Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 704 38.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 221 12.1%

  • Liberal Democrat

    Votes: 297 16.2%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 144 7.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 36 2.0%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 46 2.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 48 2.6%

  • Don't care I have no intension of voting.

    Votes: 334 18.3%
  • Total voters
    1,830
Status
Not open for further replies.
robgmun said:
So were a majorty of your posts,
Click to expand...

my turn ..

'oh no they weren't --- yours were'

From now on can you please just pretend in your head that whatever you're writing I just answer 'No, the opposite is true'? I don't feel I actually need to be present at all for the level of debate you offer if that's OK? Just imagine I'm writing 'No, the opposite is true'.

/argument
 
Lib dem simply because i want a split cabinet
I don't think any of the parties are strong enough to warrant a controlling majority

In reality out of the 3 major parties Brown is probably the only real viable leader in the current climate, Cameron would be a disaster
 
Last edited:
britboy4321 said:
To a variety of places. Now, begone, looking for serious discussion ..
Click to expand...

No your not, every time i post actual evidence that shows the Labour party is screwing up you make up some waffle with a dash of FUD, backed up with some ridiculous hyperbole about the Tories. You already started it in the Benefits thread as well.

I would like to know just how old you are, maybe i would better understand where your coming from, you know how old i am. From the way you write and your level of understanding i would be suprised if you were older than your very early twenties

To a variety of places
Click to expand...

That explaination is not good enough, the Labour party has squndered it somewhere, and you won't admit it
 
Last edited:
Green, I want proportional representation (so my vote actually counts). Apparently Labour and Conservatives do not consider democracy a priority.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
I need not. I'll just refer you back to - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=15763437&postcount=748 - to which you never responded.
Click to expand...

Having read your wiki definition it appears a 'serious debate' is not technically possible here due to the requirement of debating rules - timings - and ideally a chairperson etc.

Therefore indeed the best we can do is an 'informal debate'.

I'm not going down to playground banter though like Robgmun wants as I can't be bothered ..
 
It just sounds like you've given up, because you haven't brought anything to the table that's compelling in 2 days now, where i have sent you links, you have just spouted continous hyperbole about other parties without being about you back any of it up which as come across as extremely childish, so my responses have been measured in the same way. Delibrately so. You lost the debate since before Friday

You continously avoided the difficult questions that would show you up for days now which is what GB does every Prime-miniters question time (thats mostly why i compared the two of you as being so alike) By all means stick your head in the sand, i just hope you can join the rest of us when the election is over to a more progressive UK, rather then being a bitter man for the next several years like ken livingstone
 
Last edited:
Hoodlum said:
Green, I want proportional representation (so my vote actually counts). Apparently Labour and Conservatives do not consider democracy a priority.
Click to expand...


Prop rep creates very weak government.

You normally end up with coalitions of losing parties running the country, with the party that won most votes and the election having no power at all (!!)

They specifically put prep rep into Germany after the 2nd world war because they wanted the country to have weak government -- where if the government did a single thing anti 'mainstream' act the rest just form a coalition and the government is beaten.

Wasta' time if you want the country to actually be able to head in a strong direction that voters went for -- as it waters everything down and compromises everything when you have 65 parties represented in the house ... also makes whipping difficult, which is an essential instrument of modern governmant ..

Some form of proportional rep. with single transferable vote and 2 round ballots -- now that'd be fairer yet produce an actual winner who could take action without being voted down for the entire term ...
 
Last edited:
britboy4321 said:
Prop rep creates very weak government.
Click to expand...
So you'd rather it be heavily biased in favour of just one party?

Hatter The Mad said:
Labour Majority of 128
Conservative 30%
Labour 40%
Liberal Democrats 18%
Others 12%

Conservative Majority of 8
Conservative 40%
Labour 30%
Liberal Democrats 18%
Others 12%

Hung Parliament, Lib Dems 31 seats short
Conservative 30%
Labour 20%
Liberal Democrats 40%
Others 10%

Hung Parliament, Lib Dems 42 seats short
Conservative 20%
Labour 30%
Liberal Democrats 40%
Others 10%
Click to expand...
 
Hatter The Mad said:
So you'd rather it be heavily biased in favour of just one party?
Click to expand...

In my opinion it is a necessary evil. It's not ideal, but no system of government is.

Yes, if a country is not heavily biased in favour of one party (the one with the most votes -- even if that's only 40% of total votes) the effects can be disasterous for the country. Effectively the country acts slowely and not decisively, turning to it's requirements like an oil liner rather than a speedboat(!!) Everything takes longer to discuss as, without being party whipped, people start 'trading' votes ('I'll vote for your NHS bill if you vote for my climate bill') which takes ages, and ends in disingenuous voting results.

the inevitable coalitions mean no individual party has any proper power. But the worst effect is when SPEED is a necessity. For example if a natural disaster hit Manchester -- when the house is full of a mess of coalitions and people owing other people votes and favours -- the argument about how much to spend on aid takes 6 weeks, and by then 6300 people are dead ..

Basically the ability to whip and parties are a necessary but unfortunate evil -- as there are real-world problems with 100% true democracy.

If democracy was perfect -- we could screw government -- and just set up referendums for everything!!!

What do you think? Perhaps this is something we (almost) agree on?
 
Last edited:
By that logic, why not just do away with democracy altogether and just have a single party state. Or indeed, a dictatorship, it's much easier to get a consensus with only one person to ask!

If it stops people screwing up the country as badly as Brown / Blair / Thatcher / Major have, then I am fully in support of proportional representation.
 
Yamahahahahaha said:
By that logic, why not just do away with democracy altogether and just have a single party state. Or indeed, a dictatorship, it's much easier to get a consensus with only one person to ask!

If it stops people screwing up the country as badly as Brown / Blair / Thatcher / Major have, then I am fully in support of proportional representation.
Click to expand...

Because in our democracy once every 5 years the country get to choose who leads us. That doesn't happen in either of your other 2 examples ..

Prop rep wouldn't stop people scewing up the country badly -- although it might indeed slow them down, as their ability to whip would be pretty much scuppered ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom