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 .
There are some intelligent people posting in this thread.

Do you actually beileve that this coalition will work?

Are you really all that naive?
 
This is going to be hard for the Lib Dems...they might well struggle to get their voice heard in the future.
 
easyrider said:
There are some intelligent people posting in this thread.

Do you actually beileve that this coalition will work?

Are you really all that naive?
Click to expand...

It will have its low points but I think that David Cameron will fight with his entire being to make is succeed. I believe he genuinely cares for the country and will do whatever it takes to save it.
 
Gilly said:
Of course they pay more, they earn more. I can't believe that is in question. On a sliding scale it sounds like you want, those on the breadline pay a higher percentage of their income because they earn less.

Preposterous.
Click to expand...

I don't want to have to pay a higher % just because I earn more. That's not preposterous, it's common sense. WTF is the point in succeeding if you just have it taken off you to support the stupid and lazy who have put no effort into their life? Even on the same Income Tax % I would pay far more than most.
 
I hate to be a bit ignorant, but what exactly have the lib dems agreed to, to make this happen? Or really what have the Conservatives agreed to in order to get lib dem support? I can't seem to find anything on the BBC website apart from a long ass video from Cameron in front of number 10.

I aplogise for ignorance in advance. But tbh the ignorant are the many, not the few!
 
Dolph said:
Geography doesn't matter, constituencies don't have to run along specific geographical boundaries.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but polling stations tend to. Not saying it can't work, just that I'd love to know how they'll do it without making a confusing hash of it.
 
djmc0 said:
I hate to be a bit ignorant, but what exactly have the lib dems agreed to, to make this happen? Or really what have the Conservatives agreed to in order to get lib dem support? I can't seem to find anything on the BBC website apart from a long ass video from Cameron in front of number 10.

I aplogise for ignorance in advnace. But tbh the ignorant are the many, not the few!
Click to expand...

They managed to get a few Conversative policies to be put on hold, ie the ceiling for IHT.
 
easyrider said:
There are some intelligent people posting in this thread.

Do you actually beileve that this coalition will work?

Are you really all that naive?
Click to expand...

Looking at it, yes. Both Cameron and Clegg are not 'classical' leaders of their parties, and their parties do have a lot of policies in common as shown by the level of agreement.

I can certainly see this working better than Lib/Lab, given the massive divergence on civil liberties and the role of the state between the two parties.
 
Berserker said:
Maybe not, but polling stations tend to. Not saying it can't work, just that I'd love to know how they'll do it without making a confusing hash of it.
Click to expand...

Polling stations are by wards though, most constituencies have a great many polling stations, so moving them around isn't really a problem.
 
easyrider said:
There are some intelligent people posting in this thread.

Do you actually beileve that this coalition will work?

Are you really all that naive?
Click to expand...

You have to remember the alternatives are a minority Tory government or the 'rainbow coalition', neither of which would be any more stable or effective. I think this is probably the lesser evil here, unless you want to cop out and 're-roll', hoping voters will drastically change their minds over night?
 
The Mad Rapper said:
I don't want to have to pay a higher % just because I earn more. That's not preposterous, it's common sense. WTF is the point in succeeding if you just have it taken off you to support the stupid and lazy who have put no effort into their life? Even on the same Income Tax % I would pay far more than most.
Click to expand...

Higher amount or higher %?
 
Dolph said:
Looking at it, yes. Both Cameron and Clegg are not 'classical' leaders of their parties, and their parties do have a lot of policies in common as shown by the level of agreement.

I can certainly see this working better than Lib/Lab, given the massive divergence on civil liberties and the role of the state between the two parties.
Click to expand...

I just don't see this working at all.

The scene in the commons will be crinch worthy.

Clegg sat behind Cam shouting "here here"
 
Dolph said:
Because they get additional legal responsibilities to each other over non-married individuals?



Exactly, and especially as both working partners benefit from that far more than the marriage tax proposal.
Click to expand...


Why does that mean that married couples should get more money? They don't have any extra outgoings.

Its like teenagers who know out kids for more child benefit. Lol ok thats extreme. But i'm just not sure why married people deserve anything over non married people.

Will inot just lead to a bunch of people getting married to enjoy more tax breaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom