General Election 2010 Thread

[EXC]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Did he actually lie, was he poorly briefed or was he being economical with the truth, which all politicians are guilty of?

I can barely muster the energy to answer this.

''Economical with the truth'' doesn't apply. For the years he gave false figures to the enquiry on defence spending he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he was ''poorly briefed'' he is guilty of lying to the electorate in saying he is capable of leading the nation.

And you've invalidated your argument for compulsory voting here. If ''all polititions'' are ''economical with the truth'' then they don't deserve guaranteed votes.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Well I'm not going to vote for the person in charge, I'm going to vote for the policies I feel happiest with.
I just think that if at anytime a leader can change as proven with Blair/Brown its best not to think of them in charge.

Not sure if I'm right or wrong but its something I'm taking into consideration.

In local elections we vote for policies and in National elections we vote for people. When I am undecided(I am) then that is my consideration when I am looking at the general election ballot paper. Who do I want to be leader of the UK. The debates will fathom into it since it may determine how I vote. Each to their own.

Amy, you ask what he has achieved. The biggest deficit in UK history(everyone can take that as an achievement, lol).

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

I can barely muster the energy to answer this.

''Economical with the truth'' doesn't apply. For the years he gave false figures to the enquiry on defence spending he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he was ''poorly briefed'' he is guilty of lying to the electorate in saying he is capable of leading the nation.

And you've invalidated your argument for compulsory voting here. If ''all polititions'' are ''economical with the truth'' then they don't deserve guaranteed votes.

Have some porridge and oatcakes and prunes which will help.

Sorry EXC but just because you say he's lied and you feel he's lied, that does not mean he has deliberately lied and your argument does not confirm that. As far as I am aware, Brown has not be found guilty of that by any of the powers that be.


Re compulsory voting issue, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said "we should make voting compulsory". I am aware I have to be careful what I say on this forum.

What I said was in the context of encouraging people to vote (many previous posters said they were not voting and Cetelco was encouraging people not to vote) and voter apathy encouraging right wing extremism.

This is what I said on the subject in 2 separate posts.:


"Everyone should vote and no-one should follow this ridiculous advice, absolutely no-one. Make sure you vote and never don't vote- vote tactically if you want to, but vote. Change takes time, but is worth the effort.
The conservatives are hoping people will not vote. "

In another post-

"The right can however, be enforced by making it compulsory to vote. Some democratic countries do this- I think Australia is one."

It was put forward as a suggestion in the middle of discussion on the issue when turn out can be 60% and less.

I don't advocate compulsory voting, but it is an option for debate. And, as I said Australia does enforce compulsory voting. Apparently, several European countries do likewise.

I am perfectly aware that folk can decide not to vote- of course, they have that right. I happen to feel however that the right to vote has been fought for and not using it is perhaps an easy option, as is saying, there is no one worth voting for or whats the point, etc. I happen to think tht folk should be encouraged to vote, from as early an age as possible.

I have likewise suggested electoral reform and a move from first past the post to decrease voter apathy and increase voter turn out. This is in operation for the Scottish Government elections and Scottish local elections already. It has increased the number of smaller parties being represented and broken the domination of the larger parties.

Having said all that, and read some of the posts in this thread, I am now more inclined to vote for Alex Salmond and an independent Scotland leaving the English behind to solve the problems of their making. Thanks for a shove in that direction. Hopefully Wales will follow soon after, which would leave England to go it alone.

Scotland has no real interest in the conservatives, UKIP or the BNP. lol

[Smasher]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

I am now more inclined to vote for Alex Salmond and an independent Scotland leaving the English behind to solve the problems of their making. Thanks for a shove in that direction.

Isn't RBS Scottish? Where is the majority of their bail out money coming from?

[Sapphire]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Having said all that, and read some of the posts in this thread, I am now more inclined to vote for Alex Salmond and an independent Scotland leaving the English behind to solve the problems of their making. Thanks for a shove in that direction. Hopefully Wales will follow soon after, which would leave England to go it alone.

Scotland has no real interest in the conservatives, UKIP or the BNP. lol[/quote]

Fair comment Orc we are all entitled to our own opinions, in fact isn't that why Hadrians Wall was built for originally ? Anyways it might stop you all coming down here invading and nicking our goalposts as well :bolt:

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Having said all that, and read some of the posts in this thread, I am now more inclined to vote for Alex Salmond and an independent Scotland leaving the English behind to solve the problems of their making. Thanks for a shove in that direction. Hopefully Wales will follow soon after, which would leave England to go it alone.

Scotland has no real interest in the conservatives, UKIP or the BNP. lol

Fair comment Orc we are all entitled to our own opinions, in fact isn't that why Hadrians Wall was built for originally ? Anyways it might stop you all coming down here invading and nicking our goalposts as well :bolt:[/quote]


Thanks Saphhire and I like the humour.

Scotland was the only place the Romans never managed to control. lol

Glasgow had to empty whenever English fans went there. I am glad the match is no longer played on an annual basis.

Scottish fans actually have one of the best reputations in the world.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

If you are referring to the poll on here, this is a completely random poll and will be open until the day before the general election. You can vote more than once since that is one thing I left open and views may change once we have had the formal dissolution of parliament and we get to the live debates. At the moment, I haven't voted on the poll because I don't know as yet who I am voting for.

Hi Nattie

I checked on this and can't change my vote in your poll. Is it possible for you to check if this facility is possible please?

Many thanks, regards, Orc
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Isn't RBS Scottish? Where is the majority of their bail out money coming from?

Originally yes Smasher and the registered office is certainly there but its a stock market listed company and pays it taxes to the exchequer.

It was originally set up by the supporters of the Act of Union as the Bank of Scotland supported the Jackobite rebellion.

I am quite certain that before too long all the banks will be making incredible profits again, assuming we avoid a double dip depression.

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

...many previous posters said they were not voting and Cetelco was encouraging people not to vote)

This is the type of gibberish I referred to in post #85.

We might, as has been said on this thread more than once, have a duty to vote, but since when did rights and duties become the same thing?

The right to freedom of speech does not mean you don't have the freedom to shut up and the right to respect for private and family life does not mean that you are not allowed to go outside without your family in tow.

Having the right to vote does not mean you must vote, but it must mean you have the right not to vote.

You might decide for example that a vote for any of the candidates is equal to or worse than not voting at all, which means the act of abstaining is itself a vote.

When has Gordon lied- please back this statement up with factual evidence regarding what he allegedly lied about and when.

I think the question should be, if indeed it is a question, since it is not punctuated as such, when has Gordon Brown told the truth?

It would be a much shorter list.

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

.

Scotland was the only place the Romans never managed to control. lol

They didnt get that far into Wales either - they only just ventured over the border - too scared to walk up the hills with us all stood on the top.

[Guest]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Mining safer than driving ?

Yes, mining is safer than driving.

Between 1950 and 2000 mining in this country killed 16,599 people yet between 1999 and 2008, a total of 32,298 deaths were recorded on our roads, approximately 49% of whom were car drivers. Thus, driving is a great deal more dangerous than mining.

These are not mere statistics, these are real deaths, of real people.

Despite being much less dangerous than driving, the media attention received by mining deaths is much greater. Furthermore, the outrage over the injustice of the deaths is also disproportionately greater for mining. Probably because infrequent, geographically concentrated, large losses of life like mine disasters attract more attention than frequent, geographically dispersed, small losses of life like car accidents. The result is a distorted perception of risk, but the simple fact of the matter is, mining is much safer than driving.

It also seems curious to me that you insist on defending an occupation that you have stated is horribly dangerous, has in fact killed nine of your family members and yet you condemn Margaret Thatcher for ending it. Perhaps if she had acted sooner, or better yet, the previous Labour Government had shown half the courage she displayed and shut down the industry earlier, those people and many more like them would still be alive? It seems to me that you are arguing for people to be able to kill themselves and this has more than a whiff of Monty Python about it. You can't have it both ways.

If mining truly is as dangerous as you claim, Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives did you a favour. You should be thanking them.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

and Orc, the poll allows you to choose more than one party, so you could in effect vote 10 times in this poll, in case you made an initial mistake

[Amethyst]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

You can only vote once in the poll, possibly for more than one party but only one submit is allowed. I THINK we can remove your vote through the admin panel then vote again if you change your mind but not 100% sure on that, so best waiting till you know where your X is going.



Labour = work hard, get penalised. I hope they do not get in again and will not vote for them.

Lib Dem = agree with their immigration, employment and education policies. Though I think they are weak and couldnt actually do what they say they want to.

Conservatives = not a clue at the moment. I dont think their welfare policies go far enough to give us the reform we need.

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Yes, mining is safer than driving.

Between 1950 and 2000 mining in this country killed 16,599 people yet between 1999 and 2008, a total of 32,298 deaths were recorded on our roads, approximately 49% of whom were car drivers. Thus, driving is a great deal more dangerous than mining.

These are not mere statistics, these are real deaths, of real people.

Despite being much less dangerous than driving, the media attention received by mining deaths is much greater. Furthermore, the outrage over the injustice of the deaths is also disproportionately greater for mining. Probably because infrequent, geographically concentrated, large losses of life like mine disasters attract more attention than frequent, geographically dispersed, small losses of life like car accidents. The result is a distorted perception of risk, but the simple fact of the matter is, mining is much safer than driving.

It also seems curious to me that you insist on defending an occupation that you have stated is horribly dangerous, has in fact killed nine of your family members and yet you condemn Margaret Thatcher for ending it. Perhaps if she had acted sooner, or better yet, the previous Labour Government had shown half the courage she displayed and shut down the industry earlier, those people and many more like them would still be alive? It seems to me that you are arguing for people to be able to kill themselves and this has more than a whiff of Monty Python about it. You can't have it both ways.

If mining truly is as dangerous as you claim, Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives did you a favour. You should be thanking them.

Can you please inform where your statistics come from. I note you use different time periods in your examples and different numbers of years in each. How is that relevant to anything?

Your argument is incredibly weak and not backed by relevant statistical data, your powers of persuasion and argument even less so.

The parrot is dead.



------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

You can only vote once in the poll, possibly for more than one party but only one submit is allowed. I THINK we can remove your vote through the admin panel then vote again if you change your mind but not 100% sure on that, so best waiting till you know where your X is going.



Labour = work hard, get penalised. I hope they do not get in again and will not vote for them.

Lib Dem = agree with their immigration, employment and education policies. Though I think they are weak and couldnt actually do what they say they want to.

Conservatives = not a clue at the moment. I dont think their welfare policies go far enough to give us the reform we need.

Many thanks for the info. I have voted and had wanted to change.

I don't want to give you the hassle of changing it as I'm aware your time is valuable and needed elsewhere.

But, thanks!

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

This is the type of gibberish I referred to in post #85.

Eh! Sorry but lets look at your post.

We might, as has been said on this thread more than once, have a duty to vote, but since when did rights and duties become the same thing?

Who said it was?

The right to freedom of speech does not mean you don't have the freedom to shut up and the right to respect for private and family life does not mean that you are not allowed to go outside without your family in tow.

Whats private life and going outside with your family in tow got to do with freedom to shut up or freedom of speech or the voting issue ie voting or choosing not to vote?

Who mentioned not being allowed to go outside in relation to voting or not voting?

Thats completely off the radar and as you snidely or sarcastically or in a vague attempt at humour said to a previous poster, your cheese has slid off the cracker or was the cheese toasted?

But whatever, in this discussion, the cheese has been firmly dumped in the bin. The mice did not even sniff it.

Having the right to vote does not mean you must vote, but it must mean you have the right not to vote.

Yes, I have previously said people can not vote but its better to vote and a reform of the electoral system and end to first past the post might help that.

You might decide for example that a vote for any of the candidates is equal to or worse than not voting at all, which means the act of abstaining is itself a vote.

The act of abstaining is a vote in itself? Thats a cracker- oops cheese and crackers again! Toasted cheese anyone?

How does abstaining from voting magically become a vote? What school of wisdom did that gem come from?

Not voting ie abstention is not counted as vote. It is not the same as a spoilt vote.

Cetelco, you made earlier reference to the fact that opininion polls were wrong and not to be believed.

Cetelco, can you please answer my previous question and explain what polls were/ are wrong and why the current opinion polls are wrong and why there will not be a hung parliament, which you previously said there would not be?

Cetelco, What politician, political party or indeed, any other person has ever said that the act of abstaining is a vote in itself?

Cetelco, who has ever benefited from abstaining from voting? (I can think of an answer, in a different country at a different time in history).

Cetelco, what would you say about any teacher standing up in class and teaching pupils that the act of abstaining from voting is a vote in itself?

It would be interesting to have a poll on this thread with the question, "Do you agree that abstaining from voting is a vote in itself?"

[natweststaffmember]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Orc, the classic example is 1992 because Neil Kinnock was set to storm into Number 10. That turned out to be completely wrong and in fact John Major won the election with a overall majority. The fact is that what we might say to someone and what we actually do in the polling booth is entirely different. For example, on another forum with a poll I clicked on BNP for no other reason that the fact it was there. It does not mean I will vote BNP(never done so far, but tempted to once.....out of pity in a European election which meant nothing to me).

[orc]

Re: General Election 2010 Thread

Orc, the classic example is 1992 because Neil Kinnock was set to storm into Number 10. That turned out to be completely wrong and in fact John Major won the election with a overall majority. The fact is that what we might say to someone and what we actually do in the polling booth is entirely different. For example, on another forum with a poll I clicked on BNP for no other reason that the fact it was there. It does not mean I will vote BNP(never done so far, but tempted to once.....out of pity in a European election which meant nothing to me).

Thanks Nattie, I am aware of 1992 and yes, that was classic example- obviously, but Cetelco said not to believe the current polls as they were wrong.

He said they were wrong and there would not be a hung parliament.

Every single poll over the past week or so says there is a high chance of a hung parliament.

I am asking Cetelco to back up his previous statements and based on that why there will not be a hung parliamnent.

Should we place our trust in Cetelco opinion or the pollsters?