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 .
Evangelion said:
No, I just enjoy a bit of cabaret. :D
Click to expand...
Fair enough. :p


The constitution doesn't say what the Queen must or must not do in this situation. She has the power to dismiss Gordo and appoint Cameron, though as Halfmad says, Cameron must demonstrate that he can offer a viable government. :)
Click to expand...
But come on, the Queen doesn't have any real power any more. If she had to give her own death warrant the royal ascent, she would.
 
Rich_L said:
DM I'm glad you don't just talk crap in the SA but in here too.

The incumbent government have nothing to do with the boundaries. Are you going to blame the boundary shift before the 1997 election under a Tory government that gave Labour such a high majority?
Click to expand...

No, but I'm going to point out that Labour, with the boundries heavily favouring them, didn't want ANY reform, until it started to look like Lib dem might get more votes, or at least take a lot of seats off them, then they started blabbing to every camera that was on that they'd love PR and that Lib Dem should talk to them about it.

YOu know, like what I said. It seems fairly common amongst people to ignore what you type, and read whatever they want.

Labour like the current system, they ONLY wanted change after it was clear they wouldn't win. Thats not a policy they WANT, its a policy shift to gain favour with another party. Anyone that says Labour wants PR, is simply lying, as is Brown, they want what will make Lib Dem like them.

Lib Dem only want PR because they'll get more seats than they can win now, NOT fairly. Please explain how if they can't get a majority vote in an area, they can still get the seat, because their vote elsewhere made it seem fair they should get more seats? LIkewise, Tory want what will help them, theres no fair involved in any of this, its what can we sell to the public to make the system favour us, nothing more or less.

If Lib Dem were the second biggest party and had Labours count of seats, PR wouldn't help them and they WOULDN'T campaign on it.
 
Ahleckz said:
According to the Lib Dems (unconfirmed) Labour are offering AV, straight off, but then also offering a referendum on PR.
If that's true, then the Conservatives don't have a chance...
Click to expand...

It is pretty much the same problem they face now. Do they go against their values of being for the people and force through changes or do they offer a referendum. They still would have to try and find a majority with the smaller groups as well for it to even go through the commons.

With the tories they get a guaranteed majority and can offer a referendum.
 
Yes DM, I'm just imagining that you said that Labour changed the boundaries to suit them

drunkenmaster said:
Make NO mistake, Labour want the current system and have changed the borders over time to give them the most power possible and the best chance.
Click to expand...
 
stockhausen said:
The concept of negotiation clearly doesn't feature much in your life then :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nick Clegg says he will attempt to agree to form a majority government that is in the Nations best interest. As the Tories are offering a referendum on AV, which the Liberal Democrats wanted, yet Clegg thinks he can get a better deal for his party and himself from Labour which 'in my opinion' goes against the 'Interest of the Nation', which in fact needs a stable Government to deal with the Financial crisis and market instabilty and recovery right now, not a future change to the voting system, this can be formulated at a later date.

In short, attempting to force through electoral reform at the expense of stability right now is in the interest of the LibDems, not the Country as a whole.
 
The LibDems have never wanted AV, until now at least, and of course according to Hague who you could say may be slightly biased :p - which was quite surprising.
 
Last edited:
harman is a dangerous woman her positive discrimination policy is an absolute disgusting piece of work, it makes me feel sick to think people with a mind set like that have managed to worm their way into the echelons of power.
 
badcompany said:
harman is a dangerous woman her positive discrimination policy is an absolute disgusting piece of work, it makes me feel sick to think people with a mind set like that have managed to worm their way into the echelons of power.
Click to expand...
Just think of her husband.

The Tories should pray for a Lib-Lab coalition
A Lib-Lab coalition would be democratically preposterous, defying the laws of political mavity. But for that very reason it could, in the medium term, be the best possible outcome for the Tories. It would be losers propping up losers. It would be hugely difficult to keep together, lacking a majority of its own and requiring life-support from various nationalist parties. It would be vulnerable to all sorts of unsavoury Celtic blackmail, enraging the already long-suffering English (whose own voting intentions were very clear.)....But if it does somehow happen, the Tories will have dodged a bullet – and been handed an Exocet for later on.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/a...e-tories-should-pray-for-a-lib-lab-coalition/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lord Reid on BBC News 24 now. A very wise gentleman, suggesting Labour should just back off and admit defeat on the basis that they do not wish to prejudice the electorate against the Labour Party for a generation, and that any coalition with the Lib-Dems would be at the mercy of tiny fringe parties with vested interests.

Very wise indeed. Apparently, David Blunkett feels likewise.
 
Great to see John Reid speaking sense there! (And as a Conservative, and an Aberdeen fan - that's pained me to say).
He's just said that the Conservatives should go ahead and take the government reigns.

dante6491 said:
It is pretty much the same problem they face now. Do they go against their values of being for the people and force through changes or do they offer a referendum. They still would have to try and find a majority with the smaller groups as well for it to even go through the commons.

With the tories they get a guaranteed majority and can offer a referendum.
Click to expand...

The Tories are not going to offer a referendum on PR though.
I agree that they will struggle to show how they aren't selling their values but if they can get a guarantee on PR (which is what Labour are now apparently offering) then they would be hard pressed not to accept going into a coalition with Labour.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
Lord Reid on BBC News 24 now. A very wise gentleman, suggesting Labour should just back off and admit defeat on the basis that they do not wish to prejudice the electorate against the Labour Party for a generation, and that any coalition with the Lib-Dems would be at the mercy of tiny fringe parties with vested interests..

Very wise indeed. Apparently, David Blunkett feels likewise.
Click to expand...

yeah and they did so well when they had their chance, sore loosers.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
Lord Reid on BBC News 24 now. A very wise gentleman, suggesting Labour should just back off and admit defeat on the basis that they do not wish to prejudice the electorate against the Labour Party for a generation, and that any coalition with the Lib-Dems would be at the mercy of tiny fringe parties with vested interests.

Very wise indeed. Apparently, David Blunkett feels likewise.
Click to expand...

+10

Respect to the man.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
Way to misunderstand my post :)

John Reid isn't even an MP (in the elected sense - obviously he's a member of the House of Lords). He simply wants the party to survive - he's actually pulling in the same direction as you. Don't be hard on him! :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure he like blunket had to leave cabinet posts after some sort of embarassment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom