2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Someone has to take the British jobs, copious amounts of welfare addicted British who won't

But isn't it odd that they are the ones who scream, "British jobs, for British workers" and vote for the Nazis.

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:50 ----------

Originally Posted by ashgray

I've gone back more than a hundred years and guess what,my ancestors are still english.both on my mother and my fathers side.so i'm still ok with the BNP.

But not British?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My pay has been frozen, and will be for 3 years - will that help (I work at a University).

The books have to be balanced somehow.

What????!!! You mean that there's no such thing as Brown's Utpopia in which everyone can just carry on getting pay rises regardless of where the money's actually coming from???....

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But isn't it odd that they are the ones who scream, "British jobs, for British workers" and vote for the Nazis

British Nazis though.

If I had thought the BNP candidate in my area was in with a chance of knocking out the Labour candidate I would have willingly voted for her.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

How much of a pay cut are you prepared to take? How much of a pay cut are you prepared to accept nurses to have to take?

I'm budgeting for no pay-rise for the next 2-3 years. Besides my chosen profession had an arrangement for pay that worked just fine for over 25 years until it was torn up by labour for no good reason, we weren't given huge payrises as and when the government felt like it.

I would suggest that the Police are not dealt with as 'normal' workers due to the restrictions placed on officers private lives.

As for your question I can see most public sector workers having to accept no payrises for the next few years which would be fairer than paycuts.

My personal opinion is the the Lib Dems are being a little dishonourable opening negotiations with Labour while still in discussion with the Tories - they appear to moving away from "how can we serve the country" to "how can we help ourselves".

They may just be being pragmatic, but I think it may leave a sour taste in voters mouths.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My personal opinion is the the Lib Dems are being a little dishonourable opening negotiations with Labour while still in discussion with the Tories - they appear to moving away from "how can we serve the country" to "how can we help ourselves".

They may just be being pragmatic, but I think it may leave a sour taste in voters mouths.

Yes, and the longer this indecision goes on, the more the electorate are getting a taste of what 'doing business' with the Lib Dems will be like in practice.

Originally Posted by Escapee

British Nazis though.

If I had thought the BNP candidate in my area was in with a chance of knocking out the Labour candidate I would have willingly voted for her.

Thank you for reminding me that the BNP bombed in the General Election, and lost 26 of the council seats they contested - that cheered me up no end.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My personal opinion is the the Lib Dems are being a little dishonourable opening negotiations with Labour while still in discussion with the Tories - they appear to moving away from "how can we serve the country" to "how can we help ourselves".

They may just be being pragmatic, but I think it may leave a sour taste in voters mouths.

I think they are making the most of their moment of power. I don't believe they will be smiling and flexing their muscles for much longer whatever happens.

From the BBC

The talks between Labour and the Lib Dems have broken up. Schools Secretary Ed Balls tells the BBC they were "positive and constructive".

I suppose they should get used to dealing with their new boss

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Several uBNP councillors have been re-elected.
They managed to get two MEPs thanks to PR, chances are, thanks to PR they'll keep their jobs.

And several BNP councillors lost their seats... all 12 in Barking & Dagenham (including Richard Barnbrook).

The PR system used in the European Parliament elections was closed party list, IIRC.

The BNP vote in the two constituencies it gained MEPs wasn't actually higher than it was at the previous election (IIRC it was *lower*) - they won because fewer people in total could be arsed to vote, causing the BNP's share to be higher than before & pass above the threshold.

If the voter turnout is higher next time, they may not get back in.

If people consider they haven't done much of a job, they may not get back in next time.

And if they *do* get back in next time...well, as disgusting as it is IMO that people would vote BNP, that is their *right* to do so, and this is meant to be a Democracy...


Now, you may want to criticise that form of PR which was used in the Euro elections... and tbh I'd share your criticisms. I don't like the list system. But it's not the same form of PR as desired by the Lib Dems: STV.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Or was it that not enough people voted at all? Being as their current excuse is that too many people voted this time around.

Yup. Lower turnout caused the BNP's vote share in the winning constituencies to be higher despite them polling fewer votes.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I see Lib Dems now doing a deal with the party that the majority of the country didn't want any longer.

Well, tbh, with our electoral system & under our (unwritten) constitution, what the majority of the country wants or does not want is fairly irrelevant, given that we do not have a system which is particularly proportional...

I don't know how you feel about FPTP, but I think that no-one who is a fan of FPTP can really, at the same time, also complain that the Tories should be in power, or have a right to be in power, simply because the majority voted against the alternative. It's a bit hypocritical IMO (I'm not saying you are, btw ).

It doesn't matter if more people voted against Labour than for Labour, or against the Tories than for the Tories, etc. The Government is simply formed by the party (or parties, in a coalition) which has a majority in the House of Commons and as such is able to "command the confidence of the House of Commons".

There is nothing that says the Tories should have power due to the results we got, & nothing that says it is wrong for Labour + Lib Dems + Others to form a coalition instead.

It's just the way it is... and is one reason why I think it is unfair (along with that whole "9% of the seats on 23% of the vote" thing , plus of course the ability for one party to win the most seats & form a Govt. while losing the popular vote).

But, whether you see it as fair or unfair, it is the system we are currently stuck with...

Originally Posted by Sirius

So the lib Dem's will now allow a failed party like labour to continue to destroy this country. How can they do that and still hold there heads up. Its makes me so happy i did not vote for the libs.

I didn't realise they had decided anything? Give them a chance to make a decision, perhaps, before you slate them?

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

I wouldn't trust a word that left wing rag has to say. The guardian is a job centre for pointless council jobs.

Read the link. It's a study by the Electoral Reform Society (which has been campaigning for electoral reform since 1884) which has been reported in that left wing rag.

Oh, & it's not just got adverts for pointless council jobs... even the Security Service advertises in the Guardian

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not sure if AV is going to be good enough.

tbh, it is for me... it is hardly ideal, & as Chris said it isn't actually PR, but I think it is a step in the right direction. I can't see the Lib Dems getting anything better out of the Tories or Labour & I think they should concede that it's a fair compromise for now.

Originally Posted by Chris

John Ried's just gone up in my estimation. He doesn't think a Lib-Lab pact will wash because it will also require bribes to nationalists.

Indeed. I've never liked the man, but he has a point.


Anyway. This Guardian reading lefty Lib Dem member still thinks that the best option is a Lib-Con coalition... A stronger & more stable majority than a "Rainbow Coalition" or "Progressive Alliance", no concessions to nationalist parties, common ground on civil liberties & some other areas, & a referendum on AV. It'll do for me...

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My personal opinion is the the Lib Dems are being a little dishonourable opening negotiations with Labour while still in discussion with the Tories - they appear to moving away from "how can we serve the country" to "how can we help ourselves".

They may just be being pragmatic, but I think it may leave a sour taste in voters mouths.

To be fair it is now clear that until then the Conservatives were not offering anything in the name of electoral reform (expect the equal population thing).

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My personal opinion is the the Lib Dems are being a little dishonourable opening negotiations with Labour while still in discussion with the Tories - they appear to moving away from "how can we serve the country" to "how can we help ourselves".

They may just be being pragmatic, but I think it may leave a sour taste in voters mouths.

That's one way of looking at it. I'd be disappointed if they made a decision without examining every option. It's an important decision for Clegg and the liberals.

It could cost them dearly if the general public perceive them to be opportunist. Alternatively their credibility could increase greatly if their decision is perceived to be based on their desire to serve the country.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My personal opinion is the the Lib Dems are being a little dishonourable opening negotiations with Labour while still in discussion with the Tories - they appear to moving away from "how can we serve the country" to "how can we help ourselves".

They may just be being pragmatic, but I think it may leave a sour taste in voters mouths.

What? A political party selling out their principles for a bit of power and influence?!

Who'da thunk it???

Originally Posted by Damien

To be fair it is now clear that until then the Conservatives were not offering anything in the name of electoral reform (expect the equal population thing).

Except AV (what GB offered in the manifesto) and fixed term parliaments.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Except AV (what GB offered in the manifesto) and fixed term parliaments.

Yeah, but they offered that after the Lib Dems decided to open talks with Labour.