Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[LJRM050389]

Anyone seen the Boulton Campbell interview?

Yes, all of us probably (see the debate about ten pages back, where Torys think Boulton won and everyone else thinks the opposite)

Only just got in, sorry! According to Twitter he's done it again later with Bradshaw?

Sky News going to have some explaining to do at the end of all of this from Ofcom hopefully

[Ads]

...

as no doubt you've been told before ..you are a tad premature snowy...

I quite liked that one.

Don’t worry Snowy, its happened to us all at some point.

*Looking very confused*

WTF?

**** me, I know it's a football forum but I don't know how we can go from Tony not reading and understanding my post to me sneezing before the pollen count gets high in just a couple of posts.

Unless there was some Tintin reference and we've all got our knickers around Peter's twist.

Look, its ok, you’re amongst friends. You can talk to us about it.

(BTW, "sneezing before the pollen count", hahahahahaha! I'm having that!)

[peterms]

Anyone seen the Boulton Campbell interview?

Yes indeed, very funny.

What a complete arse Boulton makes of himself. Armwaving, spluttering, apoplectic, incoherent shite.

I don't like Campbell, but I thought he played Boulton like an angler reeling in a prime fat fish.

No contest.

[snowychap]

You shouldn’t mock my affliction. I had it so bad a few years ago that I was hospitalised. It was touch and go at one point.

Oops. Sorry, giving you the clap might be seen as rather inappropriate under the circumstances.

[Ads]

You shouldn’t mock my affliction. I had it so bad a few years ago that I was hospitalised. It was touch and go at one point.

Oops. Sorry, giving you the clap might be seen as rather inappropriate under the circumstances.

I think I’d have cried if nobody had have spotted that one!

[snowychap]

Look, its ok, you’re amongst friends. You can talk to us about it.

I've posted enough like a complete word removed in the last week to doubt that (or at least to be surprised if that were so). :oops:

(BTW, "sneezing before the pollen count", hahahahahaha! I'm having that!)

Kewl. Genuinely, off the cuff.

[tonyh29]

I think I’d have cried if nobody had have spotted that one!

i didn't spot it , i saw snowys name elsewhere on the page and stopped reading :-)

[Ads]

A new addition to Godwins law.

“Talk enough about politics on the internet and the probability of the discussion descending into premature ejaculation jokes becomes 1”.

Anyway, back on topic.

How long do you all reckon the Lib Dems can keep playing both sides before opinion goes against them?

[tonyh29]

(see the debate about ten pages back, where Torys think Boulton won and everyone else thinks the opposite)

could have sworn I said they were both dicks :confused:

[tonyh29]

How long do you all reckon the Lib Dems can keep playing both sides before opinion goes against them?

well tbh in Tonytopia opinion was always against them :-)

[leviramsey]

I honestly think that if Clegg does jump into bed with Cameron the Lib Dem's will implode in a most spectacular manner

Likewise, if Clegg goes into coalition with Labour, he may lose a lot, if not a majority of his MPs... most Lib Dem seats break down as roughly 45% Lib Dem, 40% Tory, 3-5% Labour... more than a few went Lib Dem/Tory/UKIP/Labour. Most Lib Dem MPs (especially in the South West) represent constituencies that seem to prefer the Tories to Labour if that's what the choice comes down to, and joining Labour would motivate enough Tory/UKIP voters to come out that future employment prospects for those Lib Dem MPs would be questionable.

The Lib Dems are barely a party; they're still at heart a [largely rural] Liberal and [largely urban] Social Democrat coalition. Up till now, that hasn't caused a huge problem because they haven't done much nationally and if one happens to be Labour- or Tory-leaning, well, you can find enough to agree with (or think the Lib Dem does a better job of doing the "constituent services") that you're not that arsed to get rid of them. Whatever way the Lib Dems go, the Labour- or Tory-leaners in their constituencies who have heretofore been copacetic with having a Lib Dem in probably won't be in the next election.

This is probably the biggest single reason that the Lib Dems have emphasized electoral reform: it was always unlikely they'd get power except in some sort of external coalition that would mean the death of the internal coalition.

[peterms]

A new addition to Godwins law.

“Talk enough about politics on the internet and the probability of the discussion descending into premature ejaculation jokes becomes 1”.

Anyway, back on topic.

How long do you all reckon the Lib Dems can keep playing both sides before opinion goes against them?

Not very long, in my view.

There is a strong current of thought that they are trying to exert undue influence (a bit odd, given the vote) which coupled with deference towards the ruling parties will squeeze them.

They are also inexperienced. Will they sink back into the safety of oppositional politics, or will they step up to be shot at? Who knows. If they refuse to step up, having a chance to do so, that could act against them.

Not much sleep in Lib HQ tonight.

[snowychap]

How long do you all reckon the Lib Dems can keep playing both sides before opinion goes against them?

Do you mean public opinion?

If so then I'm not sure it really matters much (I'd guess that public opinion was mostly against them anyway with the media stuff about hung parliaments, kingmakers, &c.).

I think the most important thing for the Lib Dems (and for the decision they make) is the opinion of activists and party members.

I know that party members have largely been ignored in this stuff about the 'triple lock' but if the parliamentary party takes a decision that the Lib Dem membership is unhappy with then I am not sure there will be a Lib Dem party by the end of the year. They are less likely to forgive (another) undemocratic decision by their leadership.

[leviramsey]

What's better, red-blue swings every 5 or 10 years, ripping up what the predecessor created and planting bombs for their succesor, or a consistency of comrpomise creating progress.

Red/blue swings every 2-8 years (depending on the offices under consideration) with substantial limits on how much either can do FTW.

[Ads]

Just caught the tail end of something on the Beeb. It looks like a Lib/Lab pact + rainbow coalition from what I heard.

[leviramsey]

Even if you vote for a party you most likely do not agree with 100% of their policy, there would be room for compromise on a number of issues to smaller parties who want it more.

The UK has been ruled by coalitions for a very long time... the Tories aren't monolithic, Labour isn't monolithic, the Lib Dems surely aren't, etc.: there are a vanishingly small number of voters for those parties who agree 100% with the relevant manifesto. Even Tony found that some Labour and some Lib Dem policies matched up better with his views than the Tory policy (I don't recall drat or Richard or Ricardo or Awol posting their test results, but I would actually be shocked if any of them agreed 100% with the party they support... indeed the fact that I don't recall any of them posting one way or the other is perhaps indicative that they know they don't agree 100%!). There are factions in all parties that decide to keep party harmony by compromising: it's not that different really from the process of forming coalition governments. The difference is that Tories/Labour/Lib Dems/etc. build their coalition before the election and give the public a chance to judge the coalition.

So perhaps as part of electoral reform which is likely to increase the chance of there being coalition government, perhaps a further reform requiring any multi-party government to go to a referendum say two months after forming the government to decide if that coalition is acceptable to the people is needed. "Yes or no: is this coalition acceptable to you?" It neatly sidesteps the "Vote Clegg, Get Cameron/Brown" issue.

[snowychap]

The difference is that Tories/Labour/Lib Dems/etc. build their coalition before the election and give the public a chance to judge the coalition.

Except they don't. Manifestos are invitations to treat nothing more.

[tonyh29]

and be allowed to look after a select few whilst the rest of us pay for it.

Do you mean like raising inheritance tax thresholds

a threshold that Brown proudly boasted on PMQ's that labour had raised 10 times since being in office

oops ..

[leviramsey]

Is there any possibility that we could see Lab/Lib get to 318 seats then the Conservatives make alliances with the odds and sods to gain a majority regardless?

It'd be tough...

Tories offer referenda on Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish independence to get SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, and Alliance on board makes 319. Then Lab/Lib has to court the DUP (I don't think the Tories can credibly take on the DUP if they offer Scotland a referendum (thus selling out Scottish unionists)); the referendum might just get Sinn Fein to stop abstaining for long enough to make it 324 and then it's just a matter of picking off a Lib Dem from a right-leaning constituency. If all goes according to plan, the UK becomes just England and the Tories have a decisive advantage in the Commons for a long time to come.

Iain Murray of National Review thinks this option has legs

[leviramsey]

delete