Ffs. you just broke my bullshit detector.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Ffs. you just broke my bullshit detector.
With what exactly? Point it out.
I won't be voting UKIP, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats but to honest Labour don't really impress me at the moment (particularly Miliband) and even though I shouldn't I see the Greens as a bit of a wasted vote because we have the FPP system.
We used to not have fixed dates like you have in the US. It used to be that the Prime Minister could call the election any time before the 5 years were up but in 2011 the Liberal-Conservative coalition set up fixed terms of 5 years starting from 2015. The amount of terms a PM can have is unlimited still.
We used to not have fixed dates like you have in the US. It used to be that the Prime Minister could call the election any time before the 5 years were up but in 2011 the Liberal-Conservative coalition set up fixed terms of 5 years starting from 2015. The amount of terms a PM can have is unlimited still.
Deleted
Thanks very much.Rightfully so, imo.
I can understand, but I don't like the US system of a maximum of two terms.
I know who I am not voting for, just not who I want to vote for. I guess from my posts in here its kind of obvious.
Yeah, it's silly. Presidents generally get two terms, these days, and the latter part of the second seems, at best, pointless.
If FDR hadn't had four terms, they would not have made it law. Originally it was just a tradition.
Also, the poll maker seems to have forgotten that there are political parties in Wales and Northern Ireland.
A future Tory government would ban strike action where ballot turnout is below 40%
The BBC played an interview with Mark Serwotka a little earlier, i wouldn't describe his objections as particularly convincing.
The BBC played an interview with Mark Serwotka a little earlier, i wouldn't describe his objections as particularly convincing.
Last edited:
Labour? The party who caused this mess in the first place. The only good thing Labour has done in the last six decades or should I say the Fabian Socialist part of Labour is the NHS act. The difference separating the two parties since that has slowly eroded until they are now basically the same party with a slight tinkering of policy. The party is an absolute shambles of what it once was, especially in the early part of its formation. It is time to move away from the constant back and forth of Labour (Whigs) and The Conservative (Tories), it has gone on far too long and needs to be shaken up.
Yeah, only a matter of time before the numerals on Big Ben are replaced with Arabic I reckon.
I'll be voting Green. I would vote for the detestable Labour just to stop the Tories privatising/slashing funding for every public service in sight if they had a chance in my area. I'm hoping a good turnout for the Greens and come 2020 people won't see them as a wasted vote anymore.
From the party which introduced the police commissioners and said they were valid on a tiny fraction of the eligible vote?
The fixed-term parliament act was a farce and waste of parliamentary time. A party leader can still call for a vote of no confidence at any time, and if they win twice in 14 days there must be an election. If two thirds vote for an election they only need to do so once.
Prime ministers normally have a reason/excuse for an early election (who runs the government, us or the unions? etc) and oppositions have to vote for an election or look pointless, so in reality very little has changed.
Nobody said they were consistent, this is a government we are discussing here after all.
I forget now, were the police commissioners originally part of the so-called localism agenda? As policies went it actually carried some promise, yet the reality has been sadly lacking and half-baked.
The concept of commissioners ought never to have been brought into law IMO; i'd certainly have no qualms about binning that particular political office.
And that was supported by only 23.5% of those eligible vote at the last election
Why do SF have their own option when they aren't the biggest whenever they aren't even the biggest party in Northern Ireland.
Dr Clifford Mann, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, says Ed Miliband should stop treating the NHS like a 'political football'
I also read that Miliband's Mansion Tax is coming under some pressure, with many of his party opposed and Charles Clarke going so far as to describe it as absurd. Certainly Ed's support for Jim Murphy's use of the proceeds made things more difficult. Maybe he'll do himself a favour and scrap it.
Osborne's been hinting at an increase to the IHT threshold but we've heard that pledge before.
You tell them kid!
Nine-year-old boy scout slams HS2 bosses' 'really really bad' maths in remarkable appearance before MPs.
I also read that Miliband's Mansion Tax is coming under some pressure, with many of his party opposed and Charles Clarke going so far as to describe it as absurd. Certainly Ed's support for Jim Murphy's use of the proceeds made things more difficult. Maybe he'll do himself a favour and scrap it.
Osborne's been hinting at an increase to the IHT threshold but we've heard that pledge before.
You tell them kid!
Nine-year-old boy scout slams HS2 bosses' 'really really bad' maths in remarkable appearance before MPs.
Last edited:
Opinion polls consistently show the public's overwhelming support for the mansion tax. When you say it's coming under pressure, what do you mean?
From within his own party for one. And given that health is amongst those responsibilities devolved to Scotland, using a predominantly southern focused tax to fund 1,000 new nurses could prove to be awkward for him politically. The MT has far more of the gesture about it that effective reform to taxation in this country; electioneering and gimmickry. Although for all their faults, UKIP put forward an...interesting measure on tax relief for historical buildings.
Last edited:
The Green party surge is continues, about to surpass UKIP's membership and on course to have more members than the lib dems by the election. I suspect being excluded from the leaders debate has made them more popular with some.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hin-a-week-new-research-predicts-9977866.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hin-a-week-new-research-predicts-9977866.html
Yep, probably given them a sort of underdog, anti-establishment sort of vibe, if they didn't already have it before.
The geographical spread of these respective memberships could be of some relevance when interpreting the figures though. I would expect the Greens to be a far stronger force in Scotland than UKIP for instance, whereas the latter is mostly concentrated in parts of England (and to a lesser degree Wales).
Are the Greens targeting any particular constituencies this election? They ahd some hopes in Norwich last time IIRC.
They're still hopeful about Norwich, as well as student heavy places like Oxford and Bristol. Realistically though, holding Brighton and getting second place in a bunch of constituencies (or even marginally winning another seat or two) would be a fantastic result for the greens. There's more hope in local council elections really, because if they win a couple more of them (and they're close in Liverpool) and do a good job of it they can slowly keep building a base and get more votes in the long term.
We have the Scottish Greens up here, who are a different political party, albeit one that shares the same ideals as the UK-wide one. The Scottish Green membership figures, which have increased significantly post-referendum, wouldn't impact UK Green figures.
The article referred to the figure as UK-wide, i assumed that the researcher had collated the two groups.
But yes, Green MSPs have been influential for several years now.
Ah yeah, looking at the article you may be right, which means you've got a good point. They had a massive surge up here in Scotland post-referendum, which will have given their figures a massive boost.
I suppose that like the Lib Dems before them, the Greens shall via a tactical approach gradually increase their powerbase. The same might be said for UKIP although i don't expect them to be part of the landscape for as long. It is my belief that another, one as yet to be founded, will pose the greatest long term threat to the Tories.
Last edited:
I fecking hate politics.
Cameron's getting on his motal high horse about the greens because he doesn't want to be in a debate where Labour can be more centrist than he can and UKIP more right wing without having a party more Left Wing than labour also splitting their audience.
Labour and the Lib Dems (who are frankly an irrelevancy and I can't wait to see obliterated in this election) don't want the Greens for obvious reasons.
Cameron's right for the wrong reasons and Milliband and Clegg are just cnuts. Eugh.
Cameron's getting on his motal high horse about the greens because he doesn't want to be in a debate where Labour can be more centrist than he can and UKIP more right wing without having a party more Left Wing than labour also splitting their audience.
Labour and the Lib Dems (who are frankly an irrelevancy and I can't wait to see obliterated in this election) don't want the Greens for obvious reasons.
Cameron's right for the wrong reasons and Milliband and Clegg are just cnuts. Eugh.
This is mostly bluster from the PM, although if he manages to squeeze the Greens into the debating panels it will have been a worthy gambit.
Assuming that he fails in the attempt, i'd advise that the u-turn is accompanies by a few attractive environmental policies. There would be a problem of trust though, following the decisions and rhetoric of his ministers, yet none of the other parties on the panel would have a clean record either.
Assuming that he fails in the attempt, i'd advise that the u-turn is accompanies by a few attractive environmental policies. There would be a problem of trust though, following the decisions and rhetoric of his ministers, yet none of the other parties on the panel would have a clean record either.
I agree to a certain extent, but Cameron showed his hand today. By saying he will debate Ed Miliband one on one he basically said he thinks Ed is weak and no real opponent. He is running scared of Farage and to a certain extent Glegg who he could well have to share parliament with again.
Personally I agree with Cameron for once. The Greens definitely should be included in the debates, or at least one of them, I just don't agree with why Cameron is saying it. He's certainly not saying it to benefit the Green Party in any way.
With 2000 people joining the greens overnight their membership is now bigger than the UKIP.
I don't blame Cameron in this instance. This is not the US where there are two presidential candidates - there are two real candidates (Cameron and Milliband) who have to stay vaguely plausible and then jokers like Farage who has a free run to play the outsider despite the fact his "policies" are contradictory back of a beer mat scribblings. Clegg played that role last time before finding out that being in government is a lot harder than being in eternal, under-scrutinised opposition.
James Blunt pens letter to 'classist, prejudiced wazzock' Chris Bryant MP over privilege claims
Considering who the recipient of these remarks is, and that Bryant is indeed a shadow culture secretary reverting to type you might say, i expect that a good many will have sympathy for Blunt's...blunt speaking. A fiend of my sister's sacrificed much in her hopes of make it in musicals yet sadly it didn't prove to be enough, the quality is just that high and it demands a great deal of those who eventually succeed.
Considering who the recipient of these remarks is, and that Bryant is indeed a shadow culture secretary reverting to type you might say, i expect that a good many will have sympathy for Blunt's...blunt speaking. A fiend of my sister's sacrificed much in her hopes of make it in musicals yet sadly it didn't prove to be enough, the quality is just that high and it demands a great deal of those who eventually succeed.
Blunt's missed the point entirely and taken offence to one (half) line in Bryant's comments to make the whole thing about himself and how hard he's had it growing up so posh (ha). He comes across like a dick. And I don't like Bryant either.
I might not have worded it quite like Blunt has, however i have great doubts as to Bryant's sincerity and that what he says stems from any direct experience whatsoever. His portfolio covers a wide area, given the examples which he's cited i think it perfectly understandable to question the depth of his policy proposals.
It will do neither of the main parties any good if they adopt the tack of dragging this down to a class based election, the voters are only likely to become increasingly apathetic in such an eventuality.
Last edited:
But it is a class issue. The lower (and increasingly middle) classes have almost entirely been priced out of the arts as a genuine career option. The results of this are obvious and easy to see.
From Bryant's intervi9ew with teh Guardian:
What the hell has that got to do with class? It's about one person taking the time out to look and another who elects not to do so.
Also of some relevance is Bryant's admission that Labour will not reverse cuts to the Arts Council's budget. So more likely, this boils down to a member of the Shadow Cabinet using jaded tactics to compensate for a weak manifesto.
It's been made into a class issue by James Blunt. Bryant basically said he wanted a broader spectrum of people able to take it on as a career. This kind of thing was being said all the time back at the Olympics as so many medal winners were from private schools. It's not class warfare to want equality of opportunity, something which James Blunt rather bitterly dismisses in his knobbish letter.