The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

Who will you be voting for?

  • Tory

    Votes: 38 9.9%
  • Diet Tory (Labour)

    Votes: 132 34.3%
  • Tory Zero (Greens)

    Votes: 44 11.4%
  • Extra Tory with lemon (UKIP)

    Votes: 40 10.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 9 2.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 8.1%
  • Cheese on toast

    Votes: 91 23.6%

  • Total voters
    385
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Precisely.



I agree up to the point about the polls.

The problem underneath all of this is that the system is constructed for a binary electoral situation. With a multiparty jamboree, the system doesn't work.

With respect, it does work and the gravitational principle was created with exactly this scenario in mind. It is the only solution under first past the post that can work.

I suspect there will be strong lobbying for a change to proportional representation following this election, something which Labour and the Conservatives will obviously argue against.
 
Like I keep saying - If Nick Clegg loses his seat then Cameron is finished. Tim Farron is widely tipped to be the next Lib Dem leader and has made no secret of his willingness to work with Labour and the respect he has for Ed Miliband.

It could get very messy but if indeed Clegg goes they'll hold an emergency meeting with the remaining MPs and go with a consensus of what is right for the party going forward. After losing close to half their seats I highly doubt those remaining without Clegg & Alexander would push for another 5 years of coalition government with the Tories.
 
As @the esk rightly points out, the actual number of seats is largely irrelevant in a hung parliament, save for needing enough seats for a collective majority / confidence vote.

However, the right wing press / Conservative campaign has basically looked like this:

1. Starts with huge Ed Miliband smear campaign (this quietened down when it failed to impact on his personal ratings)

2. A move to a media onslaught against Nicola Sturgeon, the alleged 'most dangerous woman in the UK' and of the SNP, with whom Labour would create a 'coalition of chaos'

3. The recent campaign is this suggestion that if Labour are 10-15 seats shy of the Conservatives, any pact or attempt to form a minority government will be 'illegitimate'.

This is of course totally untrue and the Tories are basically trying to circumvent the constitution for their own gain.

Points 1 and 2 above really demonstrate the extent of the Tories negative campaigning and I would argue that Miliband has been adept in combating both of them. Point 3 shows the Tories are now trying to rewrite the constitution to retain power, which is dangerous.
 
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ow-chancellors-austerity-narrative-has-harmed

Those were dark days in 2010. That South Park episode comes to mind.


This is interesting:

"A detailed, and far from uncritical, analysis of Labour’s fiscal record by Malcolm Sawyer of Leeds University, dating from 2007, found that between 1997-98 and 2005-2006 Brown, as chancellor, “nearly met” his fiscal targets. The current account deficit was close to zero over the period and the national debt stayed under 40 per cent of GDP. Sawyer put this record “close to achievement of the golden rule” partly down to good luck – surpluses generated by the dotcom boom of the late 1990s, reduction in world nominal interest rates – but partly to tricky (“creative”, in the jargon) accounting. The use of the private finance initiative (PFI) to fund the building of schools and hospitals “off budget” lowered the deficit in “real time” at the cost of raising it in the future. Had this investment programme been financed by conventional borrowing, the net debt-to-GDP ratio would have been closer to 50 per cent, rather than the recorded 33.6 per cent.

Second, the Brown Treasury kept redating the “economic cycle” (a fuzzy concept at best) to make its fiscal rules easier to meet. The main effect of this redating was to postpone the achievement of the zero balance on public investment needed to meet the sustainable investment rule. It was for these reasons that in 2005 the OECD noted that Britain’s fiscal policy “required attention”.

By 2007 the Treasury admitted that it was time to slow down the public-sector growth engine. Its Comprehensive Spending Review of February 2007 cut projected public spending from 4 per cent a year to 2.1 per cent a year over the following three years, less than the expected growth of the economy, which was itself expected to be lower than in the previous boom years. This would yield a current account surplus of 0.3 per cent and cap the national debt at 39.8 per cent by 2010-11. However, Brown’s luck finally ran out: instead of slipping gently into a new economic cycle, the economy fell into a deep hole. Economic growth did not slow down – it collapsed.

To summarise: in its first ten years Labour may have fiddled the books a bit, as all governments do, but it had certainly not created a mess. And it had built lots of hospitals and schools."
 

It should never be forgotten that the Labour Government had to catch up on 17 years of under investment in almost all government services.

Anyone attending a hospital, a school or government office in the late 90's can attest to that.
 
True, but ultimately Cameron has to abide by the conventions laid down in the Cabinet Manual and most importantly the will of the House. There is no likely alliance of centre, centre/right parties that will command a majority as the polls currently stand.

Clegg will come out with all sorts of rubbish like he did in 2010, he afterall was responsible for using the plurality principle which gave Cameron the chance to form a coalition. Clegg should never be forgotten or forgiven for that.

It would have been a disgrace for any other party to have formed a government in 2010. If a grubby deal had let Labour sneak back in there would have been justifiable outrage.....

Seats won. 306, 258, 57
Popular vote 10,703,654, 8,606,517, 6,836,248
 
This is interesting:

"A detailed, and far from uncritical, analysis of Labour’s fiscal record by Malcolm Sawyer of Leeds University, dating from 2007, found that between 1997-98 and 2005-2006 Brown, as chancellor, “nearly met” his fiscal targets. The current account deficit was close to zero over the period and the national debt stayed under 40 per cent of GDP. Sawyer put this record “close to achievement of the golden rule” partly down to good luck – surpluses generated by the dotcom boom of the late 1990s, reduction in world nominal interest rates – but partly to tricky (“creative”, in the jargon) accounting. The use of the private finance initiative (PFI) to fund the building of schools and hospitals “off budget” lowered the deficit in “real time” at the cost of raising it in the future. Had this investment programme been financed by conventional borrowing, the net debt-to-GDP ratio would have been closer to 50 per cent, rather than the recorded 33.6 per cent.

Second, the Brown Treasury kept redating the “economic cycle” (a fuzzy concept at best) to make its fiscal rules easier to meet. The main effect of this redating was to postpone the achievement of the zero balance on public investment needed to meet the sustainable investment rule. It was for these reasons that in 2005 the OECD noted that Britain’s fiscal policy “required attention”.

By 2007 the Treasury admitted that it was time to slow down the public-sector growth engine. Its Comprehensive Spending Review of February 2007 cut projected public spending from 4 per cent a year to 2.1 per cent a year over the following three years, less than the expected growth of the economy, which was itself expected to be lower than in the previous boom years. This would yield a current account surplus of 0.3 per cent and cap the national debt at 39.8 per cent by 2010-11. However, Brown’s luck finally ran out: instead of slipping gently into a new economic cycle, the economy fell into a deep hole. Economic growth did not slow down – it collapsed.

To summarise: in its first ten years Labour may have fiddled the books a bit, as all governments do, but it had certainly not created a mess. And it had built lots of hospitals and schools."

PFI was a disaster for schools and hospitals. Not a good sign for Brown being portrayed as a 'great' economic guru. If Miliband had any sense he would make sure Brown is nowhere to be seen in these last few days.
 
PFI was a disaster for schools and hospitals. Not a good sign for Brown being portrayed as a 'great' economic guru. If Miliband had any sense he would make sure Brown is nowhere to be seen in these last few days.

Exactly, he was paying extortionate rates on the never never, he may as well have taken out a loan from Wonga........
 

It would have been a disgrace for any other party to have formed a government in 2010. If a grubby deal had let Labour sneak back in there would have been justifiable outrage.....

Seats won. 306, 258, 57
Popular vote 10,703,654, 8,606,517, 6,836,248
It wouldn't have been Labour though. It would've been a coalition between 2 parties. That's how our democracy works. As stated earlier, we vote for or MPs and as I have pointed out previously there is nothing stopping them changing allegiance at any point.
 
Just read the most chilling sentence

To paraphrase Cameron somewhat "vote Tory to ensure Osborne can continue with his long term economic plan "

MAKE IT STOP :'(
 
Any recommendations for dissuading the duped morons voting for UKIP, where education, information and reason has failed? Short of caving their skulls in with a brick?
 
Any recommendations for dissuading the duped morons voting for UKIP, where education, information and reason has failed? Short of caving their skulls in with a brick?

Someone has a different opinion than me. Can we bash their skulls with a brick.

Idiot.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top