UK General Election on 5th May - voting intentions?

Rolfe said:
Also, I believe Sheridan's lot aren't making much of a showing these days, which helps somewhat. (That's one I didn't put on the ballot, maybe I should, I'll probably get a posse of SSP supporters starting a rival poll!)

Rolfe.

Sheridan has retired to spend more time with his sunbed, so I think the SSP is now down to just one man and a dog.

I think the most interesting result would be a Labour majority, but only due to the inclusion of their Scottish MP's. That should bring the West Lothian question into sharp focus.
 
I casted a vote for Planet X just to see the results.

So, what about the politics and the agendas behind the elections?
 
Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!
Labour????Are you going to vote for the man who runs after George W Bush??? :(
 
I'm taking part in a program I heard about on Fox News.

I'll be writing concerned letters to undecided British voters to try to help them decide which choice would be best.
 
Dont I feel like the idiot! D'Oh!

Anyway- I reckon I will vote Tory. Just to piss of Labour. I dont really like the Tories but they stand the best chance of knocking those filthy, lying, cheating, stinking, dishonest, vote-rigging skunks' cumbags off their perch.

Today in the post I received a letter from my local aspiring Labour Party Candidate. Attached was an application form for postal voting. This was my reply:

Dear Mr. Khan,

Thank you ever so much for writing to me to explain who you are, what you would like to see happen and an application for a postal vote.

I assume the latter is to allow some good-old Birmingham Labour Party style vote-rigging and electoral fraud? Thanks very much but I think I may pass on that one and go and vote in person -(for the Torys, just to spite you)- to make sure that you dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags never get your filthy, vote-stealing paws on anything that bears my my signature.

Regards,

Jon_in_london.
 
Edit: Double post.

Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty.
 
Rolfe said:
Since I had extreme issues with the earlier poll on this subject (and if had the wrong date anyway), I thought I'd start one of my own.

I've tried to include all parties which will be represented in a significant number of seats (thanks, Geni, for the list), apologies if I've omited anyone's favoured choice.

Rolfe.

UKIP and the greens do't have any seats at westminster nore are they likely to get any.

Oh and I beat you to it with the closest I could get to a comprehensive list

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54975
 
Jon_in_london said:
Edit: Double post.

Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty.

Judging by thier campain "it's the economy stupid".
 
Dragon said:
SNP? - Have they got a chance in Sussex? :p

Well Basingstoke is currently represented by a member of the DUP
 
Rolfe said:
I don't expect a landslide this time. Actually, much as I hate the idea of a Conservative government, it would be very interesting to see what happened to Scottish politics with them in Westminster and Labour in Holyrood. It's arguable that if we'd got the Scottish parliament in 1979 as we ought to have, the Thatcher years would have delivered independence.

I'm not sure it would be techinical posible to pump the oil out of the north sea at that rate.
 
Darat said:
Just a quick point for everyone - remember a vote for anyone but Conservative or Labour is a wasted vote... :)

Not in either of the places where I live (although in one of them any vote is a wasted vote.
 
Re: Re: UK General Election on 5th May - voting intentions?

geni said:
UKIP and the greens do't have any seats at westminster nore are they likely to get any.
No, but they do have significant serious support and will appear on a lot of ballot papers. Whereas some of the others are really fringe, or just single-seat protest movements. Or raving loonies (Natural Law). I did wonder if I should have included the SSP (which I don't think you did), but Sheridan has left them and they seem to be little more than a rump. I'll be surprised if they can field more than a handful of candidates. In spite of holding a couple of Holyrood seats, which makes them a lot more serious than some of the others.

We could argue the toss till the cows come home, but I haven't had any complaints yet about anyone feeling genuinely disenfranchised by this set of choices.

Rolfe.
 
Darat said:
Just a quick point for everyone - remember a vote for anyone but Conservative or Labour is a wasted vote... :)
geni said:
Not in either of the places where I live (although in one of them any vote is a wasted vote.
This is getting on to the question of the two-party system and its perpetuation by first-part-the-post elections. Maybe it would be better to start a new thread if we're going to have an in-depth discussion about proportional representation, but it is a relevant point.

Darat's point is really impossibly simplistic, which is presumably why he put in the smilie. This is because it ignores the question of the different political demographics of different constituencies.

Suppose you live in a constituency which is a Labour/Lib-Dem marginal. You hate Labour. Is a Lib-Dem vote wasted because the Lib-Dems are vanishingly unlikely to form a government? No, because that vote may keep out a Labour candidate, and so contribute to a Conservative victory, even though an actual Conservative vote would be wasted.

Tactical voting lives.

To be brutally honest, the votes of most of us count for diddly-squat because we live in "safe" constituencies. So, I know that the constituency I vote in will return a Labour MP. The margin is such that the SNP (the second party) don't have a realistic chance. So what do I do? Vote Labour just so that I have the satisfaction of voting for the winning candidate, even though I loathe the guy? Or vote Conservative just because they have a bit of a chance of winning overall on English votes, even though they'll be bloody lucky to save their deposit in the constituency in question? Or vote for the party I believe in, and at least contribute to their credibility as an outfit with some solid support?

It's a different equation in every constituency, and only a lucky few have the chance of actually influencing either who their MP is, or who forms the government.

I remember the shock of my first PR vote, at a Euro-election I think, when I suddenly realised that my vote was going to mean something, and that I was actually going to contribute towards putting a candidate of my choice into the parliament. Heady stuff. Once you give people that sort of power, their entire voting behaviour can change and really unexpected things sometimes happen.

Rather than straight PR (by whatever means) I'd like to see STV voting at constituency level. That would allow people to vote for the party they really believed in without throwing away their vote in the event of that party being poorly supported across the board. It might turn up some surprising things, especially with regard to the Lib Dems and the SNP. At the same time, it would retain the link between the MP and the constituency, and as the result wouldn't necessarily be PR across the country it's probable that irretrievably hung parliaments would be avoided.

Sorry, this probably needs a new thread if people are really interested in it, I just think it's a way of making everybody's vote count for more. As it is, everybody has to size up what the demographics are in their own constituency, and accept that they probably have no real influence in the final result.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
...snip...

Darat's point is really impossibly simplistic, which is presumably why he put in the smilie. T

...snip...

Partly but it is also part of my policy of scaring the bejesus out of people so they don't allow back in though apathy that dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, filthy, vote-stealing gits that is the Conservative party.

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books?
 
Jon_in_london said:
Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty.
Darat said:
Partly but it is also part of my policy of scaring the bejesus out of people so they don't allow back in though apathy that dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, filthy, vote-stealing gits that is the Conservative party.

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books?
Now doesn't that just beautifully encapsulate the dilemma created by the two-party system, which is virtually inevitable given first-past-the-post voting.

If both of the two parties which have the stranglehold on the electoral system have behaved like complete scumbags, and do so every time they are returned to power, then to follow Jon's path merely gets you turn and turn about scumbags for eternity. Whereas to follow Darat's means that the current bunch of scumbags can do pretty much what it likes and not risk losing office.

Of course, if you follow the proposition that all politicians are scumbags anyway, then it's completely inevitable. And once the scumbags start winning, then that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as non-scumbags basically wouldn't be caught dead getting involved.

Lose-lose.

Rolfe.
 
Darat said:
Partly but it is also part of my policy of scaring the bejesus out of people so they don't allow back in though apathy that dishonest bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, filthy, vote-stealing gits that is the Conservative party.

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books?

Vote stealing? Lying? Maybe in isolated cases but they never made a career out of it like Labour has.


And what of Labour prior to the Tories? They abdicated the government of Britain to trade unions. The Tories under Thatcher were the first good idea this country had since the end of WWII. Britian was flat on her back due to Labour mis-management. How many unemployed where they when Thatcher took over? What was the economy like? Where would we be now if Labour had been allowed to continue its policy of doing everyhting that is worst for Britain but best for their red-flag waving scoialist ideiologies? Dependent on IMF loans no doubt. The current economic prosperity is brought about by policies instituted under the Major government and by the independence of the bank of England NOT by Gordon Brown's miraculous economic prescience. Britain is prospering IN SPITE of Labour, not because of it- and lets face it, economic prosperity is the ONLY good thing that Labour has done. They have failed at every other single level and welshed on every promise- with the exception of fox-hunting. Hoo-bloody-ray. But economic prosperity will not last. Already we are slipping down the competitiveness tables. As Labour continue to tax and waste the situation will only get worse. Labour's punishment of those who are prepared to save, work and be self-sufficient and championing of those who lie on their fat pasty arses buying Tennets Super and Lambert and Butler with money other people worked for while reproducing like mad ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rabbits and getting deeper in debt than previously thought possible is going to catch up with us one day.

/rant.
 
Jon_in_london said:
Vote stealing? Lying? Maybe in isolated cases but they never made a career out of it like Labour has.

Really? Honestly? The Conservatives are the party which had MPs selling questions in the house for cash in brown paper bags for goodness sake! This is the party that had MPs (well ex) and ex Chairmans going to jail for lying and committing perjury!

Labour have been terrible in that they picked up the art of spin before the other two parties but on the whole spin is not lying (although of course it can be).

We even have evidence recently of the lies in the Conservative party - e.g. Howard Flight. (OK we don’t know it is lies but it damn well sounds plausible...)


Jon_in_london said:


And what of Labour prior to the Tories? They abdicated the government of Britain to trade unions.

Labour tore itself to bits and rebuilt a new party after being out of power so long. Many old Labour supporters aren’t too happy with the new Labour party because it junked so much of its past. There is no evidence that the Labour party of today is the same beast it was pre-Kinnock.


Jon_in_london said:

The Tories under Thatcher were the first good idea this country had since the end of WWII. Britian was flat on her back due to Labour mis-management. How many unemployed where they when Thatcher took over?

Curiously between the second world war and Thatcher’s first election victory Labour held power for 17 years and the conservatives for 17 years.

Years 1945-1979
1945 - Lab - 5 years in office
1950 - Lab - 1 year
1951 - Con - 4 years
1955 - Con -4 years
1959 - Con - 5 years
1964 - Lab - 2 years
1966 - Lab - 4 years
1970 - Con - 4 years
1974 - Lab - 5 years


Total years (1945-1979)
Lab - 17 years
Con - 17 years


Jon_in_london said:


How many unemployed where they when Thatcher took over?

Less then one million, within two terms at least 3 million.

Jon_in_london said:

What was the economy like? Where would we be now if Labour had been allowed to continue its policy of doing everyhting that is worst for Britain but best for their red-flag waving scoialist ideiologies? Dependent on IMF loans no doubt.

Historically you may be right however the Labour party quite a few years ago (i.e. pre 1997) altered its constitution and can no longer be describe as being based on a socialist ideology.

I see no such break from the past with the current Conservative party.

Jon_in_london said:


The current economic prosperity is brought about by policies instituted under the Major government and by the independence of the bank of England NOT by Gordon Brown's miraculous economic prescience. Britain is prospering IN SPITE of Labour, not because of it- and lets face it, economic prosperity is the ONLY good thing that Labour has done.

Bit of a contradiction.


Jon_in_london said:


They have failed at every other single level and welshed on every promise- with the exception of fox-hunting. Hoo-bloody-ray.

They didn't make the Bank of England independent? They didn’t increase spending in schools, hospitals and the police? I must have been having a long dream. A few years ago I paid (privately) for my Mother to have her gall bladder removed because the NHS list was at least 14 months, at the end of last year a relative of the same age had her gallbladder removed (in the same NHS area) after a wait of 4 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm


Jon_in_london said:

But economic prosperity will not last. Already we are slipping down the competitiveness tables. As Labour continue to tax and waste the situation will only get worse. Labour's punishment of those who are prepared to save, work and be self-sufficient and championing of those who lie on their fat pasty arses buying Tennets Super and Lambert and Butler with money other people worked for while reproducing like mad ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rabbits and getting deeper in debt than previously thought possible is going to catch up with us one day.

/rant.

I'll leave that to one side apart from mentioning it was Thatcher's policies that created the British underclass... after all she was the one who paid out the most to scroungers! ;(
 
Jon_in_london said:
Edit: Double post.

Cleo, I also just cant understand how anyone can possibly vote for Labour. When a government misbehaves- as Labour has- you throw them out at the next election. To vote for Labour is to neglect your democrtic duty.

Why don't you admit that you will vote for Sinn Feinn and let this thread die? :D
 

Back
Top Bottom