenient facts get in the way of smears?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

At least they are more likely to more representative of the voting public than bunch of chinless wonders.

Erm, no - union membership amongst the working population fell to 28.4% Link Nice attempt at class warfare, though, Baron M.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by TheWatcher

No, It is hindering them because, under the current system, even if they get more votes than Labour or Conservative, they still get less seats in the House of Commons.

Under the current system it requires less than 37% of the vote for Labour to get a clear majority. Over 40% is required for a clear Conservative majority. With something like 50% or more for a Lib Dem working majority. Hardly a fair or equitable system.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Erm, no - union membership amongst the working population fell to 28.4% Link Nice attempt at class warfare, though, Baron M.

What proportion of the population went to public school?

The Tory "offer" was a joke! They did not promise a single thing, a inquiry into reform? We have had that already. Cameron seems to think that the sole purpose of the Lib Dems is too prop his party up. That's not what I voted for. The Tories have not got a majority, they need to conceed something.

I hope the Lib Dems reject him and force them to govern as a minority governent. Real half-arsed display of leadership there, he clearly doesn't have enough authority in his party to offer anything

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Angua

Under the current system it requires less than 37% of the vote for Labour to get a clear majority. Over 40% is required for a clear Conservative majority. With something like 60% or more for a Lib Dem working majority. Hardly a fair or equitable system.

If you make huge assumptions about the voting for the other parties.
If what people say about FPTP was actually true, landslides like in 97 wouldn't be possible, but they are.

It's why the predictions based on poll swings (not the exit polls) were wrong, you cannot apply a national % swing because it is not the nation voting as a whole, but 650 individual elections.