Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
its still a majority of the people who can be bothered to vote.
I don't read The Sun , so again fail. Even if i put my views across which i have done in this thread the only response from you will be like a labour spin doctor
Actually the right and honest thing would have been for him to do it immediately on Friday and actually quit rather than hang on until Labour manage to elect a new leader. This is quite a calculated political move, he knew he was finished but has announced his resignation just as the Lib Dems and Conservatives were about to make a deal. So rather than actually having a decision we are now into even more negotiations which could land us with an awful coalition if you happen to live in England...
To be honest I am sure he would have been a great man if he had stayed away from politics. As he didn't then I couldn't care less about his support of charity as it is dwarfed by the mistakes and poor policy decisions he has made while Chancellor and while PM.
I would argue against that. He was increasing the deficit while we were in boom years, he made numerous mistakes and some pretty bad policy decisions. The raid of pension funds was what pretty much finished off the private final salary pension.
To be honest, if you don't make too many mistakes and deliver then personality isn't as important as you seem to make out. Consider how much Nick Cleggs personality helped his party. Not very much at all.
I am sure he will be long remembered by many people for good and bad. I would certainly read any memoirs he decides to bring out as they could have a very interesting perspective if they are truthful.
I wonder whether it was destorying our pensions or just his general lack of fiscal responsibility that will make him so fondly remembered?
Brown's will probably be remembered as the PM who faced the financial crisis down. Which, if it happens, will show you how little you can judge people by how they're remembered.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,316
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
He doesn't need to. Read between the lines.Eh? Clegg hasn't said anything
Hmmm, Lab/Lib would be terrible. How can Labour now offer a stable government when GB has announced his intentions to resign, sometime before the Autumn conference. That is as unstable as it comes.
Who will succeed?
Who will be the new cabinet?
What new policies will they bring, or change?
Also, why would I want a government formed of the runners up of 2nd and 3rd place?
DC should tell the LibDems to take or leave, and go form a miniority government. Lab/Lib still can't form a majority with what they'll be left with.
Then also, to please the Scots and Welsh, part of their support deal will be NO cuts to Scotish and Welsh funding. So the whole of England will have to soak up ALL the cuts, then you will all start maoning at the government.
I think this in an excellent article, particularly aspects like how STV evens out the regional imbalances, giving the Tories seven Scottish MPs and suchlike.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/alternative-vote-minimal-impact-general-election
It also I think clearly highlights that a change to PR (in this case STV) is fairer but also doesn't precipitate a big Tory loss, with them still being the biggest single party - we would be in much the same position as we are now, just with a more representative government, I don't see in light of this how it can be seen as particularly 'self-interested' to advocate a fairer system.
(There are large caveats of course like assumptions on voting patterns which could change significantly under PR, but interesting article all the same)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/alternative-vote-minimal-impact-general-election
It also I think clearly highlights that a change to PR (in this case STV) is fairer but also doesn't precipitate a big Tory loss, with them still being the biggest single party - we would be in much the same position as we are now, just with a more representative government, I don't see in light of this how it can be seen as particularly 'self-interested' to advocate a fairer system.
(There are large caveats of course like assumptions on voting patterns which could change significantly under PR, but interesting article all the same)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 3,084
- Location
- London
I agree he should go ASAP. But the party does need someone to over see things and someone who has been in the role since 2007 is probably best qualified.
Now see that is a fair opinion on my post.
Not like Mr "LOL" further above.
Conservatism leads to people in need voting against what they need (read texas against the health reform bill)
conservatism leads to an unfair oppertunity society
conservatism leads to the bourgeoisie having smear campaign in their generated media to make sure those think they're voting for, the right thing
conservatism leads to a divided society
conservatism leads to war
conservatism leads to poverty
conservatism leads...blba bla bla bla
You're getting confused between the Conservative party in the UK and the Conservatives in the USA.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,957
Off you go and read the Euro Stimulus Package and its effects on world markets, especially the FTSE share index.
Whilst you're at it, refamiliarise yourself with Tory manifesto and member history. Cameron and Boris Johnson are part of the Bullingdon Club. Note the Bullingdon Club is socially exclusive. Only aristocrats and the very wealthy need apply. David Cameron has gone on to marry an aristocrat. So much for the "We Tories identify with ordinary British people".
Oh, I almost forgot Mr George "I'm still in my 30s and I've never held a proper job" Osbourne.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,316
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
The trouble with the results is they would only mean one thing. A lib lab coalition for the foreseeable future. They're would be zero choice, every election would be a forgone conclusion.
Conservatism leads to people in need voting against what they need (read texas against the health reform bill)
conservatism leads to an unfair oppertunity society
conservatism leads to the bourgeoisie having smear campaign in their generated media to make sure those think they're voting for, the right thing
conservatism leads to a divided society
conservatism leads to war
conservatism leads to poverty
conservatism leads...blba bla bla bla
People seem to be turning the Conservative party into some imaginary monstrous enemy of freedom and equality so they have something to fight against...
Unless I'm mistaken, haven't the LD's been negotiating with the Tories for the last 3 days about forming a government?
Why is it such a foregone conclusion?
I would seriously LMFAO if that was really the offer, mainly because of how much various Tory supporters pilloried Labour's 'cynical' and 'self-interested' attempt at introducing AV to court the LibDems before the election, only for the Tories to do the exact same thing apres-election
Last edited:
fixed. The republican party does seem to give general conservative values a bad rep though ><
Which is exactly why I say that the PM must be the leader of the largest party. If we don't have such a stipulation, we as the general public end up with a 'fairer' system but no control at all over who governs our country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 3,084
- Location
- London
