Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

Who did you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 137 13.9%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 378 38.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 304 30.9%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 27 2.7%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 10 1.0%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 20 2.0%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • DUP

    Votes: 4 0.4%

  • UUP

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • SDLP

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 1.6%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 80 8.1%
  • Total voters
    985
  • Poll closed .
RDM said:
Which people had the chance to change by voting Lib Dem. There was no swing to the Lib Dems, they even lost seats. Maybe the taste for electoral reform isn't as strong as you would like?

I like the idea of PR, but unfortunately it tends to lead to a somewhat less democratic situation rather than a more democratic situation. Deals, as they are now in fact, will get made behind closed doors and it will not really be the people that decide but the politicians.

It might be workable if they had to state up front prior to an election whom they would, and would not, form a coalition with.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They got nearly a quarter of all the votes, but somehow end up with a tenth of the power?
 
Gimpymoo said:
You mean to drop his and his partys MAJOR thing they have been banging on about the entire campaign?

That would show him to be a spineless Gimp IMO and nothing but a Judas to his party and its members and supporters.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's the problem. He should side with the "losing side" Labour who will give the referendum on voting which will benefit the Leb Dems for decades to come. That would probable end his career as Lib Dem leader though

Going with the "winning" party, Cons, he will have lost the only chance the Lib Dems have of reforming the voting system for years although the alliance might work and may last a full term.
 
A Tory-Lib coalition sounds good to me at the moment. As Rich_L said, let's see what comes of it first. As I did say earlier: a hung parliament might just mean we see the best policies of each party coming forward, and for Clegg that would include reform.
 
I can't understand how people can vote for labour when they didn't do a good job.

There was this one lady with a vote labour sign down my road, i spoke to her, i said, how can you vote for the same non sense we have had, she said, do you remember the last conservative government.

I think that is taking the whole voting for the lesser of two evils a bit too far...
 
If I were Clegg I would publicly (and loudly) state that electoral reform is an absolute pre-condition (assuming of course it is for the LDs...) for any agreement or coalition, regardless of what else is offered - any compromise over the other LD policies without electoral reform at the centre would be a betrayal IMO
 
Gimpymoo said:
Source?

The Lib dem party will have MASSIVE fallout if he does.
Click to expand...

The Lib dem party will have massive fallout whichever option they take. Clegg has backed himself into a corner.

Manifesto and vote history wise, the lib dems are closer to the Tories than Labour, it's just their member base often has an irrational hatred of them.
 
This system has been in use for years without any real complaints, funny how it's now WORST SYSTEM EVAH!!
Perhaps if all those people who promised to vote LibDem did it might've been different.
Did I hear right yesterday that there was a facebook campaign or something to start demos if there was a Tory majority?
 
RDM said:
They are going to suffer fallout regardless of who they ally with. What will matter is what they can get out of the deal.
Click to expand...

Almost nothing, then, if they side with the cons ;)

Cameron's speech was largely "we'll work with them where our policies agree", which, when you think about it, means they'll simply implement tory policies and nothing else.
 
Superewza said:
Exactly. They got nearly a quarter of all the votes, but somehow end up with a tenth of the power?
Click to expand...

But PR isn't really an answer to that, PR can lead to more disenfranchisement rather than more unless the right safeguards are in place. Regardless of who the Lib Dems ally with there will be upset Lib Dem voters. They will have voted to support a party they cannot stand. With PR this could happen more and more rather than the unusual occurance it is today.
 
groen said:
I can't understand how people can vote for labour when they didn't do a good job.

''do you remember the last conservative government''
Click to expand...
you just answered your own question ?

i didn't vote labour but they could have done far worse during this global financial mess . just look at iceland , greece , spain , portugal
 
I would, but I don't want to. The example of the backroom deals currently going on would be dwarfed by what would happen under PR...

We need reform, but if FPTP was done with equal sized constituencies, this wouldn't have occurred, so there are plenty of options that need full discussion, not a rampaging rabble.
 
Dolph said:
The Lib dem party will have massive fallout whichever option they take. Clegg has backed himself into a corner.

Manifesto and vote history wise, the lib dems are closer to the Tories than Labour, it's just their member base often has an irrational hatred of them.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, you could say Cameron has backed himself into a corner by persistently pinning his (and the Tory party) colours to the FPP system and a Tory outright majority, although the latter is understandable.

I think Clegg has played it correctly, as earlier I would publicly state electoral reform as an absolute pre-condition, that way if the Tories reject it, they can simply point to that as the reason they had to look elsewhere and it very much puts the Tories in the public eye as the reason why they could not form a government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom