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 .
indeed it is, but the media language in that telegraph article was atrocious. Yes its us spending money which i view as not good, but telegraph don't half put a totally negative spin on it. in future years this compromise may prove to be overall part of a good thing. we'll see.

so many pessimistic conservative (ideology not political sense) in the UK, the only thing i have against this country, thats why i hate a lot of the mainstream media so much, its ruined us
 
lozzick said:
indeed it is, but the media language in that telegraph article was atrocious. Yes its us spending money which i view as not good, but telegraph don't half put a totally negative spin on it. in future years this compromise may prove to be overall part of a good thing. we'll see.

so many pessimistic conservative (ideology not political sense) in the UK, the only thing i have against this country, thats why i hate a lot of the mainstream media so much, its ruined us
Click to expand...

well what's wrong with looking at the news and asking the question, "what are we getting out of this?". There's a reason that the Telegraph was quite damning in their article. Yes it's pandering to people who wanted a referendum on the lisbon treaty, yea maybe it appeals to people who arent so keen on the idea of being in the EU.

But most importantly, it's aimed towards anyone who doesnt like the idea of us being liable to pay out to shore up a currency that we have no part of, nor therefore do we have any responsibility for. Frankly, i think the tone of the article is spot on in that respect.
 
SxU1QE2O.jpg
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Looks like we're stumping up 10billion euros to bail out the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...g-agrees-to-give-10bn-to-Europe-bail-out.html
Click to expand...

More like 15 billion:

Britain's involvement in the bailout could cost taxpayers £15 billion. Britain was already exposed to a potential £7 billion cost under the original scheme and its ultimate liability under the enhanced plan will be a further £8 billion, Treasury officials say.
Click to expand...

Source
 
So FTSE100 up over 4% this morning, pound up more than 2% against the dollar too.

Is it the case that the doom and gloomers were wrong about a hung parliament causing market jitters? or is it the case that a dysfunctional market can only speculate on one thing at a time, namely the Eurozone economy this time.
 
simulatorman said:
More like 15 billion
Click to expand...
It's not as much "cost" as "liability", and the two are very different. It could cost us the full amount, and it could equally cost us nothing.
scorza said:
Is it the case that the doom and gloomers were wrong about a hung parliament causing market jitters? or is it the case that a dysfunctional market can only speculate on one thing at a time, namely the Eurozone economy this time.
Click to expand...
The markets had priced a hung parliament in to the equation. Most of the boost this morning was from the positive EU news.
 
scorza said:
So FTSE100 up over 4% this morning, pound up more than 2% against the dollar too.

Is it the case that the doom and gloomers were wrong about a hung parliament causing market jitters? or is it the case that a dysfunctional market can only speculate on one thing at a time, namely the Eurozone economy this time.
Click to expand...

Or they are expecting both Clegg and Cameron to put aside petty personal desires and partisan politics for the good of the country.

The proof will be when we know what is going on...
 
Dolph said:
Or they are expecting both Clegg and Cameron to put aside petty personal desires and partisan politics for the good of the country.

The proof will be when we know what is going on...
Click to expand...

I watched an interview on BBC1 with Lembik Opik before I set off for the station. He indicated that without a deal on PR he couldn't see how Clegg would be able to agree.
 
Just out of interest, who thinks that a Tory/Lib dem or minority tory result is less popular than a labour/lib dem coalition?

http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_...icm-and-yougov-post-election-polls-30341.html

I'd also be interested to see (but can't find a poll for it) where electoral reform ranks on the list of priorities for the people. There are lots of things that I 'support' for example, but given a list of things that could be done, their position would frequently vary...
 
Good article here on the Beeb, with some examples of what the different systems would have resulted in the 2005 election.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm

Pay particular attention to the Alternate vote example, and see just how unproportional Labour's preferred version is, and how much worse it is than FPTP.

You can also clearly see why Labour don't want PR, and why, despite making manifesto commitments 3 elections in a row to reform the system, they haven't done so. Especially AMS and STV show pretty much all their losses going to the lib dems.

Is that really a better prospect than the Tories for a coalition? Labour only want PR now because they have been decimated, and they still consider the social democrat side of the lib dems to be an extension of their own party...
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Just out of interest, who thinks that a Tory/Lib dem or minority tory result is less popular than a labour/lib dem coalition?
Click to expand...

From observing the press, it seems that a 'significant' percentage of the population have a problem with the idea of a coalition full stop. The view I have seen expressed most frequently is that the individual has voted specifically for a single party and are not at all happy with the idea of a compromise with a party they dislike, or whose policies they do not agree.
 
Dolph said:
Good article here on the Beeb, with some examples of what the different systems would have resulted in the 2005 election.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm

Pay particular attention to the Alternate vote example, and see just how unproportional Labour's preferred version is, and how much worse it is than FPTP.

You can also clearly see why Labour don't want PR, and why, despite making manifesto commitments 3 elections in a row to reform the system, they haven't done so. Especially AMS and STV show pretty much all their losses going to the lib dems.

Is that really a better prospect than the Tories for a coalition? Labour only want PR now because they have been decimated, and they still consider the social democrat side of the lib dems to be an extension of their own party...
Click to expand...

Very interesting stuff, would like to see the BBC calculator extend to other elections to really gauge the bias of the system.

I always knew Labour were after AV because it suited them more than the electorate, but it's nice to see it written clearly. Even STV isn't as 'fair' as pure PR.

What do you Labour loyalists have to say to that eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom