Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #6 - Leaders Debate 3

[markavfc40]

David Cameron never answers the question. Why?

Can only assume that he knows the vast majority of us won't like the answers. Unless the tory spin boys want to give us another reason.

[tonyh29]

What does that say about David Cameron and the Conservative party?

you only need to see the anti Cameron feeling here on this web site to see the answer to that ...

as you say despite all the problems you highlighted there are still a fair old few that have said they will vote labour

old allegiances die hard , it doesn't appear we are going to get the tactical voting of 97 to remove an unpopular government ..

[Gringo]

BTW Gringo , is it a coincidence that Labour and the BNP pretty much share the same colour on your chart ?

We'll put that down to microsoft's fascist tendancies.

[tonyh29]

David Cameron never answers the question. Why?

Can only assume that he knows the vast majority of us won't like the answers. Unless the tory spin boys want to give us another reason.

nah we will leave it to the labour spin boys to make one up instead

[picicata]

David Cameron never answers the question. Why?

Because he knows we are not going to like his answers.

In all honesty, he simply has to avoid doing anything stupid for the next week and he should be PM. I know for a fact that his constituency house in Oxfordshire is currently being fitted out with all the security gubbins that goes along with being PM so he must be confident.

[avfc89]

David Cameron never answers the question. Why?

Can only assume that he knows the vast majority of us won't like the answers. Unless the tory spin boys want to give us another reason.

True, I am going to vote Labour, I was upset yesterday but he seems to have a solid plan to combat today's main issues.

[Gringo]

What does that say about David Cameron and the Conservative party?

you only need to see the anti Cameron feeling here on this web site to see the answer to that ...

as you say despite all the problems you highlighted there are still a fair old few that have said they will vote labour

old allegiances die hard , it doesn't appear we are going to get the tactical voting of 97 to remove an unpopular government ..

Nothing tactical about 1997 - blair won the hearts. Something no leader has done for a long long time.

[snowychap]

touch of irony that after attacking the Tories on their numbers for a cap , he couldn't then put a figure on how many immigrations there were for their Conditional approval

No irony there at all.

The Tories have a policy of introducing a cap which would have to be an exact figure which they are unwilling to give, it appears.

Cable was asked to say how many people were illegally in this country (and, indirectly, how many of them had been resident for 10 years or more). As no one actually knows then it's a pretty silly question.

[markavfc40]

it doesn't appear we are going to get the tactical voting of 97 to remove an unpopular government ..

No tactical voting in 97. At that time we had an opposing party that was head and shoulders above the one in government. It was a no brainer.

[tonyh29]

Nothing tactical about 1997

I thought it was acknowledged that in 1997 deliberate switching by anti-Tory voters from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, or vice versa, succeeded in grabbing seats the Conservatives had only held thanks to a divided opposition..for example Patton and that bloke with the teeth that shagged in his Chelsea top whose name i can't recall (Mellor ?)

interestingly when i tried to find some examples to back me up i came across this little statics...

2001 and 1992 both have a noticeable tactical swing from Liberal Democrat supporters towards Labour but all years show a tactical swing from Labour supporters in weak Labour seats to the Liberals.

[Gringo]

Nothing tactical about 1997

I thought it was acknowledged that in 1997 deliberate switching by anti-Tory voters from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, or vice versa, succeeded in grabbing seats the Conservatives had only held thanks to a divided opposition..for example Patton and that bloke with the teeth that shagged in his Chelsea top whose name i can't recall (Mellor ?)

interestingly when i tried to find some examples to back me up i came across this little statics...

2001 and 1992 both have a noticeable tactical swing from Liberal Democrat supporters towards Labour but all years show a tactical swing from Labour supporters in weak Labour seats to the Liberals.

But...

2001 and 1992 both have a noticeable tactical swing from Liberal Democrat supporters towards Labour but all years show a tactical swing from Labour supporters in weak Labour seats to the Liberals.

that contradicts what you say about 1997!

There was no need for tactical voting in 97, for two years it was obviuous the next PM was going to be bliar. It's just a shame for the tories that bliar-lite has failed to connect in the same way with the electorate.

[edit]and feel free to add links to your google finds so they can be vigorously challenged[/edit]

[rjw63]

Won't matter who gets in, we'll still get bent over a table and arse ****

[Gringo]

Won't matter who gets in, we'll still get bent over a table and arse ****

Enough about your friday night antics and back to the bollitics please.

[tonyh29]

that contradicts what you say about 1997!

why does it contradict , it just says that 92 and 2001 also had tactical voting

but tell me what is it called when the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties decided not to field candidates in order that an Independent candidate, Martin Bell, can have a better chance of winning the seat

and what is it when a seat that was won with a majority of 2 votes goes to a second vote and is then won by the lib dem candidate where the labour candidates vote drops from 6500 to just 900

Chris Patten was 92 just realised ..but no doubt you'll say that wasn't tactical as well :shock:

[rjw63]

Won't matter who gets in, we'll still get bent over a table and arse ****

Enough about your friday night antics and back to the bollitics please.

:-)

Even my 14 year old son said "none of them have mentioned the price of petrol"

Bunch of cuuuunts they are

[Gringo]

that contradicts what you say about 1997!

why does it contradict , it just says that 92 and 2001 also had tactical voting

but tell me what is it called when the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties decided not to field candidates in order that an Independent candidate, Martin Bell, can have a better chance of winning the seat

and what is it when a seat that was won with a majority of 2 votes goes to a second vote and is then won by the lib dem candidate where the labour candidates vote drops from 6500 to just 900

Chris Patten was 92 just realised ..but no doubt you'll say that wasn't tactical as well :shock:

[edit]and feel free to add links to your google finds so they can be vigorously challenged[/edit]

If you think tactical voting had anything to do with labour victories in 1997 and 2001 you are cuckoo. A vigorously disliked govt was thrown out in 1997 - all bliar had to do was keep a straight smile and the game was his.

I really doubt Bell's seat was the monumental factor in that election. It was just symbolic that event a bloke in a white suit could win against the incumbent corrupt MP.

The fact that bliar-lite has so badly failed to emulate his role model shows how much the public at large have turned against the tories.

[tonyh29]

If you think tactical voting had anything to do with labour victories in 1997 and 2001 you are cuckoo.

and if you think tactical voting didn't take place then you are more deluded than your posts appear to make you

Now , are you finished with the insult trading ..or shall we carry on ?

[Gringo]

If you think tactical voting had anything to do with labour victories in 1997 and 2001 you are cuckoo.

and if you think tactical voting didn't take place then you are more deluded than your posts appear to make you

\Now , are you finished with the insult trading ..or shall we carry on ?

Show any evidence that 1997 was a result of tactical voting. I don't think the above constituted an insult. Because if you really think a 100+ landslide results from tactical voting then really...go on really....any semblance in reality will help.

Why not start by

[edit]and feel free to add links to your google finds so they can be vigorously challenged[/edit]

and we can discuss the articles you seem to be basing your posts upon.

[Gringo]

If you think tactical voting had anything to do with labour victories in 1997 and 2001 you are cuckoo.

and if you think tactical voting didn't take place then you are more deluded than your posts appear to make you

Now , are you finished with the insult trading ..or shall we carry on ?

Or to live in your world for a while, maybe it just proves that 65% of people don't ever want a tory govt and are willing to vote for a lesser evil to ensure such an outcome.

But that's not tactical voting, that's voting for the team you want to win. As well as voting to ensure the team you want to lose, does.

[chrisp65]

Given the option on May 7th, how do we think public sector workers would respond to the following question.....

hey, civil servant and local government chaps, lots of people in the private sector have taken a paycut. Well, here's your choice, cut the wage bill by cutting staff by 15% OR.... by cutting pay by an average of 15%, go and have a vote on it and get back to me on June 5th with your choice.

perhaps not worded in that fashion, I was surprised in my office when that question dished out to 30 staff came back with a unanimous vote for keeping everyone and accepting less money. I was warmed by the lack of people thinking they'd personally be safe and thus voting for redundancies.