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 .
Westyfield2 said:
Yup :(. This week could literally have us like Greece

I'm trying to remember the actual numbers but can't, but this is what I think they are..... IIRC the UK's debt interest is currently at 2% but if tomorrow morning nothing's sorted the markets are just going to get the willies and that'll put as at 4%, which'll need another £10bn borrowed just to cover the interest!
Click to expand...

I think it's going to be carnage soon whatever happens - there are just too many problems stacking up. That's what you get for putting off the inevitable. Either let it happen or face a decade of trouble like Japan.
 
I'm quite amused at all these opinions about Britain being doomed without a single dominating party in parliament.
Ireland and many other European countries have had it for years, and they managed not to collapse through stagnation (In fact many are higher than us on the Human Development Index)

Face it, the evidence shows that there's no selfless reasons for FPTP.


John Cleese on PR way back in 1987
 
Last edited:
Zarf said:
I'm quite amused at all these opinions about Britain being doomed without a single dominating party in parliament.
Ireland and many other European countries have had it for years, and they managed not to collapse through stagnation.
Click to expand...
The NZ, Irish, Israeli and Italian press constantly moan about it. It's very inefficient with deals done behind closed doors.

And Germany: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8670554.stm

brainiac ghost said:
well, more than 50% of the population didn't vote for them...
Click to expand...
Has there *ever* been a party with >50% votes?
 
Last edited:
I just wish they'd friggin sort it out....They KNEW a hung parliament might be a posibilit, they KNEW one party may not get the deciding vote...so the HELL on earth was nothing sorted prior to this?

It baffles the mind...Basically, the tories one, *fair and square...It's just because of the ludicrous first past the post system they didn't win.

*When I say fair and square, I basicaly mean by counting up all the votes taken into account...and no the hundreds of people who couldn't actually vote...Even though if they did it wouldn't have made sod all difference anyway
 
Delvis said:
I just wish they'd friggin sort it out....They KNEW a hung parliament might be a posibilit, they KNEW one party may not get the deciding vote...so the HELL on earth was nothing sorted prior to this?

It baffles the mind...Basically, the tories one, *fair and square...It's just because of the ludicrous first past the post system they didn't win.

*When I say fair and square, I basicaly mean by counting up all the votes taken into account...and no the hundreds of people who couldn't actually vote...Even though if they did it wouldn't have made sod all difference anyway
Click to expand...

No, because far more people voted against a Tory government than voted for one.
 
brainiac ghost said:
I think the tories did in 1911, but that's the point, no one party should be able to force all their policies on everyone then!
Click to expand...
You make it sound like the choice is binary. That you are either for or against, and if you are against you completely oppose absolutely everything - that simply isn't the case. The vast majority of government business would be agreeable, and it's more of an ideological direction and a few choice areas where there isn't a consensus.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think PR is such a good idea - I think it's a false and unnecessary representation. If you were to say the parties are 75% agreeable and 25% different, then the vote to elect a party with a majority and significant power simply dictates a general preference of the electorate for those 25% of the issues. PR just adds layers of complication to achieve a similar result.
Superewza said:
No, because far more people voted against a Tory government than voted for one.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. They didn't "vote against", they simply did not expressly state the Tories as their #1 preference.
 
Some of the worst pieces on legislation inflicted on this country would never have got through if we had PR and coalition governments - I can't see the poll Tax being passed with a coalition holding back Thatcher, or Gordon Brown being allowed to raid everyone's pension funds if the Lib Dems had a say in it.
 
PMKeates said:
That is not the case. They didn't "vote against", they simply did not expressly state the Tories as their #1 preference.
Click to expand...

I disagree strongly, most of the people who did not vote Tory but still chose one of the three major parties will have done so to vote tactically against the Conservatives.
 
Superewza said:
No, because far more people voted against a Tory government than voted for one.
Click to expand...

Lets take your idiotic Labour spin statement and turn it around shall we.

More people voted 'against' a Labour government than voted 'against' the Tories.

Even more people voted 'against' a Liberal government than voted 'against' the Tories.

If you're going to use such idiotic statements, then at least realise that whichever way you look at it, the Conservatives won the election, they just didn't achieve the commons majority they wanted.
 
Superewza said:
I disagree strongly, most of the people who did not vote Tory but still chose one of the three major parties will have done so to vote tactically against the Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Likewise for Labour and Lib dem then???? :rolleyes:

You can say that for whoever would have 'come first'

It's pathetic
 
Superewza said:
I disagree strongly, most of the people who did not vote Tory but still chose one of the three major parties will have done so to vote tactically against the Conservatives.
Click to expand...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree then, because I don't believe that to be the case and neither of us have any evidence to show otherwise.
 
Superewza said:
I disagree strongly, most of the people who did not vote Tory but still chose one of the three major parties will have done so to vote tactically against the Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Or, just maybe, the party they voted for was the one they wanted to win?
 
avec said:
Lets take your idiotic Labour spin statement and turn it around shall we.

More people voted 'against' a Labour government than voted 'against' the Tories.

Even more people voted 'against' a Liberal government than voted 'against' the Tories.

If you're going to use such idiotic statements, then at least realise that whichever way you look at it, the Conservatives won the election, they just didn't achieve the commons majority they wanted.
Click to expand...

There we go! Someone who realises the truth! :p

I applaud this person
 
Delvis said:
Likewise for Labour and Lib dem then???? :rolleyes:

You can say that for whoever would have 'come first'

It's pathetic
Click to expand...

Not really, pretty much all of the working class (which makes up a large part of the country) have a rational hatred of the Conservatives, along with many others. Applying the 'best of a bad bunch' logic a large portion of the other two main parties votes will be people either arriving at different conclusions or voting specifically for a hung parliament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom