General Election Countdown who is going to win

I've got save the fox Geoffery bleeding Cox, he strongly believes that all benefit and disabled scroungers should go and pick fruit in Camborne (not that there is any fruit picking in Camborne) he's looking forward to the increase in wealth for the top ten per cent trickling down to the rest of us, he's fully supportive of farm subsidies remaining uncapped or means tested, doesn't seem that bothered about any type of fraud or criminal behaviour by the banks, he's a total Tory old boy and a complete fecktard and  no original thought has ever crossed his mind, waffling one coont. Feck knows which out of touch self centred egotistical wankers make up his competition.
Cox may get kippered in west deben but I doubt it.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Angry wrote:

UKIP wont be getting my vote due to their politics on the nhs

Come on now Angry, the Kip guarantees the NHS will remain free at the point of delivery, that the pace of privatisation would be checked as it seems to have delivered few benefits if any and they have promised to increase the funding by more than any of the others.

What more do you want?

Stop believing the lies and get on board the Nigey bandwagon.

ps. Galloway is standing in Bradford West not East.

you right it is east

i dont believe that if ukip ever pulled it off and win the election that they wouldnt privatise the nhs. To be fair i dont believe the tories wouldnt do that either.

Right now I think only Farage and Carswell are predicted to win seats, Reckless isn't even expected to hold is I don't think.

The thing that would put me off Labour right now is the chance for an SNP coalition, which would be an absolute disaster for the country, but more so the south west. This country is absolutely fecked if that happens, so I'm praying that it doesn't.

UKIP aren't going to win enough seats to hold a balance of power, so I'd like to think that if a Conservative was voted in then it would lessen the chance of a Labour-SNP coalition. Pollard will have a hell of a lot to answer for should that coalition form. You just know Miliband would feck the country over to have his little sniff of power.

I'd personally vote Lib Dem, but that doesn't have any impact in PMV so that's down the drain. Protest voting doesn't work. Not voting as a protest doesn't work. Seems the real issue we have is that the voting system is absolutely bollocks and dare I say it - undemocratic?

Total bollocks Josh, you might not like it, you might not be able to get your party of choice into power, but to say the system is "undemocratic" is just wrong, vote if you want to, don't vote if you don't want to, vote for whoevever you want, feck me you can even run yourself if you so wish !! You'd struggle to find a more democratic, honest and fair voting system anywhere in the World.

Anything which encourages tactical voting is never a good thing, neither is something that has people so dosenfranchised they don't vote because they sit in a safe seat and think - what's the point?

Ok so maybe undemocratic was a bit of a stretch but it's an appalling shstem and there are many, many better ones out there we could use.

I'd agree mostly with that Asti other than the constituency model is way les democratic than proportional representation which would really make the Tories worried, our political map would have been much different if this was the case, the lib dems would have got into power years ago if it went only on the number of votes cast, not MPs elected.

Cameron has announced that he will cut £12bn off the welfare budget if they get back into power, where the fook is that going to come from? Still no news on capping farm subsidies to millionaires, tax loopholes still being talked about but no action taken, big business gets away with murder as well, and the deficit is still rising under "austerity" feckin lying wankers.

Josh Pope wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

If you vote you don't have the right to complain.

Eh?

The stupid as sh1te voting system we've got gives people every right to complain.

If we had proportional representation then that statement would be correct and I'd agree, but it's only those who choose not to vote who can't complain, and even then I'll happily sympathise with many of them.

It was in response to Angry's statement that if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain. I see the logic in that, by not using your right as a voter you're retracting your voice (albeit minor) in what is a supposedly democratic system.

I like to flip turn that statement on its head though and consider it from the alternative perspective. If you vote then you're conceding that the system as it currently stands is the best we've got and that it works - it isn't and it doesn't.

FWIW, I will be voting. Doing a little something is of more value than do a minor nothing. I'm a slave to the system.

Iggy wrote:

I'd agree mostly with that Asti other than the constituency model is way les democratic than proportional representation which would really make the Tories worried, our political map would have been much different if this was the case, the lib dems would have got into power years ago if it went only on the number of votes cast, not MPs elected.

In 1951 Clement Attlee's Labour government was replaced by Winston Churchill's Conservative government. Despite polling more votes in total nationally the breakdown in seats narrowly went Churchill's way - and in those days it was pretty much a 2 party race with the Lib Dems Liberals being nowhere after being shunned by the British public for going into coalition with the Tories under David Lloyd George who wielded "Geddes's axe" (one for Rush fans there!) when implementing the most crushing austerity measures the country had ever had inflicted upon it to that point.

The last time we had Liberals in government it took the country four generations to forgive forget how bad they were. I think it'll take longer this time.

I'd agree with your views on the liberals I used them as an example because there was a big fuss (1980's ?) when the lib dems came second but polled more votes than the Tories.

I think you've got your wires crossed here. The Liberals, Lib Dems, Lib/SDP etc haven't come second in many, many decades no matter how you measure their vote.

spowell92 wrote:

Josh Pope wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

If you vote you don't have the right to complain.

Eh?

The stupid as sh1te voting system we've got gives people every right to complain.

If we had proportional representation then that statement would be correct and I'd agree, but it's only those who choose not to vote who can't complain, and even then I'll happily sympathise with many of them.

It was in response to Angry's statement that if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain. I see the logic in that, by not using your right as a voter you're retracting your voice (albeit minor) in what is a supposedly democratic system.

I like to flip turn that statement on its head though and consider it from the alternative perspective. If you vote then you're conceding that the system as it currently stands is the best we've got and that it works - it isn't and it doesn't.

FWIW, I will be voting. Doing a little something is of more value than do a minor nothing. I'm a slave to the system.

but refusing to vote in protest is the silliest form of protesting. It basically says im not happy with the government so im not going to do anything about and wont vote as a result.

There are better ways im sure of making a point and still doing your democratic right what that is i dont know atm but staying silent isnt it.

Have you never heard of the silent majority ? It's the English way

AstiSpumante wrote:

Have you never heard of the silent majority ?  It's the English way

And does this silent majority affect the outcome of the country for the good or the bad? Its ineffective just to remain silent and not vote

when a party they dont like wins power and hammers folk with cuts and taxes do they think its a good idea not to vote then or do they remain silent or go on a nationwide riot using a shot drug dealer as the spark for it?

Angry wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Have you never heard of the silent majority ?  It's the English way

And does this silent majority affect the outcome of the country for the good or the bad? Its ineffective just to remain silent and not vote

when a party they dont like wins power and hammers folk with cuts and taxes do they think its a good idea not to vote then or do they remain silent or go on a nationwide riot using a shot drug dealer as the spark for it?

Yes, the silent majority does affect the outcome of any election, obviously. Whether it's for the good or bad of the Country is debateable.

As for your second point, you're wandering................wildly.

I'm out, I really don't want to get involved in political or religious debates on the internet, it usually gets messy.

It must be time to do something about the voting system.  FPTP only works for a two-party state, not what we've got now.

Maybe the House of Lords should adopt a proportional representation system? Let's say it has a maximum of 200 representatives, but that it's dependent on the turnout.  So if there's a 66% turnout, we only get 132 representatives.  And those representatives would allocated on the basis of the popular vote.  I can't stand UKIP, but they look like getting at least 15% in May, so they deserve more than a handful of seats in the Commons. In this version, they'd get 20 representatives. If Labour got 34% of the popular vote, they would have 45 seats (if my maths is right). The Greens would probably end up with about 16. I'd guess we'd need a threshold of 5% to keep out the lunatics of the BNP etc.

Hell, it can't be any worse than what we've got at the moment.

The silent majority....keep their cards close to their chests.....generally voting for the status quo on the day......and sodding up all those pollster charts and graphs.

Cornish Chris wrote:

It must be time to do something about the voting system.  FPTP only works for a two-party state, not what we've got now.

Maybe the House of Lords should adopt a proportional representation system? Let's say it has a maximum of 200 representatives, but that it's dependent on the turnout.  So if there's a 66% turnout, we only get 132 representatives.  And those representatives would allocated on the basis of the popular vote.  I can't stand UKIP, but they look like getting at least 15% in May, so they deserve more than a handful of seats in the Commons. In this version, they'd get 20 representatives. If Labour got 34% of the popular vote, they would have 45 seats (if my maths is right). The Greens would probably end up with about 16. I'd guess we'd need a threshold of 5% to keep out the lunatics of the BNP etc.

Hell, it can't be any worse than what we've got at the moment.

We had a vote on the alternative voting system not too long ago remember, we decided we just adored the current system.

AstiSpumante wrote:

Angry wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Have you never heard of the silent majority ?  It's the English way

And does this silent majority affect the outcome of the country for the good or the bad? Its ineffective just to remain silent and not vote

when a party they dont like wins power and hammers folk with cuts and taxes do they think its a good idea not to vote then or do they remain silent or go on a nationwide riot using a shot drug dealer as the spark for it?

Yes, the silent majority does affect the outcome of any election, obviously. Whether it's for the good or bad of the Country is debateable.

As for your second point, you're wandering................wildly.

I'm out, I really don't want to get involved in political or religious debates on the internet, it usually gets messy.

They change and achieve nothing by not voting and anyone thinking they do is deluded

Angry wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Angry wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Have you never heard of the silent majority ?  It's the English way

And does this silent majority affect the outcome of the country for the good or the bad? Its ineffective just to remain silent and not vote

when a party they dont like wins power and hammers folk with cuts and taxes do they think its a good idea not to vote then or do they remain silent or go on a nationwide riot using a shot drug dealer as the spark for it?

Yes, the silent majority does affect the outcome of any election, obviously. Whether it's for the good or bad of the Country is debateable.

As for your second point, you're wandering................wildly.

I'm out, I really don't want to get involved in political or religious debates on the internet, it usually gets messy.

They change and achieve  nothing by not voting and anyone thinking they do is deluded

In your ever so humble opinion.

- 10.7m Tories
- 8.6m Labour
- 6.8m LibDems
- 15.9m NON VOTERS

Those are the numbers from the last election (didnt include the other parties voted for on the tweet i nicked this off but the totals are correct regardless i checked)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] really making a difference for the better lol

And what difference did the voters make?

Angry wrote:

- 10.7m Tories
- 8.6m Labour
- 6.8m LibDems
- 15.9m NON VOTERS

Those are the numbers from the last election (didnt include the other parties voted for on the tweet i nicked this off but the totals are correct regardless i checked)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  really making a difference for the better lol

Labour - 258 seats.
Lib Dems - 57 seats.

Don't get me wrong I don't want full on proportional representation, but how the hell is that democratic?

spowell92 wrote:

And what difference did the voters make?

more than the non voters as there voices got heard.


oh btw mod elections coming soon same rules apply everyone vote for whoever stands or forever hold your peace

Angry wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

And what difference did the voters make?

more than the non voters as there voices got heard.

Please elaborate and enlighten me Angry.