Poll: General election voting round 4

Voting intentions in the General Election?

  • Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

    Votes: 2 0.3%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 276 39.5%

  • Democratic Unionist Party

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 41 5.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 125 17.9%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 50 7.2%

  • Not voting/will spoil ballot

    Votes: 33 4.7%

  • Other party (not named)

    Votes: 5 0.7%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 0.4%

  • Respect Party

    Votes: 2 0.3%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 31 4.4%

  • Social Democratic and Labour Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 128 18.3%
  • Total voters
    698
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moses said:
"UKIP are racist."

"Yeah, but other parties also have racist people."

Great defence.
Click to expand...

No the defence is all the parties have racists. None of them have racist policies. (Apart from the BNP)

Which is the only party in the UK with former elected BNP politicians, currently in elected positions within it? (Clue, it begins with L and ends in 'abour')
 
Moses said:
They don't have to be. Have primaries/open primaries, for example. It's no less democratic than the party HQ parachuting in the candidate they want, as we have now under FPTP! Saying PR would be worse because of a democratic deficit in candidate selection, when compared with our current system is laughable/displays a fundamental lack of understanding...
Click to expand...

I didn't say PR is worse, I said PR has its own set of problems which is why it is not universally used. Things like seat assignment is just one of the more complex issues and is one that removes control from the voting public, unless you add even more complexity.
 
Judgeneo said:
Then there is the coalition to debate and watch over, and another election isn't that unlikely either, in fact its practically guaranteed if the leaders stick to their pre-election packs, as no two parties will be enough for a majority....
Click to expand...

You don't need a majority, all that has to happen in the SNP give a vote of no confidence for Tories and conference for Labour and Milliband is the prime minister. A majority coalition is only desirable to guarantee the confidence vote, labour may be able to do that with only 270 seats.



I would agree that a reelection is likely, except for the fact that the last Government enacted the fixed 5 year term act.
 
ElliorR said:
At least that might be a bit more interesting. All they're going to do now is make even more promises they cannot/will not keep in the slim hope they get another seat or 2.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, sweeteners are coming thick and fast now. Locally having had a reduced A&E service in Stafford for months; miraculously Jeremy Hunt, has now promised to restore the service. Months back the locals were kicking and screaming for the service and they didn't want to know. Hey-ho, that's politics. And were we not promised that VAT would not rise in the 2010 run up, and they've just made the same promise they didn't keep the last time. You couldn't make it up.
 
Judgeneo said:
Then there is the coalition to debate and watch over, and another election isn't that unlikely either, in fact its practically guaranteed if the leaders stick to their pre-election packs, as no two parties will be enough for a majority....
Click to expand...

Oh joy :p

scorza said:
What are you talking about? General elections are great, they're the only time we can cut the deficit, cut taxes, grow the economy and have shiny new public services ;)
Click to expand...

Heh, I just think it's been such negative campaigning it's turned me off. I've decided who I'm voting for (Lib Dems again) so no need to listen to their BS anymore :p
 
DampDog said:
And were we not promised that VAT would not rise in the 2010 run up, and they've just made the same promise they didn't keep the last time. You couldn't make it up.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why he promised to pass a law not to...so they couldn't go back on what they promised!

Unless of course they break their promise and go back on passing the law to stop them breaking their promises....hmmm
 
Moses said:
Worse with regards to that particular issue. You said how the candidate selection would be undemocratic, when the current system is no better or worse. So that critique from you was retarded. That's what I was highlighting.
Click to expand...

The candidate selection now is perfectly, fine who ever gets the most votes in the constituency gets the seat, can't get more democratic than that.
 
D.P. said:
The problem is FPTP is not meant to be proportional, if that was the goal we would just use PR. FPTP is meant to elect the local candidate that people in that constituency think is best to represent their local views.
The difficulty is we then expect the national government to be formed with a majority from this set up. The 2 are seperate thigns really.
Click to expand...

You and Moses have made lots of good points so I'll only respond to this one. I'm well aware FPTP on a constituency level gives everyone a directly accountable representative in the Commons. This might have been sensible at other times in the last 500 years but most decisions are made nationally now, with local issues predominantly dealt with by local councils. Also, most people vote for a party before an individual (obviously Independents not included). So for both of these reasons I think people would be much happier if the Commons contained a mix of MPs that reflected the mix of views more closely.

There would be challenges, but many benefits, not least more engagement with politics and an end to safe seats.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom