Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)

Voting intentions in the General Election?

  • Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 403 42.2%

  • Democratic Unionist Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 59 6.2%

  • Labour

    Votes: 176 18.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 67 7.0%

  • Not voting/will spoil ballot

    Votes: 42 4.4%

  • Other party (not named)

    Votes: 8 0.8%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Respect Party

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 37 3.9%

  • Social Democratic and Labour Party

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 154 16.1%
  • Total voters
    956
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
robgmun said:
I don't know about illegal, but the government comprised of 2nd and 3rd place parties would be highly illegitimate in my eyes and Milliband would be no better than a squatter in number 10 being held up by a party that isn't even a proper UK party. It was be a disaster of Labour and if he would be decimated in the polls come the 2020 election.

I think he knows this, don't be surprised if he steps aside if the Tories can convince the Lib-dems to side with them along with whatever UKIP and the DUP have
Click to expand...

So the first place party propped up by the fourth, fifth and the (likely) 8th or 9th place party would be more legitimate than a partnership between 2nd, 3rd and 4th in your eyes? The DUP don't stand in most of the UK either.

First Past The Post, unless inconvenient.
 
satchef1 said:
So the first place party propped up by the fourth, fifth and the (likely) 8th or 9th place party would be more legitimate than a partnership between 2nd, 3rd and 4th in your eyes? The DUP don't stand in most of the UK either.
Click to expand...

Yes, a first placed party has far more right, whoever that may be
 
D.P. said:
Half of UKIP voters admit to being racists so it is hardly surprising that people generalize to the the other half who might be racist but don't admit to it.


If the UKIP want to stop their racist party image then they need to get rid of half of their candidates who end up in the paper every other week with some remark about polish muslims who simultaneously steal their job and claim JSA. They should then get rid of the racist leader who once said He would never win the N-word vote and who would be worried if Romanians moved in next door. It would also help if they stopped bleating on about immigrants and found something else to round out their hilarious manifesto.

Hopefully with that done then the party wont attract so many self-admitting racists and in time the party wont be referred to as racist.
Click to expand...

UKIP candidates who say racist things get the boot immediately. I do realise that they shouldn't of said the things they did (they are idiots) in the first place. We wont mention the Conservative BNP members though.
Immigration is important, it is having a detrimental effect on our society. If it wasn't then why is it in the press all the time ?
UKIP`s manifesto is the only manifesto to pass independant scrutinization.
 
escape sanity said:
No. People are still allowed to discuss race in Sweden.
Click to expand...

The uber liberal Swedes have been sending their young, underage daughters to summer camps to mingle with immigrants in the name of goodwill and welcoming spirit.

The age range of the girls is usually at the request of the older Islamic immigrants.

This is all perfectly ok to these parents.

Seriously retarded.

Look it up. Wish I was lying.
 
robgmun said:
Yes, a first placed party has far more right, whoever that may be
Click to expand...

Except they don't. Constitutionally or morally. That is not the basis upon which the election is fought, and therefore it cannot be the basis upon which it is won.

If such an announcement was made before the election, how much swing would you expect to see from the SNP, Plaid and the Greens to Labour? I expect it would be enough to see them to a majority. To change the rules after the fact is underhanded and it would set a president that brings us right back to the days of Labour vs Conservative in 2020. Why vote for a smaller party if the larger ones will trample the constitution to remain in power?
 
Last edited:
cupidstunt said:
If it wasn't then why is it in the press all the time ?
Click to expand...

Immigration wasn't a problem till Ukip came along (unless you read the Express and/or Daily Fail), Ukip didn't come to light to answer the "problem" of immigration, they made immigration look like a problem.
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
The uber liberal Swedes have been sending their young, underage daughters to summer camps to mingle with immigrants in the name of goodwill and welcoming spirit.

The age range of the girls is usually at the request of the older Islamic immigrants.

This is all perfectly ok to these parents.

Seriously retarded.

Look it up. Wish I was lying.
Click to expand...

Usually, the one making the claim is the one who should "look it up".

Google appears to not be my friend here, so care to give some links?
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
The uber liberal Swedes have been sending their young, underage daughters to summer camps to mingle with immigrants in the name of goodwill and welcoming spirit.

The age range of the girls is usually at the request of the older Islamic immigrants.

This is all perfectly ok to these parents.

Seriously retarded.

Look it up. Wish I was lying.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to provide some evidence to back this up. You make it sound like the Swedish government are pimping out their citizens. :rolleyes:
 
As soon as someone has 50%+ of the seats its a done deal - the wonders of democracy. The trick after that is to hold that coalition together for the term without running into a forced no confidence vote should everyone fall out at some point.
 
I don't think things are as clear as people make out. Historically one side or the other usually had a clear majority, it is unusual for a sitting Prime Minister to have the most MP's but not a clear majority.

In this circumstance, I believe that technically Cameron will remain PM unless he either stands down or cannot pass a Queens speech. Obviously if he cannot command a majority, he's likely to fail, but there is no guarantee the other 'leftist' parties will vote him down, for reasons I've outlined before. So Cameron WILL have first crack at PM.

If the Conservatives have more MP's than Labour, its very hard to imagine how Miliband can claim to have won the election. Labour will have been destroyed in Scotland and not made much gains in England. His legitimacy will be in the gutter and we'll have the weakest government in a 100 years.
 
satchef1 said:
Except they don't. Constitutionally or morally. That is not the basis upon which the election is fought, and therefore it cannot be the basis upon which it is won.
Click to expand...

Well blow me down, here i thought that when you have democracy that the person who has the most votes wins, i guess if it doesn't happen on May the 8th then we truly no longer have a democracy in the UK

So there you have it, the left, so desperate for power, will kill the basic concept of democracy in the UK
 
Last edited:
jimjamuk said:
As soon as someone has 50%+ of the seats its a done deal - the wonders of democracy. The trick after that is to hold that coalition together for the term without running into a forced no confidence vote should everyone fall out at some point.
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to get 50%, coalition or no. From the looks of things any coalition seems rather unlikely.

That is, unless Miliband decides to play the wildcard and declare a constitutional crisis and call for a government of national unity to deal with it.
 
gobbo said:
You're going to have to provide some evidence to back this up. You make it sound like the Swedish government are pimping out their citizens. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It sounds rather like a summer camp to me. You know the ones were young people, usually of a narrow age range, go to mingle, experience new things and have fun. Except in Arthur Hucksake's world teenage girls aren't teenage girls they're "young, underage daughters". I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether that tells you more about Arthur or Sweden.
 
PermaBanned said:
Nobody is going to get 50%, coalition or no. From the looks of things any coalition seems rather unlikely.

That is, unless Miliband decides to play the wildcard and declare a constitutional crisis and call for a government of national unity to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Or HM The Queen can decide she's had enough of these enemies of the people and put Charles in charge for a bit.

Should please the Greens.
 
gobbo said:
Immigration wasn't a problem till Ukip came along (unless you read the Express and/or Daily Fail), Ukip didn't come to light to answer the "problem" of immigration, they made immigration look like a problem.
Click to expand...

Or, depending how you wish to look at it, Immigration (at these current levels) is a problem that no one wanted to talk about (for the greater good of course) then UKIP came along and opened the can of worms that is multiculturalism/immigration.

Me, i`m not bothered about people coming from other countries and religions to work/settle here. But I am deeply worried about the amount of muslims that are coming here. Muslims specifically.

Their whole reason of being is to divide and rule, subjugate and terrorize. That what scares me. Thats why I believe immigration is THE most important point in politics today.
 
joeyjojo said:
I was going to write this if nobody else had already. You're underestimating the true costs of carbon based energy generation PlacidCasual. The present cost of fossil fuels on human health alone (through pollution) is many times larger than the cost of investing in low-carbon alternatives. That's before even considering the "immeasurable" total worldwide cost (how do you "value" extinctions for species that have no direct economic value?).

Some nice articles to start with (apologies if condescending):
Fossil fuels are way more expensive than you think
Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds

However you measure it, replacing the majority of our generation with renewables would be a drop in the ocean compared to "business as usual".

Investors need to get out of fossil fuel companies ASAP.
Click to expand...

The real cost of fossil fuels is even higher because we never factor in the huge war costs of defending or grabbing oil and gas or propping up or displacing various oil dictators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom