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:
My god you are monumentally stupid.

Unite Union? Heard of them? Who do they bankroll?

Get with the times you myopic fool, all of the major parties are bankrolled. Whether it's by non-dom peers (Labour and Con) or alleged criminals (Lib Dems), or just trade unions (Labour).

I suppose you don't have any idea of the existance of a certain Lord Paul, what he did to get his billions, the fact he's a major donor to the Labour party in exchange for his peerage, he's also a non-dom and worse of all he claimed more than £300k in expenses to attend the House of Lords when he's a billionaire. I think you'll find that Ashcroft hasn't claimed expenses for attending the House of Lords and is going to cease being a non-dom.

Some of you Labour loyalists really are stupid. If you're going to support them then at least do some research, find out the facts (not the spin) and make your judgement accordingly.

It's inconceivable to me that you could be so stupid as to support that party after the last thirteen years of government, especially when your reasons are so poor.

"I don't like the Tories because they are bankrolled" - all parties are.
"I don't like the Tories because of Thatcher" - winter of discontent (hi Labour).
"I don't like the Tories because they are toffs" - Clegg went to a rich boy school too and since when is a good education such a terrible thing?
"I don't like the Tories because of Lord Ashcroft the non-dom" - there are many non-doms, including Lord Paul who happens to fund the Labour party with a fortune made up of the pensions of British steel workers.
"I don't like the Tories because they hate the poor/working class" - a key Conservative policy has always been to reduce taxes, can't say the same for tax and spend Labour now can we?
"I don't like the Tories because they closed the mines/factories" - if the workers didn't take their striking action too far and refuse to modernise their industries they wouldn't have closed so soon, although they would have inevitably closed due to globalisation.
"I don't like the Tories because they support FPTP" - the Tories get screwed over by FPTP but still they stand by it, they aren't looking to change the system to something which favours them more are they?

Anything else?

Do yourselves a favour, take a look at the policies of all the parties, do some research on what they genuinely stand for and what these things will actually mean for our country and then make up your mind on who to vote for and support. These ridiculous grudges and arguments based solely on spin don't get anyone anywhere.

Stop living in your Labour over-spending sponsored bubble of ridiculousness and come back to reality. We need major cuts immediately, we need lower corporate taxes immediately, we don't need an income tax rise and we absolutely need a change from Gordon Brown and the massive public sector Labour have created. The only party offering all of these things are the Conservatives.

It amazes me to see people interviewed on the news and posting on forums who say things like "I think Gordon Brown's done a good job of steering us through recession and managing our finances". Are they really that oblivious to what Gordon has actually done?
Click to expand...

I don't support New Labour, you twit. Way to waste your time. :D

Gordon Brown has done a **** job, as I've already said in this thread.
 
Captain_Slick said:
No, they're not. Nobody in the western world is capable of 'fixing' the economy.

The massive pensions liability is going to be the biggest problem in the next decade or two. That's £2.5 TRILLION~ that needs paying for, somehow.

Add onto that our personal debt, the PFI schemes, the cost of the bailouts and government debt, the deficit AND the unfolding Sovereign debt crisis and we are well and truely raped. The biggest problem is that nobody will be able to stop it once it starts to unravel.
Click to expand...

If "fixing" sounds too strong a word, how about "managing"?

Frankly, I don't buy the hype. Dour-faced prophets of doom have been predicting the total collapse of capitalism ever since the Wall Street Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, but here we are almost 100 years later and the good old juggernaut is still lumbering on. Is the UK economy in bad shape? Yes; probably the worst it's been for decades. Is this the end of the world? No, you'll still have food in the supermarkets tomorrow and wages in your bank this month.
 
Captain_Slick said:
Muhrr. I'm not saying that Tory policy will make the poor worse off. I'm saying that how they deal with the impending default of the entire country will make the poor worse off than how Labour (Not New Labour) would deal with it.

Yes, the poor will still be worse off, but they'll be less worse off than they would be under the Tories.
Click to expand...

Artificially pumping up the economy will not clear the debt, it will only increase it. The private sector is the only way to get us out of this mess and Labour don't believe in it.

You forget, Labour contributed greatly to this mess, they are the ones that tripled the national debt in thirteen years - a level of debt that took more than 300 years to accumulate.

Contrast this with the Tories who have made sound policies to promote business growth, which will create more jobs and therefore create more tax revenue with which to start dealing with the deficit.

Labours policy on this mess is to artificially prop up the economy with mugabenomics. They created all these non-job civil servants, the same people who will blame the Tories when they lose their non-jobs in order to save the country paying for massive waste.
 
avec said:
Labours policy on this mess is to artificially prop up the economy with mugabenomics. They created all these non-job civil servants, the same people who will blame the Tories when they lose their non-jobs in order to save the country paying for massive waste.
Click to expand...


same as the 70's
 
Captain_Slick said:
I don't support New Labour, you twit. Way to waste your time. :D

Gordon Brown has done a **** job, as I've already said in this thread.
Click to expand...

I never said you supported New Labour, but I did criticise you based on your stupid statement on the Conservatives being backrolled as if Labour aren't.
 
Evangelion said:
If "fixing" sounds too strong a word, how about "managing"?

Frankly, I don't buy the hype. Dour-faced prophets of doom have been predicting the total collapse of capitalism ever since the Wall Street Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, but here we are almost 100 years later and the good old juggernaut is still lumbering on. Is the UK economy in bad shape? Yes; probably the worst it's been for decades. Is this the end of the world? No, you'll still have food in the supermarkets tomorrow and wages in your bank this month.
Click to expand...

We (and most Western economies) didn't owe more than 200% (total liabilities) of GDP in '29. ;)
 
avec said:
Artificially pumping up the economy will not clear the debt, it will only increase it. The private sector is the only way to get us out of this mess and Labour don't believe in it.

You forget, Labour contributed greatly to this mess, they are the ones that tripled the national debt in thirteen years - a level of debt that took more than 300 years to accumulate.

Contrast this with the Tories who have made sound policies to promote business growth, which will create more jobs and therefore create more tax revenue with which to start dealing with the deficit.

Labours policy on this mess is to artificially prop up the economy with mugabenomics. They created all these non-job civil servants, the same people who will blame the Tories when they lose their non-jobs in order to save the country paying for massive waste.
Click to expand...

Why are you making these long posts as if I'm arguing viciously in support of the past 13 years of Labour government? I'm not. I think they've done a **** job.

EDIT: Perhaps I should have said that some of us don't support any bankrolled political parties, and not just the Conservatives? Who cares. The point still stands that the Tories are most publically bankrolled.
 
PMKeates said:
What would you say the required set of events are before a referendum? A change to PR, in my opinion, would be a very significant constitutional change that both the experts and electorate would really need to read up on before making a choice. I'd say the outcome of that referendum is more important than the outcome of half a dozen general elections.

I'd really like an independent review that literally draws up a list of key pro's and con's, recommends a single "best" system and presents a Yes/No vote to the electorate.
Click to expand...
I think some form of review or report would be reasonable, if only to provide the Tories with enough of a compromise to agree to it. That said, given that PR has been used for a number of years even with the UK and that there is already a pretty comprehensive report which is only 10 years old, it certainly shouldn't be something that takes many years.

One reason I would like to see some form of commitment to referendum, preferably in a period such as Autumn '10, May '11 etc announced is that provides a start for proper discussion and the necessary incentive for people to educate themselves as they know they will have to vote in a determined timescale.

A 'report' without a referendum is pointless really, one good thing about Labour's rejection of the Jenkins recommendations is that it highlights how meaningless a 'independent committee' recommendation really is.
 
badcompany said:
gb must resign ffs
Click to expand...

Why must he resign 'FFS'? Do we have a viable alternative right now? Name a party that could get a Queen's Speech through uncontested as things stand. That's right, you can't.

When there's an alternative, he'll resign, but for now there's a country to run.
 
hey, I just read that in 2000 and something, maybe 6, our national debt as a percentage of gdp was less than when Major left office, also the spend on welfare is a lot less as well.

the tories are hopeless with the economy and can't be trusted.
 
Berserker said:
Why must he resign 'FFS'? Do we have a viable alternative right now? Name a party that could get a Queen's Speech through uncontested as things stand. That's right, you can't.

When there's an alternative, he'll resign, but for now there's a country to run.
Click to expand...

The Tories can get a Queens speech through uncontested, the other parties will pass it rather than put themselves through a second election that they can't afford.
 
GB can't leave until someone is in a position to take over it's in the constitution. There has to be a maximum of 1hr between PMs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom