• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Poll 6CM Voting Poll

Prefix for Poll Threads
Forums Unread posts

Who will/have you voted for

  • Total voters
    217
Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=40111.msg1102554#msg1102554 date=1273504823]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1102523#msg1102523 date=1273500513]
[quote author=Fox link=topic=40111.msg1102520#msg1102520 date=1273500345]
sounds like a deal is on according to Sky. It does pain me that some of the Tory policies I voted on will not happen now just because the system says they were 19 seats short.

If we have another election this year or next year labour will win it easily. New leader and the easiest way of slagging the Tories who would have by then hiked taxes and reduced spending on schools, hospitals ETC.

Cameron will have a very short time as PM IMO
[/quote]

Yet in most other countries they have PR, which we are told is more democratic, but always results in a coalition government and the resultant watering-down of policies that people voted on.

I don't agree with your scenario if there is another election. Labour just wouldn't be able to promise tax reductions or increased spending on public services, because it would be quite obvious that the economy wouldn't stand it.
[/quote]

A democracy should surely give equal voice to everyone. If a party doesn't gain a majority, it's because not enough people think it deserves one. In which case a coalition government best represents the feelings of the electorate. All this scare-mongering is the talk of party leaders who don't want to compromise their agendas. Well, it's tough shit, not enough people agree with their agenda, so they'll have to compromise. Communication and discussion should be what politics is about.

Besides, there are plenty of countries who function perfectly well under some form of PR and/or coalition governments. Just because it's not the norm does not mean it's not a viable option. Continuing with a clearly flawed system just out of some irrational fear of the unknown is not operating in the 'national interest'. Particularly when the current system renders obsolete the votes of a large portion of the people they claim to represent.
[/quote]

While I'm not automatically agin PR, I disagree with some of this. For example I don't accept the idea that those who voted for a party other than that which wins a first-past-the-post election have been disenfranchised. One could just as easily say that in a coalition situation no-one gets the policy package they actually voted for. I agree that fear of the unknown is not a reason to avoid change, but there's a difference between being fearful and being careful. A once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis isn't necessarily the best time to go conducting constitutional experiments.
 
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=40111.msg1102574#msg1102574 date=1273508610]
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=40111.msg1102554#msg1102554 date=1273504823]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1102523#msg1102523 date=1273500513]
[quote author=Fox link=topic=40111.msg1102520#msg1102520 date=1273500345]
sounds like a deal is on according to Sky. It does pain me that some of the Tory policies I voted on will not happen now just because the system says they were 19 seats short.

If we have another election this year or next year labour will win it easily. New leader and the easiest way of slagging the Tories who would have by then hiked taxes and reduced spending on schools, hospitals ETC.

Cameron will have a very short time as PM IMO
[/quote]

Yet in most other countries they have PR, which we are told is more democratic, but always results in a coalition government and the resultant watering-down of policies that people voted on.

I don't agree with your scenario if there is another election. Labour just wouldn't be able to promise tax reductions or increased spending on public services, because it would be quite obvious that the economy wouldn't stand it.
[/quote]

A democracy should surely give equal voice to everyone. If a party doesn't gain a majority, it's because not enough people think it deserves one. In which case a coalition government best represents the feelings of the electorate. All this scare-mongering is the talk of party leaders who don't want to compromise their agendas. Well, it's tough shit, not enough people agree with their agenda, so they'll have to compromise. Communication and discussion should be what politics is about.

Besides, there are plenty of countries who function perfectly well under some form of PR and/or coalition governments. Just because it's not the norm does not mean it's not a viable option. Continuing with a clearly flawed system just out of some irrational fear of the unknown is not operating in the 'national interest'. Particularly when the current system renders obsolete the votes of a large portion of the people they claim to represent.
[/quote]

While I'm not automatically agin PR, I disagree with some of this. For example I don't accept the idea that those who voted for a party other than that which wins a first-past-the-post election have been disenfranchised. One could just as easily say that in a coalition situation no-one gets the policy package they actually voted for. I agree that fear of the unknown is not a reason to avoid change, but there's a difference between being fearful and being careful. A once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis isn't necessarily the best time to go conducting constitutional experiments.
[/quote]

That's not the point I was making. I'm simply saying that the government should, as far as is reasonably practicable, represent the views of the people who elected it.
 
[quote author=Asim link=topic=40111.msg1102572#msg1102572 date=1273508168]
Brown has said he will be stepping aside as leader of Labour.

He has asked the party to start looking for a new leader to be in place for Sept
[/quote]

Good
 
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=40111.msg1102577#msg1102577 date=1273508989]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=40111.msg1102574#msg1102574 date=1273508610]
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=40111.msg1102554#msg1102554 date=1273504823]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1102523#msg1102523 date=1273500513]
[quote author=Fox link=topic=40111.msg1102520#msg1102520 date=1273500345]
sounds like a deal is on according to Sky. It does pain me that some of the Tory policies I voted on will not happen now just because the system says they were 19 seats short.

If we have another election this year or next year labour will win it easily. New leader and the easiest way of slagging the Tories who would have by then hiked taxes and reduced spending on schools, hospitals ETC.

Cameron will have a very short time as PM IMO
[/quote]

Yet in most other countries they have PR, which we are told is more democratic, but always results in a coalition government and the resultant watering-down of policies that people voted on.

I don't agree with your scenario if there is another election. Labour just wouldn't be able to promise tax reductions or increased spending on public services, because it would be quite obvious that the economy wouldn't stand it.
[/quote]

A democracy should surely give equal voice to everyone. If a party doesn't gain a majority, it's because not enough people think it deserves one. In which case a coalition government best represents the feelings of the electorate. All this scare-mongering is the talk of party leaders who don't want to compromise their agendas. Well, it's tough shit, not enough people agree with their agenda, so they'll have to compromise. Communication and discussion should be what politics is about.

Besides, there are plenty of countries who function perfectly well under some form of PR and/or coalition governments. Just because it's not the norm does not mean it's not a viable option. Continuing with a clearly flawed system just out of some irrational fear of the unknown is not operating in the 'national interest'. Particularly when the current system renders obsolete the votes of a large portion of the people they claim to represent.
[/quote]

While I'm not automatically agin PR, I disagree with some of this. For example I don't accept the idea that those who voted for a party other than that which wins a first-past-the-post election have been disenfranchised. One could just as easily say that in a coalition situation no-one gets the policy package they actually voted for. I agree that fear of the unknown is not a reason to avoid change, but there's a difference between being fearful and being careful. A once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis isn't necessarily the best time to go conducting constitutional experiments.
[/quote]

That's not the point I was making. I'm simply saying that the government should, as far as is reasonably practicable, represent the views of the people who elected it.
[/quote]

What, all of them? A parliament should do that. I don't think a government can.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=40111.msg1102579#msg1102579 date=1273509219]
i don't know much about PR but i'm dead against it because it so obviously doesn't work.
[/quote]

If you know it doesn't work, what else is there to know?
 
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=40111.msg1102587#msg1102587 date=1273511448]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=40111.msg1102579#msg1102579 date=1273509219]
i don't know much about PR but i'm dead against it because it so obviously doesn't work.
[/quote]

If you know it doesn't work, what else is there to know?
[/quote]


everything. the only thing i know is that it doesn't work.
 
If I pointed at a metal box and said to you:

"Peter, in here is a device, a device that doesn't work".

What would you say to me?
 
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=40111.msg1102599#msg1102599 date=1273512584]
If I pointed at a metal box and said to you:

"Peter, in here is a device, a device that doesn't work".

What would you say to me?
[/quote]

this is a weird turn of events...
 
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=40111.msg1102599#msg1102599 date=1273512584]
If I pointed at a metal box and said to you:

"Peter, in here is a device, a device that doesn't work".

What would you say to me?
[/quote]
Why are you pointing at it then?
 
so with Brown quitting that must mean Clegg has demanded it and all the losing parties are going to join to make a majority over the Tories.

Imagine a govt made up of every in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the losing ones in England FUCK ME !!!!

And of course another PM in Milliband or whoever who has not been voted in

Fucking mess, Brown is a sneaky cunt
 
Hague just announcing the offer off referendum on PR, interesting

Or something called AV not PR.

Richey ???????????????????
 
[quote author=vantage link=topic=40111.msg1102613#msg1102613 date=1273513704]
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=40111.msg1102599#msg1102599 date=1273512584]
If I pointed at a metal box and said to you:

"Peter, in here is a device, a device that doesn't work".

What would you say to me?
[/quote]
Why are you pointing at it then?
[/quote]

Because he has pointed at the box and asked "what's in there Gene?"
 
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=40111.msg1102581#msg1102581 date=1273509652]
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=40111.msg1102577#msg1102577 date=1273508989]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=40111.msg1102574#msg1102574 date=1273508610]
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=40111.msg1102554#msg1102554 date=1273504823]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=40111.msg1102523#msg1102523 date=1273500513]
[quote author=Fox link=topic=40111.msg1102520#msg1102520 date=1273500345]
sounds like a deal is on according to Sky. It does pain me that some of the Tory policies I voted on will not happen now just because the system says they were 19 seats short.

If we have another election this year or next year labour will win it easily. New leader and the easiest way of slagging the Tories who would have by then hiked taxes and reduced spending on schools, hospitals ETC.

Cameron will have a very short time as PM IMO
[/quote]

Yet in most other countries they have PR, which we are told is more democratic, but always results in a coalition government and the resultant watering-down of policies that people voted on.

I don't agree with your scenario if there is another election. Labour just wouldn't be able to promise tax reductions or increased spending on public services, because it would be quite obvious that the economy wouldn't stand it.
[/quote]

A democracy should surely give equal voice to everyone. If a party doesn't gain a majority, it's because not enough people think it deserves one. In which case a coalition government best represents the feelings of the electorate. All this scare-mongering is the talk of party leaders who don't want to compromise their agendas. Well, it's tough shit, not enough people agree with their agenda, so they'll have to compromise. Communication and discussion should be what politics is about.

Besides, there are plenty of countries who function perfectly well under some form of PR and/or coalition governments. Just because it's not the norm does not mean it's not a viable option. Continuing with a clearly flawed system just out of some irrational fear of the unknown is not operating in the 'national interest'. Particularly when the current system renders obsolete the votes of a large portion of the people they claim to represent.
[/quote]

While I'm not automatically agin PR, I disagree with some of this. For example I don't accept the idea that those who voted for a party other than that which wins a first-past-the-post election have been disenfranchised. One could just as easily say that in a coalition situation no-one gets the policy package they actually voted for. I agree that fear of the unknown is not a reason to avoid change, but there's a difference between being fearful and being careful. A once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis isn't necessarily the best time to go conducting constitutional experiments.
[/quote]

That's not the point I was making. I'm simply saying that the government should, as far as is reasonably practicable, represent the views of the people who elected it.
[/quote]

What, all of them? A parliament should do that. I don't think a government can.
[/quote]
 
AV is the voting system that Brown proposed earlier in the year. Its not great but its all labour offer too. The other interesting thing is that they are talking coalitions now. Not arrangements. So we will get lib dems in the cabinet. Not a wise move by them IMO.
 
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1102635#msg1102635 date=1273517263]
AV is the voting system that Brown proposed earlier in the year. Its not great but its all labour offer too. The other interesting thing is that they are talking coalitions now. Not arrangements. So we will get lib dems in the cabinet. Not a wise move by them IMO.
[/quote]

If a lib dem man is in the cabinet will they be a Tory MP now then or remain Lib Dem

Feel sorry for the shadow minister who has to stand down, shame for them

I assume Cable won't replace Osbourne, that would be dramatic
 
Lib Dems will remain Lib Dems in a coalition cabinet. If it happens it'll be a (temporary) working arrangement, not a merger of the two parties.

Osborne is pretty much Cameron's closest political ally. The only way he won't start as Chancellor under Cameron is if he himself (Osborne, that is) actually wants a different job. In a coalition my guess is that Cable would become Chief Secretary to the Treasury (i.e.Deputy Chancellor) or maybe chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, a backbench post but a powerful and influential one. The chair of the PAC is usually a member of the opposition, but who knows whether they'd have to be if we do get a coalition government?
 
I thought Boulton landed a few back. Small wonder Jeremy Thompson couldn't keep order BTW, jumped-up racing correrspondent that he is.
 
There's most probably some kind of history there. Campbell is a very nasty piece of work indeed and probably gave Boulton grief a time or twenty when he was Tony Bleagh's press secretary.
 
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=40111.msg1102628#msg1102628 date=1273516141]
[quote author=vantage link=topic=40111.msg1102613#msg1102613 date=1273513704]
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=40111.msg1102599#msg1102599 date=1273512584]
If I pointed at a metal box and said to you:

"Peter, in here is a device, a device that doesn't work".

What would you say to me?
[/quote]
Why are you pointing at it then?
[/quote]

Because he has pointed at the box and asked "what's in there Gene?"
[/quote]
I didn't hear that....when did he say it? I think you're making things up again.
 
Cameron won't want to lose Osborne, and he'll be even less keen to lose Hague.

Ken Clarke will be included I assume and I would be surprised if Big Eric got moved.

Grayling was looking dodgy at the home office anyway so he could be a goner. I suspect DC isn't fussed about Liam Fox but Defence is very much not an area of agreement. Gove has already said he will be happy to give up his position. I doubt that offer will be taken up.

So Home, maybe Health, Chief Sec to Treasury, one or two others perhaps. oh and Clegg as Deputy PM I assume?
 
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1102697#msg1102697 date=1273531355]
Cameron won't want to lose Osborne, and he'll be even less keen to lose Hague.

Ken Clarke will be included I assume and I would be surprised if Big Eric got moved.

Grayling was looking dodgy at the home office anyway so he could be a goner. I suspect DC isn't fussed about Liam Fox but Defence is very much not an area of agreement. Gove has already said he will be happy to give up his position. I doubt that offer will be taken up.

So Home, maybe Health, Chief Sec to Treasury, one or two others perhaps. oh and Clegg as Deputy PM I assume?
[/quote]

Are you trying to tell us something Richie?
 
[quote author=Richey link=topic=40111.msg1102429#msg1102429 date=1273485776]
There is some merit in what vantage says though.

Cameron is from a very posh background. I don't personally believe it matters but it clearly is an issue for some.

Thatch might have had a posh accent but she was not from a well-off background, and certainly not an aristocratic one! Same with Major, who was from a working class background, which I think helped in increasing his own personal popularity (despite the fact that his government ultimately failed I think a lot of people liked the man himself)
[/quote]

I think the main issue people have with him being posh is that it does differentiate him from the majority of the population, the public are obviously going to respond better to someone they can relate to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

neildo
Visiting Anfield
Replies
14
Views
395
neildo
neildo
bluebell
Who won't be here next season?
Replies
21
Views
302
bluebell
bluebell
Woland
    • Like
    • Haha
  • Locked
Moaning even though we're top of the league
2 3
Replies
76
Views
2K
Calibra1
Calibra1
rurikbird
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
I’ll just say it…
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
180
Views
4K
Frogfish
Frogfish
MomoWASright
    • Like
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Kelly’s Heroes 2024/25 - SLOTS QUAD SQUAD
2
Replies
54
Views
888
MomoWASright
MomoWASright
Back
Top Bottom