Ken Clarke eliminated from Tory leadership race
- Thread starter ComradeDavo
- Start date
Scuffer said:
They got more seats due to boundary shifting yep. But the tories got more
votes ..the links you gave highlight the issue quite well thanks. Note the huge majority in scotland and wales though please, and consider the effect it has on keeping labour with a clear majority.
Postal voting was another clever labour move, i can see why they ignored the electoral commision on it.
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
Yes, they got 70 thoushand more votes out of 21 million votes cast. Hardly a conclusive and crushing victory, foiled only by the devious and low cunning of Labour central office, is it? Labour has a clear majority in England in any case, so the Scottish/Welsh issue is a total dead-end.
And the system is unfair, but it was the same system that's been used for ages. I don't like it one bit - look at how is it disadvantages the Lib Dems. But that's the problem, no government in power will ever change the electoral system to their own disadvantge.
And as far as boundary changes and the like go - remember the 'homes for votes' scandals in the last Tory government?
And the system is unfair, but it was the same system that's been used for ages. I don't like it one bit - look at how is it disadvantages the Lib Dems. But that's the problem, no government in power will ever change the electoral system to their own disadvantge.
And as far as boundary changes and the like go - remember the 'homes for votes' scandals in the last Tory government?
varwnos said:Hm, if you dont plan to be part of the common currency, why stay in the european union at all?
The reverse question would be why do you need a common currency
in order to trade freely and cooperate closely on security matters. And
does having one monetary policy work when countries are different in their
economic strengths / weaknesses.
Im pretty neutral, but id be interested to hear what those in
favour of a european state feel would be gained, perhaps
the one biggest gain in their minds would be interesting.
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
Why should one depend on the other?varwnos said:Hm, if you dont plan to be part of the common currency, why stay in the european union at all?
Scuffer said:
You seem to think i view the tories as innocent when they were in power. Nope they werent. I dont trust politicians generally.
However surely you can see that it is strange that in England the party with signifigantly more seats actually got less votes?. That is how labour have changed from the labour i remember of the early 80's, they know how to spin and make changes to keep in power.
The tories, yep they have been useless, this government was ripe for a decent opposition to wipe out.
However it seemed worth pointing out that the 'seats won' doesnt actually represent votes won, the tories didnt actually do as badly as most thing vote-wise
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
I've no idea what your views & knowledge on politics, the tory party, politicans in general etc etc are. This is why I include such points, because I have no idea what you do think.
And I do agree entirely with what you say on votes/seats. What I can't agree with is that Scotland and Wales are propping up Labour's majority. Firstly, they aren't, and secondly, until full devolution happens, why shouldn't they? The Parliment represents the whole of the UK.
And I do agree entirely with what you say on votes/seats. What I can't agree with is that Scotland and Wales are propping up Labour's majority. Firstly, they aren't, and secondly, until full devolution happens, why shouldn't they? The Parliment represents the whole of the UK.
Ahh well i personally believe the current system with scotland in particular is unfair.
The scottish MP's should under no circumstances be able to vote on laws that do not affect scotland.
For instance scottish MPS voted in favour of top-up fees in england, yet against them in scotland. Scottish MPs swung the vote. There is no reciprocal voting on scottish matters by english MPS. The same happened with the vote on the NHS, scottish MPS swinging the vote yet the policy rejected in scotland
The scottish MP's should under no circumstances be able to vote on laws that do not affect scotland.
For instance scottish MPS voted in favour of top-up fees in england, yet against them in scotland. Scottish MPs swung the vote. There is no reciprocal voting on scottish matters by english MPS. The same happened with the vote on the NHS, scottish MPS swinging the vote yet the policy rejected in scotland
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure why a change hasn't been implemented. I can't think of any logical or political reason to stop it. It makes sense, all it serves to do now is stir up resentment. Obviously there are issues that affect both, and all would get to vote on it.
Anyway, we've wandered miles off-topic
Anyway, we've wandered miles off-topic
Scuffer said:Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure why a change hasn't been implemented. I can't think of any logical or political reason to stop it. It makes sense, all it serves to do now is stir up resentment. Obviously there are issues that affect both, and all would get to vote on it.
Anyway, we've wandered miles off-topic
lol yeah sorry
ontopic, i think Ken would have been popular with voters
but the spin machines would have played on his ciggie links.
I dont see an election winner amongst the others
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
Seems funny that there is all this focus in the campaigns has been on Cameron/drugs, but none on Clarke peddling cigs to the 3rd world. At a guess and as you say, the issues are the other way round for most voters.
Of the ones that are left, I reckon Dr Liam Fox would have the best chance of winning an election, on a tax-cutting platform. As the economy slows, inflation increases, and taxs still go up, I have a feeling that a lot of voters might fancy a tax-slashing PM.
If they go for Cameron, it will seem to me like they are more interested in power than there principles. Much like labour did when they brought in Blair. They'd been beaten too often, and went for the option that would win them power, at the expense of what they believed.
Of the ones that are left, I reckon Dr Liam Fox would have the best chance of winning an election, on a tax-cutting platform. As the economy slows, inflation increases, and taxs still go up, I have a feeling that a lot of voters might fancy a tax-slashing PM.
If they go for Cameron, it will seem to me like they are more interested in power than there principles. Much like labour did when they brought in Blair. They'd been beaten too often, and went for the option that would win them power, at the expense of what they believed.
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
Have read John O'Farrell's "Things Can Only Get Better: 18 miserable years in the life of a Labour supporter"? Very funny and interesting book. Plus you can give it to Labour party members and listen their howls of anguish
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Not at all, his right-wing christain views would alienate many voters! Britain generally like it's poublic services, so whilst people might get tempted by tax cutting his views on marriage and alike would see him loose more voters than gain I feel. It might drive the libertaraians away, hopefully in the direction of the Lib DemsScuffer said:
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
Normally I couldn't agree more. But if an economic crunch does come, they'll value cash above the more theoretical moral side. Actually, it's as well Clarke didn't get in. With Labour, Tory and LD all trying to stand on the same small central-ish spot, it would have opened the door to more extreme parties to make gains on the left and right.
