Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[Captain_Slick]

How soon will it be after massive tax rises that these financial institutions start moving abroad?

Pretty soon. The rise of the Chinese middle classes is just the start of this. What happens to developed economies when developing economies become developed?

 

[avec]

We are a capitalist society, get used to it.

The private sector funds the public sector, without the private sector there is no public sector.

Brown de-regulated the banks, he allowed them to get into a position to fail catastrophically.

I'll say this again, our national debt was £300billion in 1997, this is since the Bank of England was founded, so around 300 years or so. It includes going into two massive world wars and numerous other events, disasters and recessions. Since 1997 Labour have more than TRIPLED it to £900billion+ (not including the PFI stuff which many would say makes the figure dramatically larger).

If you honestly think any government that does that is remotely competent and better than the "posh boy Tories who only care about the rich" then you are utterly delusional.

This is without talking about the gold, our failing education system, the ever increasing gap between rich and poor, the benefit society, the overblown and massively wasteful public sector, the unelected PM thing, the expenses scandals and many more things I haven't listed.

I have never been allied to any party, I vote for whoever seems best at that particular moment based on their recent history and what they pledge to do. Having done this I find it beyond ridiculous that so many of you clearly intelligent people can have such a monumental grudge against the Tories that would lead you to vote for Labour.

Also if you want to talk about percentages, Labour won 36% of the vote in 2005 and achieved a comfortable majority, the Tories achieved that last week and don't even get a majority.

Finally, using the same notion of warped and delusional selective maths that the Labour spinners have been using (and some of you have been repeating), under their logic, Labour 'lost' the last election because more people voted for Con/Lib than Labour alone. Sounds stupid doesn't it? Yes it does.

 

[matthewhotdude]

lol people in the background on Sky news shouting get Brown out

 

[Greebo]

I cba commenting as it's retarded. Instead:

"We cannot afford to damage the competitiveness of an industry that contributes over 12pc of total tax revenues – especially with the Government eager to reduce the budget deficit. Losing the internationally mobile parts of the financial services sector would be disastrous."

And who said that? Con, Lab or Lib?

ANd I was more meaning not taxing them directly but the employees. Once you have massice personal tax increases, aren't the talented people working for these companies going to look to move abroad? Once they do, won't the companies themselves look to move as well?

Same end result.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Finally, using the same notion of warped and delusional selective maths that the Labour spinners have been using (and some of you have been repeating), under their logic, Labour 'lost' the last election because more people voted for Con/Lib than Labour alone. Sounds stupid doesn't it? Yes it does.

Well, not really. People are making that point because the options available are a Conservative minority government OR a Lib Dem/Lab coalition OR a Lib Dem/Con coalition.

That wasn't the case in 2005. There was no hung parliament and nobody considered a coalition because Labour had enough seats.

If the option of a Lib Dem/Con coalition disappears, then the point made by Labour is perfectly valid. Moar people want Option B (Lib Dem/Lab coalition) than Option A (Conservative minority government).

At the moment though, yes it's neither here nor there how many votes each option got. It isn't stupid though.

 

[Greebo]

If you honestly think any government that does that is remotely competent and better than the "posh boy Tories who only care about the rich" then you are utterly delusional.

I wasn't defending Labour or saying that the Tories just protect the rich. I was saying in the absense of any of the parties declaring how they were going to deal with this debt, the "average" joe public voter will vote of historic perceptions of the parties, rightly or as I suspect wrongly.

I mean the Tories didn't do themselves any favours. By rights they should have won be a landslide after Brown's efforts. I blame Cameron tbh but that's just my opinion.

 

[Glaucus]

then the point made by Labour is perfectly valid. Moar people want Option B (Lib Dem/Lab coalition) than Option A (Conservative minority government).

.

No they didn't. Please show me how you got to this ridiculous claim. It's certainly not through any logic or stats.

 

[Captain_Slick]

No they didn't. Please show me how you got to this ridiculous claim. It's certainly not through any logic or stats.

Oh yes, let's be awfully pedantic for the sake of it.

A Lib Dem/Lab coalition would represent (if it was a fair coalition - another matter entirely) a larger majority of the public than a Conservative minority government. Thus, they would have more of a moral right to govern.

 

[Glaucus]

A Lib Dem/Lab coalition would represent (if it was a fair coalition - another matter entirely) a larger majority.

How, where are you getting these made up figures from. Way to swallow spin.

You have nothing to back up the argument. You have no idea what people voted for or why, or what they want after a hung parliment was called.

 

[JamesU2005]

Easy way to solve this problem.

All three parties agree to work together for the time being with a second election taking place in the next few months.

 

[platypus]

On BBC, they talked about a "5 point plan" or something, to sell liblab to the electorate. One of the points was "LilLab got >50% votes so have a mandate".
That's from Labour negotiators, so worrying as hell....

Trouble is that the idiots that voted Labour will buy it, and the people that voted Lib Dem will want anything that gives their party power.

 

[meghatronic]

And who said that? Con, Lab or Lib?

Once they do, won't the companies themselves look to move as well?

This is what's so dangerous. And why hating them is ultimately bad.

Stuart Fraser, chairman of the policy and resources committee at the City of London Corporation

 

[platypus]

A Lib Dem/Lab coalition would represent (if it was a fair coalition - another matter entirely) a larger majority of the public than a Conservative minority government. Thus, they would have more of a moral right to govern.

12 seats more then the Conservatives and still 9 short of the majority? Not really much of a moral right is it.

 

[antijoke]

Anyone offer any explanation why I have another voting card for the 27th May 2010?

 

[meghatronic]

Easy way to solve this problem.

All three parties agree to work together for the time being with a second election taking place in the next few months.

More chance of Nosferatu seizing power. Also, it would be a Tory landslide, so LibLab don't want that.

 

[Glaucus]

Anyone offer any explanation why I have another voting card for the 27th May 2010?

Local election in your area?

 

[PMKeates]

A Lib Dem/Lab coalition would represent (if it was a fair coalition - another matter entirely) a larger majority of the public than a Conservative minority government. Thus, they would have more of a moral right to govern.

If you believe this to be the case, then you've invalidated the moral right to govern of nearly every government we have ever had.

To believe that a larger majority of the public want a Lib/Lab coalition than a Lib/Con one or a Con minority government, without any evidence, and then to actually suggest that a government should be formed based on that assumption, is truly morally reprehensible. It seems to be the fast one the politicians are trying to pull.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Looks like bad news. Unite have written to the 100 MPs they back and pay for saying that the Lib/Lab coalition is "the best option"

 

[rypt]

Oh yes, let's be awfully pedantic for the sake of it.

A Lib Dem/Lab coalition would represent (if it was a fair coalition - another matter entirely) a larger majority of the public than a Conservative minority government. Thus, they would have more of a moral right to govern.

By 1 seat if you do Con + DUP

 

[meghatronic]

Srmason writes: The way things are going it seems as if the only likely outcome is a new election in six months time. If this is the sort of unprincipled, sneaky dealing we can expect with proportional representation, then I'd prefer to stay with first past the post. I thought Nick Clegg had principles - seems a lot of us were wrong and he has blown his political future as far the British public is concerned.