I'm sick of the general election already

[Jetfire]

Labour are fine compared to torys.

Im sorry, but we have the best employment ever, and the best econemy ever.

What more do u want?

Well the econmy was something Labour "borrowed" off the Tories. They took Lamonts and Clarks template and didn't do anything about it. Brtiian was "Booming" before Labour took over. It's been said in economic circles brown might have actually slowed it donw by over regulating various industries.

In fact experts claim all credit to the economy is due to the changes made by Lamont in the early 90's so nobody in politics at the moment can take credit

The Lib Dems and the torys can claim whatever they like, the torys have already revealed thier plan is ****, even the BBC said so and they hate labour for obvious reasons.

The BBC actually hate the Tories more and always have done since the Thacter era. The BBC has done everything to get on labours good side since, even Paxman has been quite wimpy when grilling the Labour top brass.

I curious to this "Well anything is better than the Tories" arguement that people constantly have without any factural backup as to why

From what I've seen from Blair's government it's only the economy, which they inherited from major, they have yet to cock up. Crime is higher, Hospitals are far worse, schools have more violent incidents and bad behaviour, we went to a illegal war (which no modern government has ever done) for no obious benifits,and are now utterly isolated from europe because of it and has deepened racial divisions, Students are having to pay thousands to go to university, Spin doctores have more infulence than democratly elected politicians and for the first time a party has been guilty of vote rigging (Labour) on more than one ocassion in modern history.

All this and we pay much more in tax.

Tell me. How is this better than the Liberals or Tories?

[Kaylee]

There you have the trick, they're all the same and do exactly the same things on the grand scale (the big two, anyway). Labour will whine and gripe about all the bad stuff the Tories did, a lot of which is still on the statute books. It seems to be an unwritten rule that in general you never undo what the last lot did.

It's entirely true about Britains economy. It was on the road to good health when Major left and Brown's stroke of 'genius' was just to pretty much leave it alone. However imo it is currently artificially boosted by consumer spending which is (thank God) starting to slow down.

imo Good things that labour have done, however, which I don't believe the Tories would ever have achieved:

Free museums and galleries, under the principle that all should be allowed to enjoy these national treasures regardless of income.
Equalising the age of homosexual consent.
Removing the laws against homosexual propaganda in school (albeit a complex issue, but I won't go into that here) [except in Kent]
Bringing in legislation allowing the transgendered to actually be recognised by their new gender (i.e. male to female now has the legal right to be called a female, including on their birth certificate) which Howard personally opposed.
Banned foxhunting (again, very complex as the ban is unworkable due to its wording but at least it equalises all- if bloodsports are wrong they are wrong for everyone at all levels, as when originally banned it was only working class blood sports which were outlawed)
Attempted to equalise financies by taxing the rich more than the poor (again, very patchy but imo a good idea. Classic tory policy is tax breaks for the upper classes).
Recognised that teaching (esp. literacy and numeracy) must be standardised and measureable, however their implementation (the same as a Conservative government) is dictated solely by a sytsem they can manipulate to make themselves look good.

In theory some good measures, all of which I don't believe the Tories would ever have touched with a 10' barge pole.

[Jetfire]

Labour have done 1 or 2 decent things on equality. But overall the facts

Sorry Karl if I'm about to get all "Teachery" about Labours policies on education.

Literacy and numeracy are actually poorer and taught poorer. The only reason results are up is due to more people moving to the private sectors of education but for the first time people with an entire secondary education under Labour are are actually doing worse. Its show all this testing and measuring is actually damaging to the overall education developement of kids.

I should add that schools budgets have decreased since labour came to power dispite their boasts. For the first time ever schools have bad debts in the hundreds of thousands and even millions in some cases.

Labour also rejected the Tomlinkinson proposal on education which have made more vocational courses in schools and balanced the curriculum to meet the needs of pupils and business and Universities (despretatly needed. Most pupils will not be doctors or great Writers which the curriculum is skewed towards) and their "Inclusion" policy is the most damaging to kids education and edventually society as a generation grows up thinking they can do what they want with no concidence.

Their policies on "Top up fees" are discusting. Just to meet an arbutary target of 50% in further education, they will creat a system that will keep the poor away from the best Universities and far to many graduates with useless degrees and heavy debts. I came out of Uni with £25,000+ of debt (I had no parental help) imagine that with £9,000+ (Which is predicted to be 6000-10,000 a year in 10 years time) of extra fees and a degree, for all intents and purposes, is worth nothing.

Sadly the Tories policies on education and Crime appear more appealing than Labours. I'd never have imagined that 4 years ago. I'd be happier (But not happy) if either opposition party knocked Labour for 6 in the election.

Elsewhere: where have Labour taxed the rich? I thought that the Higher Income tax is still at 40% where it was in '97.

[Bouncelot]

New Labour are, basically, the Tories plus a bit of compassion. They've done stuff like introduce the minimum wage, tax credits for low wage earners, etc, and put a lot more money into public services than the tories would have done.

The only reason results are up is due to more people moving to the private sectors of education

Surely there can't be any significant increase in private sector schooling.

As for commenting on things like tuition fees, Labour have been following a Tory agenda. If the Tories got in the result would be to exacerbate most of the things you're complaining about with Labour's policies. They're planning a £35 Billion tax cut (probably aimed at the rich rather than the poor) and yet still saying that they can reduce borrowing and increase spending. I'm not happy with Labour's performance (though they're doing better than many of their disillusioned supporters believe), but I can't imagine how the Tories would be any better.

[Kaylee]

Labour have done 1 or 2 decent things on equality. But overall the facts

Sorry Karl if I'm about to get all "Teachery" about Labours policies on education.

Literacy and numeracy are actually poorer and taught poorer. The only reason results are up is due to more people moving to the private sectors of education but for the first time people with an entire secondary education under Labour are are actually doing worse. Its show all this testing and measuring is actually damaging to the overall education developement of kids.

I should add that schools budgets have decreased since labour came to power dispite their boasts. For the first time ever schools have bad debts in the hundreds of thousands and even millions in some cases.

Labour also rejected the Tomlinkinson proposal on education which have made more vocational courses in schools and balanced the curriculum to meet the needs of pupils and business and Universities (despretatly needed. Most pupils will not be doctors or great Writers which the curriculum is skewed towards) and their "Inclusion" policy is the most damaging to kids education and edventually society as a generation grows up thinking they can do what they want with no concidence.

Their policies on "Top up fees" are discusting. Just to meet an arbutary target of 50% in further education, they will creat a system that will keep the poor away from the best Universities and far to many graduates with useless degrees and heavy debts. I came out of Uni with £25,000+ of debt (I had no parental help) imagine that with £9,000+ (Which is predicted to be 6000-10,000 a year in 10 years time) of extra fees and a degree, for all intents and purposes, is worth nothing.

Sadly the Tories policies on education and Crime appear more appealing than Labours. I'd never have imagined that 4 years ago. I'd be happier (But not happy) if either opposition party knocked Labour for 6 in the election.

Elsewhere: where have Labour taxed the rich? I thought that the Higher Income tax is still at 40% where it was in '97.

I made a point of highlighting that their proposals for education have more or less the sole interest of manipulating statistics, I said only that they at least recognise that education should be standardised and monitored. I offered no positive value judgement as to whether they achieved it.

Inheritence tax affects only the rich, which the Tories plan to cut.

EDIT- in fact, as I think of it, labour haven't been that bad to me. As it is, they paid my University tuition fees for me (which would have cost over £5500), young homosexuals at 16 no longer have to think they are criminals because they want to have physical relationships and (in all but name) I'm legally entitled to 'marry' the man of my dreams. Whatever other evil they've done, none of which I deny, there has been some good thrown in also.

But I suppose that depends how highly one values equality, I place more value in it I suppose as I belong to the minority group in question.

[Jetfire]

New Labour are, basically, the Tories plus a bit of compassion. They've done stuff like introduce the minimum wage, tax credits for low wage earners, etc, and put a lot more money into public services than the tories would have done.

But where has that money gone?

Wasted. An example would be my head of dept had a yearly budget of almost £10,000 before Labour. Now it's at something like £6000 for the same number ofpupils.

Last year alone Labour added a 5% increase for schools. However, they also increased the cost of running schools as well as the amount companys have to pay national insurance to a total of 13%. Thats a 7% negative gain. Say a school gets 2-3 million they have become £100,000-200,000 worse off in the last year alone.

Now my school has a defecite of £400,000 and both OfSTED and auditors and DfES have said our schools finances are accounted for. Not a penny wasted. How does this help pupils get a improved education?

Less text books, less resource does not give you a better education.


Schools budgets were fine under the Tories. Yes they didn't give a s### and Thatcher was terrible until her later years. However times change and even parties change. You can't say Labour now are remotly the same as the Labour party in the '92 election.

The only reason results are up is due to more people moving to the private sectors of education

Surely there can't be any significant increase in private sector schooling.

Actually it's gone up hugely. Private education was once almost none existent. Now it's around 10% and the increases in people dropping out of state schools intoi private ones increases year on year.

Chris Woodhead former head of OfSTED is actually setting up a national chain, of private schools. yes not just one school but a chain.

As for commenting on things like tuition fees, Labour have been following a Tory agenda. If the Tories got in the result would be to exacerbate most of the things you're complaining about with Labour's policies. They're planning a £35 Billion tax cut (probably aimed at the rich rather than the poor) and yet still saying that they can reduce borrowing and increase spending. I'm not happy with Labour's performance (though they're doing better than many of their disillusioned supporters believe), but I can't imagine how the Tories would be any better.

Most of labours extra tax money has gone into quangos, think tanks and burocratic middle managers. A goos example is in an 20% increase in HNS spending only 2% went to treatment and front line medicine. Why? because Labour over-regulate and add so much paperwork, conditioning and rules most of the money is lost before its get to where it could help. Problem of centralised government.
Another example, my school who had to cut teachers, dept budgets, SEN staff and resource etc got a quarter of a million in new windowsthis month because Surrey were told by central government a certain % of cash had to be used for "Maintanence of buildings". Before april tax year deadline it had to be spent so surrey allocated it for that because the government said it would be illegal to buy textbooks or reduce school deficites. Because labour knows how to run education better

Wonder why crime is up, less people can read and the NHS has a super bug epidemic dispite more money? Incompetance and the "we know better" mentality.

[angloconvoy]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/promo/election ... ained.html

Interesting. Dan, are you in my constituency? Cos that could be fun...

[Kaylee]

Wonder why crime is up, less people can read and the NHS has a super bug epidemic dispite more money? Incompetance and the "we know better" mentality.

That and the ridiculous amount of beaurocracy. If one could somehow cut away all the ludicrously (imo) bloated civil service departments and form filling drives which take time up from the NHS, Education and Police forces I can't help but think you could save a bundle of cash and have better services by allowing people to spend their time on what actually matters (i.e. the health of the general public, education and upholding the law respectively) rather than insisting employees in these sectors write essays to make sure the government are satisfied it's all been done properly.

[Jetfire]

Wonder why crime is up, less people can read and the NHS has a super bug epidemic dispite more money? Incompetance and the "we know better" mentality.

That and the ridiculous amount of beaurocracy. If one could somehow cut away all the ludicrously (imo) bloated civil service departments and form filling drives which take time up from the NHS, Education and Police forces I can't help but think you could save a bundle of cash and have better services by allowing people to spend their time on what actually matters (i.e. the health of the general public, education and upholding the law respectively) rather than insisting employees in these sectors write essays to make sure the government are satisfied it's all been done properly.

Exactly. The point I was trying to make (and naturally over bloat)

Someone from the dept of education (our school gets visitors) was wondering why we need head of depts so schools save money. He was intent on proving he could save schools millions by getting rid of heads of dept. It took several hours to hammer into him that head of Depts are almost full time teachers as well and they only get 4 hours a week off timetable to do the organising stuff. Imagine the body that informs the government about education policy had no idea the 10-20 or so heads of dept in every school in the country actually taught a mostly full timetable on top of every thing else they do.

Nurses tell me of similar stories of NHS not having propper funds to give life saving drugs but have hundreds of thousands to spend on the plastic surgery for people who are "Depressed with their noses". They can't move the funds over because some government policy says that the hospital will be better because some civil servant or MP says thats better for the hospital.

And we wonder why no policy or minister ever actually improves things. If they just let schools, hospitals etc run themselves they would be a lot better off and actually do a good job.

[Kaylee]

Well MPs obviously has some fascination with introducing layers of beurocracy, which invariably imo seems to mean they are getting something out of it.

Firstly one would imagine it creates high-flying jobs, as all this beaurocracy has to be managed and creates layers of supervisors, overseers and of course some cushy semi-cabinet positions for the person put in overall charge.

Second it probably gives them some new angle to manipulate statistics, as we know with the waiting lists nonsense. They took people off of the waiting lists by starting another list and adding them onto that.

Plus I suppose it looks good. 'We're putting X million into education' ignoring that money will be almost entirely swallowed by meaningless paperwork. I guess its sort of like the millions given in aid to Africa which is eaten up by the charities themselves but most of all by the governments, so not nearly enough ends up making it through.

As an aside, unless its something which a doctor deems should be done under the NHS I've always thought cosmetics should be paid for by the individual in question, although I suppose picking and choosing what health care we do and don't give is liable to open the flood gates to some pretty tearful situations...

(i.e. do we help someone with dreadful cancer through smoking? Should we treat someone with AIDS because they didn't use a condom? etc. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to have to make that sort of decision...)

Bad stuff. Oh for an opposition that would change it.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I read all that, but im sorry, Labour > torys

all the details are easily understood by anyone.

Not gonna argue, if you support them fair enough, i dont. simple.

[Jetfire]

I read all that, but im sorry, Labour > torys

all the details are easily understood by anyone.

Not gonna argue, if you support them fair enough, i dont. simple.

Great arguement. Labour are better because people say so. Wow. Really well researched.

I don't support the Tories. I hate Thacther for example but then it was the people who voted her in and it was the Tories who actually got rid of her . Liberals are too bandwagon jumping and their views on Asylum, Tax, getting rid of the pound, joining europe, less criminals not going to prision if they have had a hard life etc are pie in the sky even if their stance on most things and their natural p

personally.

It's just I'd rather pay less for the same polices and watch less be wasted by pointless burucratic wastage which actually prevent Doctor's, Nurses, Teachers and Police officers doing a decent job.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/promo/election ... ained.html

Interesting. Dan, are you in my constituency? Cos that could be fun...

I believe Lambeth is all one so yes. My mum who's on the tennants association and is chairman ofclapham park project hwich builds new parks, proposes new planning for tennants, improves local servicies etc has our MP's number as she meets him reasonably often. Thats potentially more fun if I grab it off her Mobile

[Bouncelot]

I don't support the Tories. I hate Thacther for example but then it was the people who voted her in and it was the Tories who actually got rid of her . Liberals are too bandwagon jumping and their views on Asylum, Tax, getting rid of the pound, joining europe, less criminals not going to prision if they have had a hard life etc are pie in the sky even if their stance on most things and their natural p

personally.

I don't think the Lib Dems are bandwagon jumping. If they were, they'd be veering towards the anti-foreigner mood that underlies most of this anti-asylum, anti-immigration rhetoric. The Tories are the ones I see as jumpin on a bandwagon. Their position on Tax (promise to raise it in order to increase spending, rather than promising to cut tax, raise spending, and cut borrowing at the same time) look to me to be more credible than the Tories policies on tax. And the thing about less criminals "not going to prison" (do you mean less criminals going to prison?) Isn't in anybody's policies. There is an argument to be made that prison isn't always the best sentence, but that's a matter for judges rather than politicians to say.

Oh, and it's very unlikely that any party will take us into the Euro, and it's impossible for us to join Europe - we've been in it for decades.

It's just I'd rather pay less for the same polices and watch less be wasted by pointless burucratic wastage which actually prevent Doctor's, Nurses, Teachers and Police officers doing a decent job.

But are they the same policies? I can't see the Tories doing a better job than Labour myself. They plan to make well over 200,000 civil servants redundant. Some of this will save money, much of it will cost the taxpayer a lot in terms of redundancy payouts. Much of it will decrease the ability of civil servants to do the necessary bureaucracy, which means that doctors, teachers, nurses, and police officers could easily have greater amounts of paperwork to do. And it'll massively increase unemployment, which is bad for the economy. And I really can't see the Tories doing anything to help redistribute wealth from the rich who don't need it to the poor who do. In short, I really don't think that their sums add up to anything like the savings they claim.

[Autobloke]

I see the recent campaigning as like all those years at school. You go to scool and (hopefully) learn, but are then allowed loads of time to revise before your final exams. Surely that negates the time spent before - if oyu didn't bother to learn it when you were actually going week after week, then why should you be allowed to cram the night before?
BEAR WITH ME - I'M GETTING TO THE POINT.
I don't see why Labour should be allowed to campaign at all. Surely they should be judged by all the f**k-ups they made during power alone, and not be allowed to restate a bunch of lies about what they are going to 'do' in the hope that people will be suckered again. It's the politcal equivalent of 'cramming' at the last minute and not rightly suffering for the laziness that they've shown all this time.
Only the opposition should be allowed to campaign, to state why they should now be chosen over the party currently in power. And there SHOULDN'T be any mudslinging allowed - don't point out why the other parties are bad (we already KNOW that), point out why you are going to be better.
Personally I hate politicians - they just try to make as much money for themselves from us as quick as possible before we boot them out at the next election. They couldn't give a sh*t about us.

[Bouncelot]

Hold on, if the government isn't allowed to campaign, then why should the opposition be allowed to? They've had all that time to tell us about how they think the government's mucked up and what they would do better. If you're gonna ban one party from campaigning, why not ban the others from campaigning as well? It's only fair. If the Tories or Lib Dems need to campaign in order to persuade us that they'll be any better, then they've clearly been wasting the time they've been in opposition.

And Labour are most certainly not the only party who are selling us a bunch of lies. The most obvious example is the Tories, who've been caught out quite publicly a couple of times, with that MP doctoring a photo concerning immigration, and a letter signed by Howard telling voters in one constituency that their local NHS trust has had two hundred and something cases of MRSA, when the actual figure is 6. However, I don't doubt that there are lies, half truths, and highly misleading statements in the campaign coming from all three major parties and several of the minor ones as well. On the other hand, there will also be people from all parties who are fairly up-front and honest in the way they conduct their campaign.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

sorry, torys are crap, done all the reaserch, did politics at A level mate.

TOry party is crap, all there current policys are bollox. and they ****** our country up so badly before labour.

Labour borrowed nothing but a ****** up country.

No reaserch required thanks, did it all.

Torys are crap, speak rubbish, are in it for the rich ppl only, havent moved on at all.

if you dont like Labour vote lib dem. never vote Torys, they are utter ****.

Its real simple ppl.

Im not going to get into a politcal argument because its so sodding obvious if you havent had your head up your ass for the last 20 years.

[Kaylee]

Im not going to get into a politcal argument because its so sodding obvious if you havent had your head up your ass for the last 20 years.

There goes 3/4 of the population of the board

[Autobloke]

Hold on, if the government isn't allowed to campaign, then why should the opposition be allowed to?

The government have had their chance to show us what another term of them would be like (they usually f**k it up) - why should they be given a chance to whitewash their failiures? The other parties would need the opportunity to state their cases because we haven't see what they've been up to.
Okay, it may be a simplistic view, but then I don't pretend to understand politics - I just give the common-man opinion. Like, if the other parties aren't actually in power, why should we pay for them to fart about like they are? It's bad enough paying tax to support the screw-up crackpot self-serving schemes of the actual government, without doing the same for other old-boy network wasters.
Like I say, I'm not an expert - but pre-election ******** just annoys me with its, well - ********.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

freedom of speech?

everyone can have a say

[Autobloke]

freedom of speech?

everyone can have a say

I'm not disputing that. All for it. It's just that, no matter how 'free' it is, it's normally lies or total spin crap.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

yup, politics for ya.

I know how you feel, they just talk utter crap all the time. all of them.

Labout spin there own crap
Tory party just say Labour is crap
Libdem say they are gonna do stuff, when they cant. and are thus talking crap
Green party dont matter a crap
everyone else dont matter a crap

Crap init.

[Bouncelot]

Hold on, if the government isn't allowed to campaign, then why should the opposition be allowed to?

The government have had their chance to show us what another term of them would be like (they usually f**k it up) - why should they be given a chance to whitewash their failiures? The other parties would need the opportunity to state their cases because we haven't see what they've been up to.

They've had 4 whole years to state what they'd do better. The government has also had 4 years to justify its actions but, unlike the opposition, it's also had to run the country. There's a fundamental difference between how a party in government presents itself compared to how the opposition presents itself. An opposition party is more likely to present a programme that is utterly impossible, whereas a government is more rooted in what is realistically achievable.

Furthermore, things changed. During its term of office, the government works to implement the commitments made in its election manifesto. 4/5 years later, the world has changed, so they deserve an equal opportunity to tell us what they plan to do for the next 4/5 years, if we'll let them do so. The way it works at the moment is fair to all 3 main parties, they get an equal chance to put forward their plans for the next term and trip the other parties plans to pieces.

Okay, it may be a simplistic view, but then I don't pretend to understand politics - I just give the common-man opinion. Like, if the other parties aren't actually in power, why should we pay for them to fart about like they are? It's bad enough paying tax to support the screw-up crackpot self-serving schemes of the actual government, without doing the same for other old-boy network wasters.

I think you need to read up on how the political system actually works. For example, the wikipedia article on the British Parliament. Basically, MPs as a whole are there to make laws. All 3 parties play a part on refining legislation - making sure it actually works, and the opposition's role is basically to be a critical voice, pointing out the flaws. The PM and ministers have the role of overseeing the executive arm of government - deciding on the policies followed by the various government departments.

Like I say, I'm not an expert - but pre-election ******** just annoys me with its, well - ********.

Still not a reason for gagging one of the parties just because it happened to win last time. If you're going to gag one party, be fair and gag them all - they've had equal time to get their various messages across before the campaign happens, and the government party has had the advantage of being able to implement its policies, but also the disadvantage of having to be realistic and having extra responsibilities to get in the way of spreading its message. Also, It generally takes at least 2 terms of government for a party to start to achieve anything substantial, because the whole first term is usually spent trying to undo whatever the previous government did.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

you cant gag a party IMO, thats freedom of speech for you.

I agree with how a party presents itself, the one in power can only say what is realistic, the others can just say what they like. pretty much what the tory party is doing now.

I cant see what Labour is doing wrong at the moment. war was crap but the Torys backed that aswell - so its a moot point.

[Autobloke]

Yup, I do need to read up on how this all works. When my busy schedule calms down and I can concentrate, I shall cast my eyes over it. The lection will probably be over by then though. (depending on how you look at it).
Perhaps we should gag them all.
Or start the Transfan Party. TFs for all children! Tfs in hospitals and schools! More public spending on TFs!
Vote! Vote! Vote! (Where's that compulsive voter Jetfire when I need him?).

[Jetfire]

Bored of the election?

Fed up of party lies?

Unlikely to vote due to lack of intreast?

Then hire Prescott:

http://spaces.msn.com/members/msneditor/

21 April



Diplomacy - Prescott style

For anyone who didn't see the front page of the Guardian this morning, I urge you to read on. This is the first time any event during the election so far has succeeded in raising a chuckle.

Mark Choueke (South Wales Argus): How did you react to Peter Law's decision to quit the party after 35 years service to Blaenau Gwent as a Labour politician?

John Prescott : It didn't even register with us. The voters just have one choice, vote Labour otherwise they'll end up with a Tory government. It's unfortunate that some of our decisions upset some people.

MC : But this isn't about upsetting Peter Law, it's about upsetting many thousands of Labour voters in Blaenau Gwent who helped you form a strong government - they feel alienated.

JP : Why are you asking me about this, I don't care, it's a Welsh situation, I'm a national politician.

MC : Are you too big to care about the Labour voters in Blaenau Gwent? Do you think there may be something in your party's methods of working that require a rethink when a politician chooses to stand against you after 35 years service to Labour?

JP : (walking away) Where do they get these amateurs from? You're an amateur mate, go get on your bus, go home.

MC : Are you too big for the regional press now John?

JP : Bugger off. Get on your bus you amateur.

MC : Is my interview over John? Because if that's all you've got to say, that's what will go in the paper.

JP : (turns aggressively back to reporter) Ooohh, I'm scared, go ahead, put it in your paper.

Labour candidate for Monmouth, Huw Edwards: I could answer this question for you Mark.

MC : I hoped to hear what the deputy prime minister had to say about it.

JP : (ignoring reporter) I've never seen a school in such a lovely setting.

[Autobloke]

Just goes to show how totally detatched from the world these people are. I have to admit though that this particular election has had more mirth connected to it due to insane political shenanigans than I've ever seen before. Of course, it's also a scary reminder of the morons that run this country, and why we should ALL be very scared - no matter who gets into power.

Vote Transfans for a brighter future!

[Bouncelot]

Vote Harriet Jones for PM, and secure a 3-term golden age!

[Autobloke]

Vote Harriet Jones for PM, and secure a 3-term golden age!

I'd vote for her.
Didn't Simon Pegg shoot her in 'Shaun of the Dead' though?

[Kaylee]

my votes are already in!

i put a small amount on a hung parliament (unlikely) and a bigger amount on the turnout being less than 62.5%. A tenner invested wisely in the future of our country, I think ^_^

[Autobloke]

Hands up all those who want a 'hung' parliament. And I don't mean 'like a donkey'...