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 .
avec said:
Oh I can see it now, in a final act of their scorched earth policy, Labour pack off a massive amount of our money to bail out Greece, further deepening our own personal crisis and making the new government find things even more difficult.
Click to expand...
Do you even know how much of our money is being used in the bail out?
 
atpbx said:
Thats a claim from 2007?

I would treat that coming up now with the same kind of derision that I would treat Gordon Brown coming out of no 10 with a crayon drawing of Cameron murdering a kitten while being blown by a rent boy saying it was proof how the tories never change.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant, if it only surfaces now. How many people voted for her under the misconception that she was 'clean' from this sort of thing?
 
Superewza said:
That's irrelevant, if it only surfaces now. How many people voted for her under the misconception that she was 'clean' from this sort of thing?
Click to expand...

The point as a whole is irrelevant, if it was a problem it would have already been made an issue in the report in parliamentary expenses that has already taken place.
 
Captain_Slick said:
Or maybe it wasn't made an issue because no newspaper would touch it for obvious reasons during an election campaign?
Click to expand...

That not what I've said, all expenses were investigated last year were it an issue it would have been brought up.
These things dont just "suddenly appear", its from 3 years ago and was an amount that fell right into the remit of the investigation.

You have ask yourself 2 questions.

Why when the man reporting this claim did not raise it as an issue when he stopped working for the woman in 2008 and the investigation in to expenses was last year.

And 2, what changed his mind about giving her the "benefit of the doubt" about it between when he first noticed it, and now?

I suspect a brown envelope full of cash.
 
Last edited:
Again, did you not read the story?

Hand, who worked full-time for Dorries in the Commons from 2005 until November 2008, said: “I gave her the benefit of the doubt and waited and waited. But the report never appeared.”

Dorries claimed £9,987.50 for Marketing Management in June 2007 for the design, layout and production of an annual report and for consultancy. She says she spent the money, and posted a copy of the report on her website. However, it does not appear to be professionally produced. The previous year, by contrast, she issued a glossy four-page professionally produced report with more than 25 pictures, news articles, an interview and a breakdown of her typical working day as an MP.
Click to expand...
 
atpbx said:
Yes I did, I've already answered the question.
If you asked yourself the same questions, you would have already had the answer yourself.

Read the article, digest what it says, then work out why its come to light now.
Click to expand...

What?

It only surfaced now because she was getting the benefit of the doubt from the person who was looking at her benefits. The investigation doesn't magically bring up all of the wrongly claimed expenses overnight.

You can't seriously be defending her when she claimed £10k for a report she didn't even do that went straight into a friend's business can you?
 
Slam62 said:
Interesting times, if Clegg doesn't get PR out of this, he and the lib dems are finished.

The country voted for a hung parliament. The country should have a vote on PR. ...
Click to expand...
Yeah, interesting times.

Strange that the Tories were so incensed that New Labour didn't have a referendum on Europe but seem so reluctant to commit to a referendum on electoral reform :rolleyes:
 
stockhausen said:
Yeah, interesting times.

Strange that the Tories were so incensed that New Labour didn't have a referendum on Europe but seem so reluctant to commit to a referendum on electoral reform :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not really. Labour promised they would hold a referendum on the lisbon treaty and then didn't. The tories have never promised a referendum on electoral reform.
 
Superewza said:
What?

It only surfaced now because she was getting the benefit of the doubt from the person who was looking at her benefits. The investigation doesn't magically bring up all of the wrongly claimed expenses overnight.

You can't seriously be defending her when she claimed £10k for a report she didn't even do that went straight into a friend's business can you?
Click to expand...

He stopped working for he in 2008.

How long does benefit of the doubt last?
How many months is it reasonable for it to take for the work to be done on such a minor project?
A year?
2 years?
Or does the benefit of the doubt magically run out 2 days after the election in the middle of one of the most fragile points in the political future of our country?

Dont take my arguement for defence over the action of the MP, but rather questioning the motives of the person bringing it to our attention.

Ahh, you see? It all becomes obvious now.
 
atpbx said:
He stopped working for he in 2008.

How long does benefit of the doubt last?
How many months is it reasonable for it to take for the work to be done on such a minor project?
A year?
2 years?
Or does the benefit of the doubt magically run out 2 days after the election in the middle of one of the most fragile points in the political future of our country?

Dont take my arguement for defence over the action of the MP, but rather questioning the motives of the person bringing it to our attention.

Ahh, you see? It all becomes obvious now.
Click to expand...

I do see, it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
 
scorza said:
There are 650 seats in parliament, if the Conservatives got 38% of then they get 650*0.38=247 MPs, Labour got 29% of the vote so they get 650*0.29-188 MPs, Lib Dems got 23% of the vote so they get 650*0.23=149 MPs and so on for the minor parties. The main disadvantage is that we would get no say about who represents up, i.e. the political parties will decide who the MPs are, we vote for the party.

The debt is being mentioned quite a lot :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, that makes more sense now than some of the stuff I've been reading! Not quite sure I like the idea of not knowing who my vote is going to put in as an MP though.

As for the debt, I must be catching the news at the wrong time cos all I hear them going on about is PR. I'm all for a fairer system but I think the priority is to get our country back on it's feet and go from there.
 
zom247 said:
As for the debt, I must be catching the news at the wrong time cos all I hear them going on about is PR. I'm all for a fairer system but I think the priority is to get our country back on it's feet and go from there.
Click to expand...

It's going to take decades to get the country back on it's feet. Total debt is much bigger than government estimates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom