Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #5 - Leaders Debate Two

[TheDon]

P.S. I am working during the elections as a poll clerk and the rumour is that this will be the last "First Past the Post" General Election.

That beats hands down any 'in the know' posts in transfer threads either past or in the future.

Eh?

Its from a pretty good source, our election briefing session.

It's also in just about every parties manifesto. Political reform is one of the hot topics.

[TheDon]

Indeed, in the unlikely event that he outlives Maggie, I think that he will be applying to join Bickster's celebrations.

I've been thinking about this, and I think Liverpool might just implode when Maggie does die. "Omg, someone's dead, gotta mourn!" "Omg, Maggie's dead, gotta celebrate!" which one will win out, the scousers innate need to mourn the death of everything, or their hatred of Thatcher?

[thetrees]

P.S. I am working during the elections as a poll clerk and the rumour is that this will be the last "First Past the Post" General Election.

That beats hands down any 'in the know' posts in transfer threads either past or in the future.

Eh?

Its from a pretty good source, our election briefing session.

Perhaps wishful thinking on the part of the person writing or giving the brief?

Sorry to shatter the illusion, but the still favourites to win are the Tories, who would not move to a PR system.

The other 'big club', Labour, may well make noises about electoral reform, in case the result is narrow and the need is there to cuddle up to their Liberal friends, but the reality is that Labour don't want PR either.

In the event of coalition, which would inevitably be another Lib-Lab pact, Labour would string it out and, if necessary, go to an October election rather than concede PR.

Ain't gonna happen.

[PauloBarnesi]

They say its Elvis, but I am sure its Shaky

What is it with politicians and trying to be cool with musos; first it was Gary Barlow, now its a second rate Elvis impersonator. At least Nick Clegg might bring out his former fag and Shane McGowan!

[TheDon]

Cameron doesn't know how politics works in this country:

Meanwhile, in his campaign speech, David Cameron said the Tories would not allow an unelected prime minister to hold office for longer than six months.

Mr Cameron said three of the last five prime ministers, including Mr Brown, have been unelected, but that Tory John Major won his own mandate after taking up the position.

[snowychap]

Sorry to shatter the illusion, but the still favourites to win are the Tories

What are you classing as a 'win'?

Most seats?

If it isn't an absolute majority then it is quite possible that it wouldn't turn out to be a 'win'.

[thetrees]

Cameron doesn't know how politics works in this country:

Meanwhile, in his campaign speech, David Cameron said the Tories would not allow an unelected prime minister to hold office for longer than six months.

Mr Cameron said three of the last five prime ministers, including Mr Brown, have been unelected, but that Tory John Major won his own mandate after taking up the position.

What doesn't he know?

Yes, you vote for your MP, but the Sky/Internet generation clamour for televised debates has ensured that we are now voting for a Prime Minister-how else would the Liberals gain so much support?

In particular there does appear to have been a deal between the attractive, ever so cuddly and electable Tony Blair, and the grumpy, dour completely unelectable Gordon Brown, where the former would win the election for the party and then pass the torch across to the latter.

Cameron is addressing the situation with a modernist proposal, in turn dispelling the 'dinosaur' accusations that are thrown at the Tory party.

[thetrees]

Sorry to shatter the illusion, but the still favourites to win are the Tories

What are you classing as a 'win'?

Most seats?

If it isn't an absolute majority then it is quite possible that it wouldn't turn out to be a 'win'.

In the electoral system that applies to this general election, an overall majority.

[snowychap]

Sorry to shatter the illusion, but the still favourites to win are the Tories

What are you classing as a 'win'?

Most seats?

If it isn't an absolute majority then it is quite possible that it wouldn't turn out to be a 'win'.

In the electoral system that applies to this general election, an overall majority.

That's why I was questioning your 'favourites to win' tag.

In my view, they may well be favourites to acquire the most seats but that does depend on the happenings in marginals and that is where polls really fall down as they can't convey the local nature of opinion (perhaps that goes the other way and actually in all marginals everyone is turning out to vote Tory - what a horrid thought :winkold:).

When factoring in a hung parliament (or this euphemistic 'balanced' parliament thing), I really can't put them as favourites. More likely than the others, perhaps, but not favourites.

[thetrees]

When factoring in a hung parliament (or this euphemistic 'balanced' parliament thing), I really can't put them as favourites. More likely than the others, perhaps, but not favourites.

Snowy, are you in denial? :winkold:

Joking apart, 'more likely' will suffice for the message that I was trying to bring.

[snowychap]

When factoring in a hung parliament (or this euphemistic 'balanced' parliament thing), I really can't put them as favourites. More likely than the others, perhaps, but not favourites.

Snowy, are you in denial? :winkold:

Joking apart, 'more likely' will suffice for the message that I was trying to bring.

In denial? No.

Also joking apart (and not being argumentative - just explaining more what I meant), it was important that I said more likely than the others.

If one ignores the minor runners and one views it as a three horse race then I'd put money on there being 'no finishers'.

[Gringo]

When factoring in a hung parliament (or this euphemistic 'balanced' parliament thing), I really can't put them as favourites. More likely than the others, perhaps, but not favourites.

Snowy, are you in denial? :winkold:

Joking apart, 'more likely' will suffice for the message that I was trying to bring.

In denial? No.

Also joking apart (and not being argumentative - just explaining more what I meant), it was important that I said more likely than the others.

If one ignores the minor runners and one views it as a three horse race then I'd put money on there being 'no finishers'.

Tory Majority 7/4 (36% implied probability)

lab majority 21/1 (5%)

lib majority 54/1 (2%)

So the tories are favourites in a race they are unlikely to win

No overall majority 8/11 (57%)

@thetrees - have you stopped denying you are a tory supporter - you always seemed to reject any such accusations.

[thetrees]

@thetrees - have you stopped denying you are a tory supporter - you always seemed to reject any such accusations.

Not stopped denying, no.

I like plain speaking*, as opposed to political correctness, so I suppose that puts me more in Tory/UKIP territory, but I am not decided as to my voting intentions.

In a non-Tory view I quite favour PR, as it would give UKIP, BNP, Greens etc a voice in parliament, which would inevitably spring up further parties (Muslim Party?) that would also gain a voice.**

We could have true gloves off politics for the first time ever, and probably an end to political correctness.

*plain speaking on the understanding that it is not outright offensive speaking.

**Edit: in a 'Russian roulette' kind of way

[thetrees]

explain the stance on intolerance such as the comments re Homosexual couples that came from Grayling,

Pink News

In the secret recording published by The Observer, Mr Grayling told the audience at the Centre for Policy Studies: "I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences," he said. "I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home."

Is Grayling intolerant, or merely trying to look at it from the point of view of all people involved? I am all for equality, but equality with the exclusion of others defeats the object somewhat. Once again an example of plain speaking that gets blown out of all proportion by the politically correct.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

PR could also lead to an ideal scenario (in my opinion) of giving more independent candidates a voice, instead of having politics divided by old tribal lines, which is only a detriment to everyone involved.

Eventually a government consisted of a collection of independents who have the best interests of their communities at heart, finding common ground rather than obeying old customs, would be the best for everyone.

[Chindie]

Graylings a complete clearing in the woods on that front alone. He's just fundamentally wrong.

If you become a business this country doesn't allow you to discriminate against certain people. If you have a problem with gay people, don't start a B&B. Simple.

He's being intolerant. Plain and simple. If your views are in the dark ages thats your problem.

[TheDon]

explain the stance on intolerance such as the comments re Homosexual couples that came from Grayling,

Pink News

In the secret recording published by The Observer, Mr Grayling told the audience at the Centre for Policy Studies: "I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences," he said. "I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home."

Is Grayling intolerant, or merely trying to look at it from the point of view of all people involved? I am all for equality, but equality with the exclusion of others defeats the object somewhat. Once again an example of plain speaking that gets blown out of all proportion by the politically correct.

What, so if I was racist I could start a B&B and refuse all non-white customers? You don't want to exclude the racists after all.

I'm sorry but that their homophobia is religiously derived doesn't make it ok and doesn't mean that they suddenly gain the right to discriminate based upon it.

It's not "plain speaking" it's fundamentally wrong.

[thetrees]

Graylings a complete clearing in the woods on that front alone. He's just fundamentally wrong.

If you become a business this country doesn't allow you to discriminate against certain people. If you have a problem with gay people, don't start a B&B. Simple.

He's being intolerant. Plain and simple. If your views are in the dark ages thats your problem.

I really don't have a problem, but thanks for the concern

So discussion is intolerant? There are no people more intolerant than those who are not prepared to consider all views.

The law was ill thought out and may be flawed, as are most of the PC laws passed under the stewardship of this government

Don't start a B&B after 2007 I presume?

[thetrees]

I'm sorry but that their homophobia is religiously derived doesn't make it ok and doesn't mean that they suddenly gain the right to discriminate based upon it.

Who said they were homophobic? Just because they don't want to facilitate homosexual activity in their own home doesn't make them homophobic.

I, like I suspect many people, have no problem with homosexuals, but would feel the same way as them were I a B&B operator.

And I assume from your message that people with religious views have no rights?

[Chindie]

Graylings a complete clearing in the woods on that front alone. He's just fundamentally wrong.

If you become a business this country doesn't allow you to discriminate against certain people. If you have a problem with gay people, don't start a B&B. Simple.

He's being intolerant. Plain and simple. If your views are in the dark ages thats your problem.

I really don't have a problem, but thanks for the concern

So discussion is intolerant? There are no people more intolerant than those who are not prepared to consider all views.

The law was ill thought out and may be flawed, as are most of the PC laws passed under the stewardship of this government

Don't start a B&B after 2007 I presume?

It's quite clear the 'your' I say there isn't specfically you.

No, discussion isn't intolerant. What is intolerant is suggesting that it's right that some people should be denied the same rights as everyone else because of the beliefs, which are downright backwards and loon like, of someone else. As theDon says above, this is rather like suggesting other races should be treated differently because they clash with the business owners beliefs.

What's your problem with political correctness? Is institutionalised politeness really that bad? It can be a bit heavy handed at times, even I would admit that, but it's no bad thing whatsoever at heart.

I'd say if you had a problem with certain people, even 20 or 30 years ago, don't start a B&B at all. All this law has done has legislate something that should have been law years ago. It isn't right to discriminate against people. That isn't PC, or 'plain speaking', or anything, it's just right.