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

[meghatronic]

Thankfully, it is not.

I just don't see the point. Protests votes only make you look like a retard. Don't vote if you don't care. You'll bring about infinitely more change by voting and lobbying your MP than throwing your toys out of the pram and sulking.

 

[Gackt]

I just don't see the point. Protests votes only make you look like a retard. Don't vote if you don't care. You'll bring about infinitely more change by voting and lobbying your MP than throwing your toys out of the pram and sulking.

It's a good thing that I'm not throwing toys and that I'm not sulking. In fact, I care probably more than you do.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I still intend to spoil my ballot.

Spoken like the typical arm-chair/pub politico. Ready to rant, rave, we don't have a choice etc etc but then the only thing you can be bothered to do is scribble on a piece of paper.

Great

 

[scorza]

What is this weasel word "kept"? Why not read from something other than the Labour website?

GDP increased so borrowing, "kept" at a % of GDP increased - hugely so. Why did we need to borrow during one of the biggest tax receipt booms of our time? Why did we need to dispose of wealth and assets during this tax receipt boom? He was spending too much, beyond the country's means, all because the doofus thought he had ended 'boom and bust'.

If we had these assets and had worked down our deficit (like almost all our other counterparts did), we'd be in a better position now. Fact.

Who did? Certainly not most of the EU countries or Japan. A national debt of 40% of GDP was a level of debt appropriate to the size of our economy. As any market analyst will tell you, a company with no debt is failing to invest in its future - the same goes for countries. Plus there's the impact on the pound, making it too valuable by having too low a debt level will adversely affect our export economies and open the door (even more) to foreign competition.

You're plucking figures out of your ass. Stick to facts and stop being imaginary.

Well if the Conservative leadership would give us some facts I'd happily talk about them, as they won't then we can only speculate. Again I didn't hear many complaints from the shadow cabinet about the 40% target, I'm giving them an enormous benefit of the doubt in the context of this debate by saying they'd have kept the debt to 30% of GDP.

 

[meghatronic]

It's a good thing that I'm not throwing toys and that I'm not sulking. In fact, I care probably more than you do.

No one gives a **** that you "don't support any of the choices." That's the way it works. For better, or for worse, you're not going to bring about change by spoiling your vote.

Perhaps there should be a "I do not support any of these parties" option. If that was the case *then* subsequently spoiling your vote should make you a candidate for forced live organ donation.

 

[scorza]

Go you!

That should be a crime.

Perfectly legitimate thing to do, certainly better than not voting at all.

 

[meghatronic]

Perfectly legitimate thing to do, certainly better than not voting at all.

See above.

 

[scorza]

Barclays are doing very well right now, and did hugely well out of the Lehmans assets they were able to pick up (they've already turned them into actual balance sheet positive assets).

Which proves my point. They'd be doing considerably less well if they'd have bought Lehmans lock, stock and barrel.

 

[Tefal]

No one gives a **** that you "don't support any of the choices." That's the way it works. For better, or for worse, you're not going to bring about change by spoiling your vote.

Perhaps there should be a "I do not support any of these parties" option. If that was the case *then* subsequently spoiling your vote should make you a candidate for forced live organ donation.

No spoiling your ballet is in the hope there will be enough people doing it that they add a none of the above option for the next election.


With a none of the above option if it wins then all the candidates have to step down and new ones be found.

 

[meghatronic]

Which proves my point. They'd be doing considerably less well if they'd have bought Lehmans lock, stock and barrel.

**** me. We have an Oracle with us!

Do you not think Barclay's *thought* about the acquisition?

 

[meghatronic]

No spoiling your ballet is in the hope there will be enough people doing it that they add a none of the above option for the next election.


With a none of the above option if it wins then all the candidates have to step down and new ones be found.

And so on, and so on and so on. There will always be unhappy people.

Besides, if there were 10 million spoiled votes, and 3 million legitimate votes, I'm pretty sure we all know what would happen.

 

[Tefal]

Besides, if there were 10 million spoiled votes, and 3 million legitimate votes, I'm pretty sure we all know what would happen.

Yes whoever won out of the 3 millio nwould win.

And so on, and so on and so on. There will always be unhappy people.

Not really, it takes quite a lot for none of the above to win so one refresh of candidates would normaly end it.

 

[scorza]

**** me. We have an Oracle with us!

Do you not think Barclay's *thought* about the acquisition?

Like Lloyds did with the acquisition of HBOS?

Like RBS did with the acquisition of ABN Amro?

Even the US government now admits that the UK government were right to not let Barclays circumvent the rules to complete the acquisition of Lehmans. There simply wasn't enough time for proper due diligence with the proposed deal. At least with Lloyds/HBOS it was one British company bailing out another, which turn was bailed out by the British government. The British government bailing out Barclays because of shenanigans at its recently purchased US subsidiary would have been even more galling that the RBS bailout.

 

[Gackt]

Spoken like the typical arm-chair/pub politico. Ready to rant, rave, we don't have a choice etc etc but then the only thing you can be bothered to do is scribble on a piece of paper.

Great

At least I bother to vote.

No one gives a **** that you "don't support any of the choices." That's the way it works. For better, or for worse, you're not going to bring about change by spoiling your vote.

Perhaps there should be a "I do not support any of these parties" option. If that was the case *then* subsequently spoiling your vote should make you a candidate for forced live organ donation.

Tell the people who vote for minor candidates/parties with no chance of winning that they're not going to bring about any change. Tell them not to vote.

Spoiling your vote "for the lulz" is not something I'm supporting, by the way. I'm not doing it for a larff. I'm doing it because I genuinely don't support any of the candidates. Frankly, I would think you would rather someone voice their support of no one, then to not bother even leaving the house or attempting to make a reasoned decision about voting.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Like Lloyds did with the acquisition of HBOS?

Like RBS did with the acquisition of ABN Amro?

Fallacious argument. Apples to oranges. Anything concrete to prove that Barclays would be less well off having bought Lehmans?

 

[scorza]

Anything concrete to prove that Barclays would be less well off having bought Lehmans?

You seriously think that Barcalys could have absorbed the largest ever US bankrupt firm without serious negative consequences?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Interesting fact: David Cameron is the first Conservative to start an election with a poll majority since 1987.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

You seriously think that Barcalys could have absorbed the largest ever US bankrupt firm without serious negative consequences?

Yes... because by that time due diligence had been done on Lehmans and Barclays had weighed up that they could take the writedowns and negate them against their own good balance sheet as well as well as the enormous discount they'd buy Lehman's plentiful good assets.

I can't believe you're still making things up, guessing and presuming to back your arguments.

 

[RDM]

No spoiling your ballet is in the hope there will be enough people doing it that they add a none of the above option for the next election.

Sadly it doesn't work like that. Spoiling your ballot deliberately just gets counted in exactly the same way as those people too stupid to vote correctly. Rather than being recorded as a protest it gets recorded as "yet another retarded voter".

 

[Von Smallhausen]

We have a new Labour candidate in my constituency as Geoff Hoon if off to make a few bob

not sure what but there is something about her which may win my vote

Try not and spoil your ballot paper there Rotty.