Chris Huhne... going soon?
Discussion
thinfourth2 said:
The real Apache said:
Zod said:
The real Apache said:
Tried that, and got shouted down by the "any vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour" brigade...people won't step out of their comfort zone I'm afraid
Explain how a vote for UKIP does not help Labour then?In any marginal seat the Tories have a chance of winning, a vote for UKIP helps the other party, whether Labour or (likely to be rare in the future) LibDem.
You must vote for this party as they are less s
t then the other partyNo thanks
I'd rather vote for who i belive in and the UK would be alot better off if everyone did that
t party, because UKIP is never, ever going to be in power. You are clearly content to live with a Labour government so that you can exercise your protest vote for a bunch of buffoons and it is your right to do so. I would prefer to have the least worst party in government. powerstroke said:
Who realy cares if labour get in ?? maybe we need a total wreck for anything to change.. the more UKIP votes the more the torys will hopfully realise that we want torys not bliar clones like cameron justas we needed a right wing goverment they were looking back and trying to win the 97 election instead
You think a right wing Tory party would have won in 1997? You think a right wing Tory party would win today? Elections are decided by approximately 1 million swing voters who will not vote for a party perceived to be far from the centre. They are not decided by people like you.Zod said:
thinfourth2 said:
The real Apache said:
Zod said:
The real Apache said:
Tried that, and got shouted down by the "any vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour" brigade...people won't step out of their comfort zone I'm afraid
Explain how a vote for UKIP does not help Labour then?In any marginal seat the Tories have a chance of winning, a vote for UKIP helps the other party, whether Labour or (likely to be rare in the future) LibDem.
You must vote for this party as they are less s
t then the other partyNo thanks
I'd rather vote for who i belive in and the UK would be alot better off if everyone did that
t party, because UKIP is never, ever going to be in power. You are clearly content to live with a Labour government so that you can exercise your protest vote for a bunch of buffoons and it is your right to do so. I would prefer to have the least worst party in government. Can you not see from the posts on here how this has harmed politics? people have given up because there is no choice left whatsoever and why are you so aggressive towards anyone who doesn't agree with you anyway?
Zod said:
Well, without even getting into the question of what a UKIP government would do, you are clearly prepared to put up with government by the more st party, because UKIP is never, ever going to be in power. You are clearly content to live with a Labour government so that you can exercise your protest vote for a bunch of buffoons and it is your right to do so. I would prefer to have the least worst party in government.
I am as happy to have a labour government as i am to have a tory govenmentt party, because UKIP is never, ever going to be in power. You are clearly content to live with a Labour government so that you can exercise your protest vote for a bunch of buffoons and it is your right to do so. I would prefer to have the least worst party in government. they are both s
tI refuse to vote for a party i despise
You have no idea how glad i am to have not voted for the current lot
Zod said:
Elections are decided by approximately 1 million swing voters who will not vote for a party perceived to be far from the centre. They are not decided by people like you.
yep a few hundred thousand decide who is in power as they are sick of getting kick in the balls and would far rather have 5 years of being punched in the faceThe real Apache said:
They won't get in because people like you can't see the bigger picture yet insist on brow beating anyone who does, pretty soon we will be down to a 2 party system, is that any choice at all? especially now that left and right have lost all meaning?
Can you not see from the posts on here how this has harmed politics? people have given up because there is no choice left whatsoever and why are you so aggressive towards anyone who doesn't agree with you anyway?
How am I agressive? Can you not see from the posts on here how this has harmed politics? people have given up because there is no choice left whatsoever and why are you so aggressive towards anyone who doesn't agree with you anyway?
We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
Zod said:
How am I agressive?
We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
The bunch we have now, have no talent and don't know how to govern. The whole reason why we have a coalition is because the Tories have forgotten what a Tory is supposed to be. They weren't and aren't Tory enough to win a majority.We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
AshVX220 said:
Zod said:
How am I agressive?
We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
The bunch we have now, have no talent and don't know how to govern. The whole reason why we have a coalition is because the Tories have forgotten what a Tory is supposed to be. They weren't and aren't Tory enough to win a majority.We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
Zod said:
Wrong. A right wing Tory party would have won far fewer seats. Most of those who want a right wing Tory party are either in safe Tory seats or safe Labour seats.
Evidence? How do you know that? It was a right wing Tory party that survived for so long before Blair pitched up.I think the public and the country needed a proper swing back to the right, and without a definite right wing Tory party to vote for, the votes were split among the other party's hence our current situation. Don't mistake right wing, with far right extremists like the BNP (that no one with half a brain could want).
Zod said:
How am I agressive?
We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
No we have a one party system.We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
just half of the party wears one tie colour while the other half wears a different tie colour
AshVX220 said:
Zod said:
Wrong. A right wing Tory party would have won far fewer seats. Most of those who want a right wing Tory party are either in safe Tory seats or safe Labour seats.
Evidence? How do you know that? It was a right wing Tory party that survived for so long before Blair pitched up.I think the public and the country needed a proper swing back to the right, and without a definite right wing Tory party to vote for, the votes were split among the other party's hence our current situation. Don't mistake right wing, with far right extremists like the BNP (that no one with half a brain could want).
thinfourth2 said:
Zod said:
How am I agressive?
We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
No we have a one party system.We have always had a two party system in any case. If a worthwhile new party were to arise, that would be a very good thing. A party of buffoons that exists to embody hatred of the EU but has no idea how it would govern and even less talent is a bad thing.
just half of the party wears one tie colour while the other half wears a different tie colour
thinfourth2 said:
No we have a one party system.
just half of the party wears one tie colour while the other half wears a different tie colour
Succinct, and accurate.just half of the party wears one tie colour while the other half wears a different tie colour
It cetainly looked like a one party parliament during Chris Huhne's Carbon Budgets announcement last week. The biggest spending decision that parliament has ever taken went through with only one mild voice of dissent.
This is not how a democracy should work.
Don
--
It appears that some of you think that the Conservative Party used to be something closer to UKIP. You have no understanding of the party's history. It has never been anti-EU and it has never been in favour of stopping immigration.
The current government is a coalition. If the LibDems just accede to everything the Tories want, then they get nothing out of it. It is not a difficult bargain to understand. The reality is that the Tories are getting almost everything they want, but managing to use the LibDems as a shield.
The current government is a coalition. If the LibDems just accede to everything the Tories want, then they get nothing out of it. It is not a difficult bargain to understand. The reality is that the Tories are getting almost everything they want, but managing to use the LibDems as a shield.
Zod said:
It appears that some of you think that the Conservative Party used to be something closer to UKIP. You have no understanding of the party's history. It has never been anti-EU and it has never been in favour of stopping immigration.
The current government is a coalition. If the LibDems just accede to everything the Tories want, then they get nothing out of it. It is not a difficult bargain to understand. The reality is that the Tories are getting almost everything they want, but managing to use the LibDems as a shield.
One key difference between the two main parties used to be government spending. That difference has evaporated.The current government is a coalition. If the LibDems just accede to everything the Tories want, then they get nothing out of it. It is not a difficult bargain to understand. The reality is that the Tories are getting almost everything they want, but managing to use the LibDems as a shield.
Don
--
Zod said:
AshVX220 said:
Zod said:
Wrong. A right wing Tory party would have won far fewer seats. Most of those who want a right wing Tory party are either in safe Tory seats or safe Labour seats.
Evidence? How do you know that? It was a right wing Tory party that survived for so long before Blair pitched up.I think the public and the country needed a proper swing back to the right, and without a definite right wing Tory party to vote for, the votes were split among the other party's hence our current situation. Don't mistake right wing, with far right extremists like the BNP (that no one with half a brain could want).
As for political analysis - this would be all the people who thought AV would get accepted, when in reality to the country voted a BIG FAT NO.
tinman0 said:
Not at all. Many people didn't vote Conservative because it wasn't radical enough. People wanted more to the right, and CMDs mistake was a perceived centre ground.
As for political analysis - this would be all the people who thought AV would get accepted, when in reality to the country voted a BIG FAT NO.
You are mistaken. Most of the people who want the Conservatives to be more radical are in safe Conservative or safe Labour seats. Their votes make no difference. The marginals are the only seats that count and radical policies turn off the swing voters in the marginals.As for political analysis - this would be all the people who thought AV would get accepted, when in reality to the country voted a BIG FAT NO.
Most sensible sites thought AV had no chance. It was the wishful thinkers who thought otherwise.
Zod said:
You are mistaken. Most of the people who want the Conservatives to be more radical are in safe Conservative or safe Labour seats. Their votes make no difference. The marginals are the only seats that count and radical policies turn off the swing voters in the marginals.
Most sensible sites thought AV had no chance. It was the wishful thinkers who thought otherwise.
So if you are so anti labour and so pro conservative but you maintain they are both completely bang in the middle to win votes they might i ask.Most sensible sites thought AV had no chance. It was the wishful thinkers who thought otherwise.
What the f
k is the difference between the two if they are both sat in exactly the same political area.Why is labour the end of the world if the tories are doing exactly the same.
thinfourth2 said:
Why is labour the end of the world if the tories are doing exactly the same.
From my perspective they are doing some things similarly and some things very differently, which is not 'exactly the same'. However I would definitely prefer them to do more things more differently.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff