The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4

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.

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...

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....