The General Election Thread

[biffvernon]

If Lab, Con and LibDem pole 30% each, with others gaining 10%, Lab are likely to win 315 seats (MPs), Con 206 seats and LibDem 100 seats. This system is wrong. Don't vote for a party that will keep this system, don't vote Tory.

 

[Flyfisher]

Doesn't it rather depend on the distribution of those 30% of votes throughout the constituencies?
http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/john-curtice.pdf

I've never quite understood the obsession with trying to predict the outcome though. Surely people don't decide their vote based on a bunch of poll results? or do they? :shock:

 

[Flyfisher]

Filling the hole: how do the three main UK parties plan to repair the public finances?
http://www.ifs.org.uk/election/launch_emmerson.pdf

There's a lot of info in this IFS report but the thing that strikes me is that there seems to be very little real difference between all three main parties, especially considering the notorious difficulty in predicting future economic trends. Perhaps this is the basis of the IFS criticism that the main parties are giving little real details about their plans.

Still, never mind, there's another PM debate on Thursday so people can choose their next government based on who looks the nicest. :roll:

 

[MdB]

I've never quite understood the obsession with trying to predict the outcome though. Surely people don't decide their vote based on a bunch of poll results? or do they? :shock:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/liberal-democrats-popular-all-round

Just under half the country (49%) would vote for the Liberal Democrats if they were seen to have a reasonable chance of winning. Only 25% would vote for the Conservative party in these circumstances; a comparatively meagre 19% would vote for Labour.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I've never quite understood the obsession with trying to predict the outcome though. Surely people don't decide their vote based on a bunch of poll results? or do they? :shock:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/liberal-democrats-popular-all-round

Just under half the country (49%) would vote for the Liberal Democrats if they were seen to have a reasonable chance of winning. Only 25% would vote for the Conservative party in these circumstances; a comparatively meagre 19% would vote for Labour.

Oh well, fingers crossed.

 

[Schoolmarm]

It's the "privileged few" with the cash that I suspect they are trying to please! Which is not necessarily the same thing as class.

And for this reason alone, I am probably changing my "dogma" tory vote. It isn't pest control, which I have no objection to.

 

[Nigel Watts]

The question of fairness in the voting system is a less than straight-forward issue.

Making major consitiutional reforms based on short term, narrow political advantage often ends up with bad results. The Labour party, which like the Tories has long resisted PR for Westminster, has only changed its position as a tactic to out maneovre the Tories in this election by tempting the Liberals into a coalition.

Brown's proposed model is different from that preferred by the Liberals and both have their problems. Full PR, using party lists for example, gives the central party hierarchies far too much power over candidate selction and would make it very much harder to out particular MPs whom the public dislikes but the parties continue to promote.

Electoral reform may be needed (although I am not yet convinced), but it ought to be done in a considered way - not as a murky deal stitched up behind closed doors between a discredited outgoing government and a new untested party desperate for political power.

The problems facing the country at present need a strong government. This should be the prime consideration just now rather than electoral reform.

 

[Flyfisher]

The problems facing the country at present need a strong government. This should be the prime consideration just now rather than electoral reform.

But surely the "problems", whatever we may think they are, are the result of 13 years of strong government? Current polling suggests roughly equal support for the three main parties yet it's quite possible for two of them to end up with a majority of seats, even though about 2/3rds of the country would have voted against them.

I do agree, though, that any electoral reform shouldn't be a by-product of some cobbled-together (and probably very temporary) coalition government.

 

[DaveBrigg]

I can scarcely believe it - yet another Clegg U turn!

Has Nick Clegg become the new hate figure of the Tory party?

I think one reason for Cameron' desire to repeal the hunting ban is that he has hunted himself. (errr, he, himself, has hunted) I don't think cruelty to animals is a class thing in itself, it's just that you need to be fairly rich to be able to do it on horseback.

Someone has been raising the class issue on Youtube again :lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKFTtYx2OHc

 

[OddJob]

Gordon Browns new boots.

He needs the added protection after he shot himself in the foot again.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Gordon-Brown-Apologises-For-Calling-A-Woman-Gillian-Duffy-Bigoted-In-Rochdale/Article/201004415621596?f=rss
:lol:

 

[Nigel Watts]

Isn't that the kind of boot divers wear to enable them to sink to the bottom? Very appropriate.

 

[Nigel Watts]

When asked by their English teacher today whether the vote should be given to 16 year olds and to discuss the pros and cons of a hung parliament my son's class (at Cleggy's old school) concluded that a well-hung parliament would be a good thing. Nice to know that 14 year olds have not lost their sense of perspective.

 

[OddJob]

If it was their English teacher he/she should have corrected them,the proper term should be well hanged :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

it's just that you need to be fairly rich to be able to do it on horseback.

That's really not correct.
I suppose it depends on your definition of being 'fairly rich', but horses are a bit like cars really; they can be very affordable or outrageously expensive. Surely you wouldn't classify all car owners as 'fairly rich'?

 

[Flyfisher]

When asked by their English teacher today whether the vote should be given to 16 year olds . . . .

FF jnr was 18 last month and received a letter from our local Conservative MP wishing him happy birthday and offering to show him around the house of commons if he was interested. Given his 9-10,000 majority at the last election I'm surprised he bothered, but it was a nice gesture. None of the other parties bothered.

When I asked FF jnr if he was going to vote he said he didn't think so because he doesn't really understand the various party policies and is too busy with pending A-levels to spend the time finding out, but maybe next time. Clearly his parents have not done a very good job of indoctrination on him. :lol:

 

[Gervase]

I suppose it depends on your definition of being 'fairly rich', but horses are a bit like cars really; they can be very affordable or outrageously expensive. Surely you wouldn't classify all car owners as 'fairly rich'?

An absurd comparison.
To keep a horse one needs either need land or the cash for livery. Either way, by my reckoning it costs at least £30 a week to keep a horse, and the only use for it is for leisure. Realistically, a horse won't help you get the weekly shop done, the school run, the commute, the trip to the recycling centre or the visits to the in-laws. I can't think of anyone I know who rides to a meet - everyone uses a horsebox. They start, second-hand, at around £2,000.
Do you still wish to make your fatuous analogy...?

 

[Pford75]

I think FF was trying to make the point that not everyone who owns a horse is 'fairly rich'. For example, our neighbours across the road own a horse which they keep on their own land.

Their property was bought 8/9 years ago for £170k, the husband is currently unemployed and the wife is a health visitor for the NHS (so hardly super rich). They manage to fund a horse and are keen participants in various field sports - they are working class country folk and not remotely rich/posh at all.

I don't personally support hunting (and would prefer any government not to waste time debating it), but I do resent the demonisation of those in the country as rich toffs. Sure, some who participate in hunts/shoots fit that description...but many do not.

Surely someone will be along shortly to hurl personal abuse for your use of offensive stereotypes (or maybe that's only if their political views differ)? :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

Sorry Gervase, but I don't see it as fatuous. As Pford75 rightly says, I was not trying to compare the usefulness of a horse versus a car only the cost of ownership. £30 per week to keep a horse doesn't sound that expensive to me; I know people who spend more on that on 'leisure' for a saturday night out or a weeks worth of cigarettes or a meal out for two - and I suspect you do as well. Some will choose to spend it on livery instead of those examples, does that make them 'rich'?

Yes, of course you can buy a very expensive thoroughbred hunter, just as you can buy an Aston Martin, if you are rich enough, but if you're not then you can buy a perfectly decent mount for a couple of thousand pounds and even allowing £2000 for a horse box (actually a bit pricey for a used one) that's still only £4000 - not exactly big money in the car world and certainly not the sort of sum that would categorise someone as being 'rich', surely? Or perhaps we need a working definition of 'rich'?

 

[Gervase]

I'm sorry, but alongside comments that suggest (in all seriousness, I believe - given that the writer is not someone one immediately associates with irony) that one cannot possibly survive on less than £80K a year, the post was richly redolent of an exhortation to eat cake.
But perhaps, on reflection, this forum isn't the first place one would come for social inclusion or notions of fairness. So, apologies for being merely a hairy-arsed tradesman with the temerity to question my betters. I'll just give a quick tug of the forelock and be off about my business, thank 'e kindly your lordships, leaving you to the smug contemplation of your good fortune and not clutter up the place. I really don't think this forum is for me any more.
Should anyone want any advice, please feel free to contact me, but otherwise, goodbye.

 

[JoceAndChris]

:shock: