The Official UK Election Thread! 6th May it is!

[Undesired Walrus]

As an aside, did anyone here Nick Griffin's electoral phone in today? If not I can tell you it was priceless

The best bit was when one caller told him that he had three foreign born grandparents and asked Griffin if he considered the caller to be British. Griffin said he couldn't tell over the phone!!

Link?

 

[Fiona]

I do not know if there is a link UW: I heard it on the radio while driving to an appointment: it was on BBC radio 4 though

 

[Duffy Moon]

Here's Naughty Nick on the BBC iplayer:

http://tinyurl.com/26gzuea

Jump to about 39 minutes to hear his dulcet tones.

 

[Fiona]

Oh well found Bill Glazier: I had forgotten the bit about the royal family

 

[andyandy]

Interesting....Labour continue to scrape along in the 20s....

Voters are abandoning Labour for the Liberal Democrats in the wake of the "bigotgate" row and the final TV debate of the General Election campaign, according to a new poll.

The Harris poll for the Daily Mail - conducted entirely after Thursday night's debate - put Nick Clegg's party virtually neck-and-neck with the Conservatives, with Labour trailing eight points behind.

As Mr Clegg declared that the election was now a "two-horse race", the survey found 33% of voters backing Tories (down one point since a similar poll last week), with Liberal Democrats up three points on 32% and Labour down two on 24%.

If repeated on an even swing in the May 6 ballot, the figures would produce a hung Parliament, with Conservatives the largest single party.

According to the BBC seat calculator, a result of this kind would produce a House of Commons comprised of 268 Tories, 217 Labour MPs and 136 Liberal Democrats. David Cameron would be 58 seats short of an overall majority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9056354

Though Yougov has both Lab and Lib on 28%.....big differences in the polls....

 

[geni]

While a lot of that is very true, something as off-the-wall as Tredinnick's woo outlook should really be a no-no for selection in any normal process. There's no seat needs a raving quacking whackjob as a candidate.

Rolfe.

Eh looking at how far the vaccination rate fell in certian areas that is open to question. In any case he was selected back in 87 which gives plently of time for his ah unconvincing opinions about science to delvelop.

 

[geni]

Interesting....Labour continue to scrape along in the 20s....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9056354

Though Yougov has both Lab and Lib on 28%.....big differences in the polls....

The's not exactly a large amount of past data on the lib dems being much above 20 so no one has much idea what say 28% of the poll sample saying they are going to vote lib dem means. Makes ajusting for bias difficult.

 

[Francesca R]

Prediction markets (spread betting) are far more reliable than polls IMO. The market operated by Betfair is the deepest in the country I think. Currently has hung parliament at 54% and Tory at 42%. (Labour win just 2%) Link below should work.

From: @electionpredict
Sent: 1 May 2010 08:12

Slight move against the Tories overnight - now 42% for a majority, down 2 points #GE2010

sent via TweetDeck
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/electionpredict/status/13176427647

 

[funk de fino]

A Standing UKIP candidate from Dumfries is running his election campaign from his second home in the Loire Valley in France.

How ironinc......

 

[Reginald]

I'm predicting No party with a majority.

The Tories just short of being able to pull enough others in to form a government.

I suspect that there will be a Lib/Lab coalition.

IF the Lib-Dems can get an agreement on PR, I think you will likely not see a majority Conservative government for a long long while.

 

[mummymonkey]

The Tories could always suck up to the Ulster Unionists to scrape together a government. I think they might just squeek in with a tiny majority.

 

[Francesca R]

Erm, do you know how many Commons MPs the UUP has??

 

[Francesca R]

I suspect that there will be a Lib/Lab coalition.

Unlikely given Clegg's "squatting in number 10" remark. Also it would make the LibDems shockingly inconsistent with, dunno, the last five decades of their past.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Here's Naughty Nick on the BBC iplayer:

http://tinyurl.com/26gzuea

Jump to about 39 minutes to hear his dulcet tones.

Griffin perfects the Chewbacca Technique, talking so incredibly fast so that it sounds like he knows what he's talking about, when really he is talking utter ********.

 

[geni]

I'm predicting No party with a majority.

The Tories just short of being able to pull enough others in to form a government.

I suspect that there will be a Lib/Lab coalition.

Doubtful. It would not look at all good for the lib dems and would be polticaly difficult for brown (not many cabinet positions he can give out without upsetting someone who's support he needs).

IF the Lib-Dems can get an agreement on PR, I think you will likely not see a majority Conservative government for a long long while.

The odds of the Lib-Dems accepting a collation with a second placed labour without getting an agreement on PR are so close to zero they can safely be ignored.

 

[Reginald]

Unlikely given Clegg's "squatting in number 10" remark. Also it would make the LibDems shockingly inconsistent with, dunno, the last five decades of their past.

During that last 50 years in which they have supported Labour in 1977 and discussed the possibility of something like it in 1997. That and the fact that the DEM part of Lib/dems were previously Labour?

You think that any of this pre-election rhetoric will matter when the real chance to call some shots is there?

Or do you think that a Lib/tory coalition would be more likely? Because from where I'm sitting they are a lot further from the conservatives than they are from labour by a long, long way.

 

[Big Les]

I would be a dead cert Lib Dem voter, but my local candidate is anti-abortion, anti-assisted dying, and pro-NHS homoeopathic hospitals (despite being shadow spokesman for health!).

 

[jimbob]

I just got back from a local debate that was at least partially on science.

I've come to the opinion that my MP David Tredinnick is not a vapid moron who has no understanding of how anything works.

He's a vile lying disgusting piece of filth who happens to be a vapid moron who has no understanding of how anything works.

From theyworkforyou

Voting record (from PublicWhip)

How David Tredinnick voted on key issues since 2001:

Voted moderately against the hunting ban.

Voted strongly against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Voted moderately against a wholly elected House of Lords.
Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change.

Voted a mixture of for and against introducing a smoking ban.

Voted moderately against introducing foundation hospitals.

Voted moderately against a transparent Parliament.
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.

Voted moderately against equal gay rights.
Voted moderately against Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

Voted moderately against introducing ID cards.

Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. Voted strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted moderately against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.

Voted strongly for greater autonomy for schools.

You have a problem with that?

 

[Duffy Moon]

There's always the Christian Party.


They might want to hire somebody to double-check their poster slogans though:

http://yfrog.com/iybfqj

 

[mummymonkey]

Erm, do you know how many Commons MPs the UUP has??

One. The DUP have nine.