Question Time

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Tue May 03, 2005 2:39 pm

i so don't want labour to win... but i'm now starting to think primarily of the benefits of wiping that ******* stupid smug and oh so ******* arrogrant grin off of their faces rather than doing good for the country... not that these two things are mutually exclusive or anything...

Post by **Best First** » Tue May 03, 2005 3:08 pm

i don't want labour to win, but i want that evil piece of **** Howad in power even less.

yay Democracy.

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Tue May 03, 2005 4:26 pm

Best First wrote:i don't want labour to win, but i want that evil piece of **** Howad in power even less.

That's why the Lib Dems exist!!!

honest...

Post by **Best First** » Tue May 03, 2005 4:54 pm

thats who i am gunning for but i have no realistic expectations they will win.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:07 pm

and so any vote you give to lib the dems is a vote for the Tories then.

Lesser of two evils, I go Labour!

Post by **Best First** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:28 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:and so any vote you give to lib the dems is a vote for the Tories then.

not where i live(d)...

Anyone who campaings on that platform can **** off as far as i am concerned. sorry.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:31 pm

Best First wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:and so any vote you give to lib the dems is a vote for the Tories then.
not where i live(d)...

Anyone who campaings on that platform can **** off as far as i am concerned. sorry.

TBH that whole line from labour sounds like a leaf straight out of Animal Farm- a vote for them is a vote for Farmer Jones!! {insert gasp of horror here} You don't want JONES back, do you, comrades?!

least blair got a good grilling by Jon Snow on C4 this evening. His little temper tantrums whenever people try to raise their concerns over his decision making process on Iraq are very telling imo.

Post by **Best First** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:34 pm

yep!

But its ok because he 'has faith' in his decisions and 'thats rubbish in his opinion'

well argued!

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:38 pm

Best First wrote:yep!

But its ok because he 'has faith' in his decisions and 'thats rubbish in his opinion'

well argued!

He's been taking diction lessons from Gary Rhodes-

Well I actually, literally just, yanno, took the decision because, actually, I have respect for your position, literally, see, but I disagree...

He summed up his position pretty succinctly on QT. If you dont like it- vote me out. Smug in the knowledge that he'll get back in without shadow of doubt and can then happily say that the people do have confidence in him and we've given our seal of approval to all his decisions. It's sickening

Hound · Post by **Hound** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:39 pm

Best First wrote:
Hound wrote:I vote lib dem

my Dad votes BNP
dude...

**** happens, he probably doesn't understand what he is voting for anyway..

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Tue May 03, 2005 8:09 pm

Hound wrote:he probably doesn't understand what he is voting for anyway..

The soup or prawn cocktail?
Sorry, I'm having one of 'those' days.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Tue May 03, 2005 10:03 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:and so any vote you give to lib the dems is a vote for the Tories then.

Lesser of two evils, I go Labour!

Only in certain marginal constituencies where it's a clear Labour vs Tories choice. In my constituency, it doesn't matter how many Labour voters defect to the Lib Dems, the Tories haven't got a hope of getting in, despite being in second place.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 03, 2005 11:13 pm

Best First wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:
Rebis wrote: And what happens if we get a less than 70% turnout? A re-vote? And if that is <70%? Vote again? What if there's never a 70+% turnout? What then? vote infinitum?
Simply, yes imo.

I don't believe a government should be elected unless what imo is a reasonable portion of the country actually vote. In fact make it mandatory and you solve the problem.
so we get stuck with Tony forever?

Technically, we wouldn't, tho, would we?

I mean, Parliament has been dissolved, so we don't really have a central government at the current time, just a bunch of suits all trying to get us to vote them back into office. So if we're terminally on the re-vote, then Parliament stays dissolved indefinitely. Therefore, Tony would become the last Prime Minister, rather than the current one.

How long a period were you thinking of having between re-votes, btw, Karl? Long enough for the newly-eligible to register?

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed May 04, 2005 9:43 am

Not sure tbh, AFAIK civil servants generally run the country anyway so I'm sure they could manage to keep things going smoothly even if they don't have a suit to rubber stamp all their paperwork for a few weeks.

It would depend how long it takes to reset all the ballot and voting systems, redespatch postal votes, fine everyone who didn't vote and process those who had mitigating circumstances for not voting (i.e. I broke my leg the day before the election and was in hospital therefore unable to vote, here's my doctor's note).

I'd guess anywhere from 2 weeks to a month between elections.

In fact it makes me wonder exactly what MPs do other than thrash out new proposals (which they come up with) considering its the CS who run most everything? O_o

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed May 04, 2005 10:53 am

Bottom line.

Only the Tories and Labour can win.

So which one do you want?

The LibDems cannot win. if you vote for them because you dont like Tony Blair (hasnt Howard done well?) then you lower Labours votes and make it easier for Howard to get in.

Its simple political voting chaps. - I dont care if you dont like it, but its the turth of the matter. you cant get the Libdems in unless huge swathes of the country suddenly change tact (not going to happen) and thus your vote helps the Tories.
So when you vote for the LibDems, and Howard is in No.10 you will know why.

In all honesty I wouldnt want the LibDems in either, thier policys are based on the Tories, and most of them have lil thought or planning, they arnt capable of running the country. Kennedy doesnt know sod all abut his own policys.

The Tories just want to subsidise everything as per ususal. fine if your rich.

Labout has been running the shop now for a while, seem alright to me.
I dont care about the war. sorry.

Post by **Best First** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:06 pm

that post deserves nothing more then this:

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:09 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Bottom line.

Only the Tories and Labour can win.

So which one do you want?

The LibDems cannot win. if you vote for them because you dont like Tony Blair (hasnt Howard done well?) then you lower Labours votes and make it easier for Howard to get in.

Baseless Labour propaganda. In some Labour/Tory marginals voting Lib Dem will let the Tories in. In many seats, it's a straight Lib/Dem Tory fight - in which case voting Lib Dem will keep the Tories out. In Labour safe seats like the one I live in, switching from Labour to Lib Dem won't help the Tories - it'll push them into third place. Furthermore, if the Lib Dems start getting a substantial number of seats, then it potentially changes politics - makes it genuinely 3-way, rather than 2-way. It also means that distinctively Lib Dem policies are more likely to be stolen by the other 2 parties. The chances of Howard getting in are very slim at the moment. The absolute worst case scenario is a hung parliament, which will probably mean a Lib-Lab pact.

Its simple political voting chaps. - I dont care if you dont like it, but its the turth of the matter. you cant get the Libdems in unless huge swathes of the country suddenly change tact (not going to happen) and thus your vote helps the Tories.
So when you vote for the LibDems, and Howard is in No.10 you will know why.

Again, it only makes a difference in marginal seats that are a straight Labour-Tory race. In a 3-way marginal, a Lib Dem-Tory marginal, or a safe seat, voting Lib Dem is very unlikely to make it easier for teh Tories to get in.

In all honesty I wouldnt want the LibDems in either, thier policys are based on the Tories, and most of them have lil thought or planning, they arnt capable of running the country. Kennedy doesnt know sod all abut his own policys.

Their policies are less like the Tories' policies than Labour's are. Whether they're capable of running the country or not, I don't know - but they certainly can't do a worse job than the Tories would. And as for claiming that Kennedy doesn't know about his own policies, the only evidence I've seen is that press conference the night after his first child was born, and that was solely the effet of lack of sleep.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:27 pm

Luckily, Mark's timely gaffe has drawn attention away from my scandelous plans for running the voting system... but will of course come back to haunt me next election, when I will insist that I was 'utterly convinced it was the right thing to do' and that I 'respect other people's views' but will declare that they 'have to make up their own minds', secure in the knowledge that Brendocon is utterly unelectable as Official Sexy Gay Bishie-Boy.

Backed up, of course, by my evil chancellor Pissin' Poonani... who will come to my aid despite my plans to have him shipped off to Skull Island so he can never supplant me as leader of the Boozle Party...

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Wed May 04, 2005 1:16 pm

Oh, and I just came across this article which shows that even a massive swing from Labour to the Lib Dems won't lead to a Tory government. If the swing is sufficiently large, then it might lead to a hung parliament, if it gets much larger than needed to produce a hung parliament, then the Lib Dems will start seriously eating into the number of seats that the Tories have.

The idea of incorporsting a proper vote of no confidence onto the ballot paper is interesting, I can't help wonder how well it would work in practice.

Thinking about it, unless you move to some form of proportional representation at the same time, it would mean that in some seats there was an MP returned to Parliament and in others there wasn't - so you'd end up with a smalled House of Commons, and whoever could command a majority there would be the government. Those constituencies which didn't return an MP wouild have periodic by-elections until they returned an MP. This could, of course, lead to major changes in the make-up of Parliament, and maybe mean that you end up with a minority government when you started the parliament with a majority one (in terms of parliamentary seats).

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed May 04, 2005 1:29 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:secure in the knowledge that Brendocon is utterly unelectable as Official Sexy Gay Bishie-Boy.

I'd like to go on record as saying that when I went on record as saying that I am "in no way sexy, gay or bishie" I was working on outdated information that I took at face value in the very best of faith.

I would also like to distance myself from reports maliciously suggesting my involvement in the unexpected and tragic death of the person who suggested that the report was flawed at the time.

I would hope that, in today's society, the individual voter can make their own subjective decision on a candidate's sexiness and/or bishieness, and can look past such outmoded labels as "gay" when casting their vote.

And remember - a vote for Karl will only let Emvee in the back door. Unless you want to let Emvee in your back door, I suppose...

Post by **Best First** » Wed May 04, 2005 1:46 pm

doubt it.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Wed May 04, 2005 2:38 pm

Brendocon wrote:And remember - a vote for Karl will only let Emvee in the back door. Unless you want to let Emvee in your back door, I suppose...

Given that my back door leads to my balcony, I'd be quite worried about letting anybody in by my back door unless I'd previously let them out that way.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Wed May 04, 2005 2:46 pm

Bouncelot wrote:Furthermore, if the Lib Dems start getting a substantial number of seats, then it potentially changes politics - makes it genuinely 3-way, rather than 2-way.

Exactly, and their popularity has been going up with every election.

Besides, better to light a candle than complain about the dark.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed May 04, 2005 4:22 pm

Brendocon wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:secure in the knowledge that Brendocon is utterly unelectable as Official Sexy Gay Bishie-Boy.
I'd like to go on record as saying that when I went on record as saying that I am "in no way sexy, gay or bishie" I was working on outdated information that I took at face value in the very best of faith.

I would also like to distance myself from reports maliciously suggesting my involvement in the unexpected and tragic death of the person who suggested that the report was flawed at the time.

I would hope that, in today's society, the individual voter can make their own subjective decision on a candidate's sexiness and/or bishieness, and can look past such outmoded labels as "gay" when casting their vote.

And remember - a vote for Karl will only let Emvee in the back door. Unless you want to let Emvee in your back door, I suppose...

I accuse my right honorable friend of playing the race card! Which I see, and raise with a four of diamonds!

i reaffirm my faith that the British people will make their decision based on my sound track record with the economy (locking Nath out of the refrigerator has saved literally dollars in both beer and expensive ham) and that my war against Uncle Bulgaria was justified on the grounds of intelligence clearly indicating Orinoco was developing umbrellas of mass destruction.

As for Emvee- go ahead! Throw your vote away! You know it's a two party system!

Britain Sideways, not diagonally!

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed May 04, 2005 4:28 pm

Ok lets see then

Can the LibDems win. No.

Can the Torys win. Yes

Can Labour win. yes

Ok simple at this point yes?

Now understand this. its very simple, its not spin its common as muck sense.

If you Dont want Howard in but you dont like Tony Blair either voting LibDem will put Howard in.

The votes are being taken away from Labour because you were never going to vote for the Torys anyhows.
This way the Torys get in. you cant win with the LibDems its best to vote for that at Local elections.
Its a two horse race right now.

Also im sorry but the LibDems policys suck ass. if they did get in my familys household income would exceede £100k per year, our rates would sky rocket. now im sorry thats crap. that would mean I have to move out, get a morgage for £250k (average house price in Bournemouth) and I doubt I could so id have to quit my work and move away.
SOrry, but sod off.

TOrys, and thier new Health System, imigration based on numbers? [composite word including 'f*ck'] off.

Labour. Best econemy EVER. im happy with how Labour runs this country.Im better off under Labour.
The LibDems havent a clue in any department.
the TOrys favour the rich, and have frankly racist policys
labour has kept me good for 10 years now. why do you think so many ppl want to come here? because its good under Labour.

So ill vote Labour.

But please, a word of warning, if you dont want Howard in, dont think voting LibDems is going to help.

Simple.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed May 04, 2005 4:30 pm

Best First wrote:that post deserves nothing more then this:

Well if you can come up with somthing more compelling be sure to let me know.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Wed May 04, 2005 5:31 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Ok lets see then

Can the LibDems win. No.

Can the Torys win. Yes

Can Labour win. yes

Ok simple at this point yes?

Now understand this. its very simple, its not spin its common as muck sense.

If you Dont want Howard in but you dont like Tony Blair either voting LibDem will put Howard in.

If this were a US-style Presidential election, you'd be right. It's not, it's a UK-style Parliamentary election. Read the article I linked to in an above post, it points out that the worst that can happen if Labour voters defect to the Lib Dems is a hung parliament. Also, it very blatantly depends on your constituency. If you want the Tories out and you live in Michael Howard's or David Davies' or Oliver Leftwin's constituencies, then the best way to make sure that the Tories don't get in is to vote Lib Dem, because they're not far behind the Tories, whilst Labour are a long way behind. If you're in a safe Labour seat, the most likely impact of voting Lib Dem is that the Tories get pushed into 3rd place locally. If you live in a Tory seat, then to keep the Tories out, you vote for the second party - whether it's Labour or Lib Dem. The only places voting Lib Dem is going to help the Tories is in Labour/Tory marginals.

The votes are being taken away from Labour because you were never going to vote for the Torys anyhows.
This way the Torys get in. you cant win with the LibDems its best to vote for that at Local elections.
Its a two horse race right now.

No it's not. Increasing support for the Lib Dems could feasibly unseat the Tories as the second party, certainly if UKIP and Veritas steal a decent portion of the Tory vote. If your main concern is keeping the Tories out, then your votre needs to take into account the constituency you're in. In may parents' constituency, a Labour vote increases the chance of the Tories snatching the seat from the Lib Dems, for example.

Also im sorry but the LibDems policys suck ass. if they did get in my familys household income would exceede £100k per year, our rates would sky rocket. now im sorry thats crap. that would mean I have to move out, get a morgage for £250k (average house price in Bournemouth) and I doubt I could so id have to quit my work and move away.
SOrry, but sod off.

So you have a very rich family. You can afford to pay more tax. You do not have my sympathy.

TOrys, and thier new Health System, imigration based on numbers? **** off.

Most of us agree with you there.

Labour. Best econemy EVER. im happy with how Labour runs this country.Im better off under Labour.

I'd agree that they're doing OK.

The LibDems havent a clue in any department.
the TOrys favour the rich, and have frankly racist policys
labour has kept me good for 10 years now. why do you think so many ppl want to come here? because its good under Labour.

So ill vote Labour.

What consitituency are you in? You might want to check what your consituency's like on the BBC's site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... efault.stm
Because if it's a Tory/Lib Dem marginal your labour vote will mean sod all to the result, and might well give you a Tory MP.

But please, a word of warning, if you dont want Howard in, dont think voting LibDems is going to help.

Simple.

In my constituency, the Tories have sod all support, and the local labour MP doesn't strike me as good MP material. He doesn't live in Covenry, he's a multi-millionaire, and he was involved in a scandal several years back that had something to do with lending Peter Mandelson money. I think I'm probably gonna vote Lib Dem, whatever you say.

Post by **Best First** » Wed May 04, 2005 5:54 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Best First wrote:that post deserves nothing more then this:
Well if you can come up with somthing more compelling be sure to let me know.

when you come up with arguments more convincing that vote labour because i say so ill join the debate mate, until then i don't really see anything worth engaging.

You are simplifying things to levels that make your comments seem irrelevant, as a number of people have underscored.

"look its this simple because i say so right?"

Nope.

next?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed May 04, 2005 6:02 pm

On the voting, issue, I understand what your saying, but the fact is ppl are voting LibDem as they are upset with Tony, it will only favour Mr Howard in the long run as thier voting isnt being devided.

So you have a very rich family. You can afford to pay more tax. You do not have my sympathy.

I love this: what if there 5 ppl in my house earning 20k per year?
Were not individualy considered rich, but are being treated as if we are.
Crap.

the LibDems policys across the board are utter crap, half are Torie based or unfeasable.

I think there is some silver cloud where ppl hear the word 'Liberal' and think it must be good. that party lives in cloud cooku land, its useless.

As for consituancy voting, I again understand, what I was speaking of is ppl who do live in such swing areas. the Torys have based thier entire election fight on these swing areas, knowing by damming blair they can get Labour voters over to the LibDems, and thus take seats from Labour.

Its clear that this quite the case, everyone is speaking of this back door route, sure it wont work in every state but it could effect this election.

Im still going to vote Labour as they can win here, and I want Labour to win overall.

TOrys are utter ****
LibDems are totaly useless, thier policys so out of whack, they have no idea. its just a nice idea. but in reality ********.

Whats sad is I have no choice, this country has 1 party worth it right now.[/url]

Post by **Best First** » Wed May 04, 2005 6:27 pm

are you capable of saying why the liberal's policies are crap/cloud cooku land/useless/have no idea?

Your entire arguement presently boils down to 'because i say so'.

And when your arguemenmt that a vote for the liberal's is a vote for the Tories you chnage it to:

a vote for the liberal's is a vote for the Tories in the long run. er...

or

oh! i only meant a vote for the liberal's is a vote for the Tories where the liberals cannot win, when that is not what you were originally saying at all.

nonsense.[/i]

TransFans.co.uk

Question Time

Voting plans for May 5th?