General Election Countdown who is going to win

spowell92 wrote:

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.

nope

Angry wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

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.

nope

Anyone else watching ask milliband on bbc3? he isnt doing well and these are kids asking the questions lol

Nope.

I watched it, thought he came across ok but very bland and absolutely crumbled when his brother was mentioned even though it was only brief.

If they go into coalition with the SNP, then surely that's the end of them in England?

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.

proportional representation got ed voted in, instead of his brother.

spowell92 wrote:

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.

The 'alternative voting system' that was offered in that vote was a crock of sh*te though, more complicated than FPTP while not solving it's fundamental problems. The vote was another failure for the fib dems, instead of getting PR as an option they caved in and we had a vote without a PR option. The consequence is that voting reform is now off the political agenda because the major parties can just say that we had a vote on it recently so we don't need to discuss it again!

True PR is the way to go, takes out tactical voting and makes every vote count equal. With FPTP most votes count for nothing unless you live in a marginal seat.

That was painful watching a pissed charles kennedy on question time.

Elias wrote:

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.

proportional representation got ed voted in, instead of his brother.

No it didn't, they use a version of AV.

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

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.

The 'alternative voting system' that was offered in that vote was a crock of sh*te though, more complicated than FPTP while not solving it's fundamental problems. The vote was another failure for the fib dems, instead of getting PR as an option they caved in and we had a vote without a PR option. The consequence is that voting reform is now off the political agenda because the major parties can just say that we had a vote on it recently so we don't need to discuss it again!

True PR is the way to go, takes out tactical voting and makes every vote count equal. With FPTP most votes count for nothing unless you live in a marginal seat.

It's all a bit of a crock of shite really though. They're never going to offer us a genuine alternative voting system if there's risk that it'll shake their comfortable bubble. Democracy at its finest

whats difficult with putting a cross in a box against one name??

Angry wrote:

whats difficult with putting a cross in a box against one name??

I know a lot of people that would struggle with that.

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

I do like a political cartoon.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

George Osborne and Ed Balls refuse to rule out deals with UKIP and SNP

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I hope these two really do have a debate on tv, it will be a laugh.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

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

I do like a political cartoon.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Puts the point very well.

And the money spent building the factory and creating the business, and the equipment and raw materials used in running said factory, and the workforce employed and paying taxes back into the pot to pay towards education, police and fire services, and the general ongoing running costs, the most heavily taxed fuel on the planet to get the product to market etc, etc. It works both ways you stupid old bint.

Les Miserable wrote:

And the money spent building the factory and creating the business, and the equipment and raw materials used in running said factory, and the workforce employed and paying taxes back into the pot to pay towards education, police and fire services, and the general ongoing running costs, the most heavily taxed fuel on the planet to get the product to market etc, etc.   It works both ways you stupid old bint.

Missed the point again Les? Most of those costs listed would be tax deductable as is the VAT, then the owner of said factory doesn't pay any income tax or tax on profits...
I give up, we will never get a fairer tax system whilst people justify the system we have in place. The massive shift in wealth to the top cannot be denied, just ignored.

Grant Shapps.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

(nicked off Twitter)

Iggy wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

And the money spent building the factory and creating the business, and the equipment and raw materials used in running said factory, and the workforce employed and paying taxes back into the pot to pay towards education, police and fire services, and the general ongoing running costs, the most heavily taxed fuel on the planet to get the product to market etc, etc.   It works both ways you stupid old bint.

Missed the point again Les? Most of those costs listed would be tax deductable as is the VAT, then the owner of said factory doesn't pay any income tax or tax on profits...
I give up, we will never get a fairer tax system whilst people justify the system we have in place. The massive shift in wealth to the top cannot be denied, just ignored.

Missed the point again Iggy? Those costs listed might well be tax deductable to the factory owner but they are still helping to keep other businesses in the supply chain alive, it's how a thriving economy works

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder(of sack of spuds like proportions) about anyone who bothers to get up off their arse and invest money and effort into setting up a business that has no guarantee of success, then reaping their just rewards if they're successful. I'm sure in some cases more taxes could be paid but not always, there is a fine line between shit or bust. Would you prefer the nasty factory owner never bothered and left any potential workforce wallowing around in the jobcentre