2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Is Adam Boulton cracking up? The election is over and he still wants to scrap like a street fighter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWAkxKQLQs

He sure is, I thought you were going to post the argument he had with Alasdair Campbell today, this one is even worse.
For somebody who is supposed to be neutral he certainly is lacking a lot of professionalism, maybe he and Sky have been told by their master to follow Fox.

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/conten...stair-campbell

Excellent comment under that video:

Boulton really is becoming Murdoch's bitch

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But Labour also offered a referendum, didn't they?

Prior to the election they did offer a referendum on AV. Now they're offering a bill, sans referendum, with a referendum to follow later on other options.

However, they will never get a bill on AV through the commons. The Tories will oppose it because they will be able to say the furthest they are prepared to go is to back a referendum on it, not simply introduce it immediately, and there are plenty of Labour backbenchers, especially in Scotland, who will not back it because they fear the beginning of a slippery slope towards PR that would just about cut Scotland's Labour seats in half and give them to the Tories and the SNP. Labour needs FPTP in Scotland in order to perpetuate the myth that nobody supports the Tories north of the border.

A bill on AV is a promise Labour simply can't deliver, and the Lib Dem negotiating team, if it has any political nous whatsoever, should have seen straight through it immediately. I still think a deal with the Conservatives is the only deal in town and I still think Clegg knows this, but he has been playing chicken with the Tory negotiators to see how many concessions he can get.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Apparently "Dave" wants to bring back Ian Duncan Smith, David Davis and Michael Howard. What happened to "change?" Along with "Willie" Hague, this is more like "Back To The Future." The public had no interest in them the first time round, why bring them back from the dead now? Is it because he has realised he hasn't got a clue what he is doing?

No, it's because in order to get his right-wing backbenchers not to come out in open revolt at the suggestion of a referendum on AV, he has been forced to throw them some concessions of his own.

If you took a serious interest in British party politics instead of just being a Labour fanboy, you would know and understand that Cameron would never choose to offer any sort of job to David Davis (who, incidentally, never ran an election as party leader. And neither did IDS. So I'm wondering what you meant by 'the public had no interest in them'. Was there some secret general election only you were privy to?)

[punky]

Bit worried: Can Mandleson run for PM? You have to be an elected member of the house of commons for that don't you?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by punky

Bit worried: Can Mandleson run for PM? You have to be an elected member of the house of commons for that don't you?

I don't think he'd let something like rules stop him giving it a go...

There's no rule that says you have to be in the commons. However, the last peer of the realm to be PM vacated the office in 1902, so I'd say there is by now an established convention that you do need to be in the Commons rather than the Lords.

Had Mandy had long-term designs on high office in the party, he would have had himself parachuted into a safe seat last week. I reckon you can rest easily in your bed.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

In theory Mandelscum can resign and run for election as an MP as did Tony Benn though I wonder who'd vote for him.



Tony benn. Wiki.

I can think of one or two 'contenders' for that honour from these forums....

[Derek]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

In theory Mandelscum can resign and run for election as an MP as did Tony Benn though I wonder who'd vote for him.

Big chunks of the West of Scotland for a start. They'd vote for a freshly laid pile of steaming dog turds as long as it had a labour rosette on it. In fact in some cases last week I think they did.

[Angua]

Just a small point regarding negotiation with both sides. Is it not sensible to have a solution ready to go as an when agreed (by either side), rather than waiting until one fails & then having to start from that point with the others for the next round of horse trading, delaying things still further.

May be worth remembering the "Moral Majority" is actually those who did not vote at all. A larger percentage than voted Tory.

The Tory press in the UK should take a huge amount of blame for the result. Panicking voters with untrue claims about a balanced government. A clearer & more honest result may have been delivered without the press bias.

Originally Posted by Angua

Just a small point regarding negotiation with both sides. Is it not sensible to have a solution ready to go as an when agreed (by either side), rather than waiting until one fails & then having to start from that point with the others for the next round of horse trading, delaying things still further.

May be worth remembering the "Moral Majority" is actually those who did not vote at all. A larger percentage than voted Tory.

The Tory press in the UK should take a huge amount of blame for the result. Panicking voters with untrue claims about a balanced government. A clearer & more honest result may have been delivered without the press bias.

I think the same restrictions that apply to TV programming during an election should apply to the papers..

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Angua

Just a small point regarding negotiation with both sides. Is it not sensible to have a solution ready to go as an when agreed (by either side), rather than waiting until one fails & then having to start from that point with the others for the next round of horse trading, delaying things still further.

May be worth remembering the "Moral Majority" is actually those who did not vote at all. A larger percentage than voted Tory.

The Tory press in the UK should take a huge amount of blame for the result. Panicking voters with untrue claims about a balanced government. A clearer & more honest result may have been delivered without the press bias.

I think most of those who didn't vote are not Moral at all. I'd describe them as bloody lazy, or at best, suffering from Icantgiveatossatitis, as opposed to not voting out of some principle.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I think most of those who didn't vote are not Moral at all. I'd describe them as bloody lazy, or at best, suffering from Icantgiveatossatitis, as opposed to not voting out of some principle.

Or full time complainers. The decide that it is a travesty there is no party that agrees with them on everything and then spend the next 5 years bleating on about how disenfranchised with politics they are and somehow think we should give a toss. Like that stupid 'Sod the lot' poster with UKIP, just playing on the hyper-cynical members of our country

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I think most of those who didn't vote are not Moral at all. I'd describe them as bloody lazy, or at best, suffering from Icantgiveatossatitis, as opposed to not voting out of some principle.

Some of them have been made promise after promise from all parties and have still seen no change in their circumstances,some of them after years of supporting one side or the other.If I lived on one of the really terrible estates in an inner city where nothing seems to improve, I think I might also wonder what the point was in voting.

Originally Posted by Angua

May be worth remembering the "Moral Majority" is actually those who did not vote at all. A larger percentage than voted Tory.

That won't wash. Those who didn't vote (the vast majority of them, anyway), have demonstrated that they don't care. Protestations about 'they're all the bleedin' same, innit?' are just a fig-leaf for plain laziness, both intellectual and bone-idle.

There is nothing remotely moral about refusing to participate in the government of our country for half an hour, once every five years. They didn't want their voice heard last Thursday so they have no business moaning about the outcome now.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Chris

That won't wash. Those who didn't vote (the vast majority of them, anyway), have demonstrated that they don't care. Protestations about 'they're all the bleedin' same, innit?' are just a fig-leaf for plain laziness, both intellectual and bone-idle.

There is nothing remotely moral about refusing to participate in the government of our country for half an hour, once every five years. They didn't want their voice heard last Thursday so they have no business moaning about the outcome now.

Originally Posted by Damien

Or full time complainers. The decide that it is a travesty there is no party that agrees with them on everything and then spend the next 5 years bleating on about how disenfranchised with politics they are and somehow think we should give a toss. Like that stupid 'Sod the lot' poster with UKIP, just playing on the hyper-cynical members of our country

Well said those men.

[Angua]

However claiming a "Moral Majority" with only 23% of the populations vote (carefully said vote & not support as these are two different things) is not honest either. As far as I am concerned the only winners this time were the interfering press.

Agree with Maggy - there should be TOTAL press neutrality once an election is called. Even including local radio & newspapers.