As If The Cowards Of Hamas Have Not...
News1 min ago
Latest Poll Means What?
84 Answers
Tories 36% Labour 36% UKIP 7%.(Haven't got Lib Dems) [Sky News] If you were Labour's campaign manager, would you be worried? Why is Labour not doing better? My opinion is that the leader doesn't come across as a leader. That's depressing, considering that Cameron is a very long way from being Churchill (or Lloyd George,come to that, taking a different party). He is a standard pattern, cut out, upper middle.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For Pete's sake, Ludwig, haven't we had enough of this grotesque pas de deux of ours? I'm going to give it a rest, so - with a gentlemanly bow to my partner - I shall leave the floor.
Naomi, I'm perfectly happy to say Labour lost the last election but, if you had an equally tight grasp on reality, you should be prepared to admit Cameron didn't win it. Both concepts are beyond dispute.
(Rather than "prepared", I nearly said "man enough", but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent phrase for women. One wonders why.)
Naomi, I'm perfectly happy to say Labour lost the last election but, if you had an equally tight grasp on reality, you should be prepared to admit Cameron didn't win it. Both concepts are beyond dispute.
(Rather than "prepared", I nearly said "man enough", but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent phrase for women. One wonders why.)
Re Gordon Brown: Prime Ministers are never elected to their position in this country. Or in fact in most countries. They are, effectively, appointed to the post, either as leader of the largest party in parliament, or by a president.
It's admittedly true he wasn't even elected to the post of party leader but no one chose to stand against him.
As for the matter of who "won" or "lost" the 2010 election plainly Labour "lost" in the sense that they lost their majority in parliament but equally no party actually won. And Andrew Adonis (a Blairite Labour minister) wrote a very interesting book about the negotiations behind the scenes that led to the coalition. Rather uncomfortable reading it makes too for Mr Clegg's party, or it would do if anyone was bothered enough about the Lib Dems to care :-)
It's admittedly true he wasn't even elected to the post of party leader but no one chose to stand against him.
As for the matter of who "won" or "lost" the 2010 election plainly Labour "lost" in the sense that they lost their majority in parliament but equally no party actually won. And Andrew Adonis (a Blairite Labour minister) wrote a very interesting book about the negotiations behind the scenes that led to the coalition. Rather uncomfortable reading it makes too for Mr Clegg's party, or it would do if anyone was bothered enough about the Lib Dems to care :-)
Obviously Labour did not win the 2010 Election, but nobody got enough votes to win outright. The LibDems most certainly didn't win either, and yet they find themselves in power. Not sure if that is very democratic but under the circumstances I'm not sure what else could have been done.
Liz could have sent them all back from afternoon tea in Buck House, with a flea in their ears and told them to have another Election I suppose. But the same outcome might have ensued.
Why couldn't we have had a Government of national unity, like we did in WW2 ? There are Parliamentarians of quality in all the parties, including all the fringe ones, that could have been able to use their various gifts to the Britain's good.
It might do the political parties some good to be thrown into a room together and told to get on with it !
Liz could have sent them all back from afternoon tea in Buck House, with a flea in their ears and told them to have another Election I suppose. But the same outcome might have ensued.
Why couldn't we have had a Government of national unity, like we did in WW2 ? There are Parliamentarians of quality in all the parties, including all the fringe ones, that could have been able to use their various gifts to the Britain's good.
It might do the political parties some good to be thrown into a room together and told to get on with it !
QM, I do have a grasp on reality. Yes, we have a coalition government because the Conservatives didn’t attain a sufficient majority to govern alone - that has never been in dispute (I refer you back to the millstone I mentioned) - but that doesn’t detract from the fact that Labour lost the election – and both are beyond dispute.
//Rather than "prepared", I nearly said "man enough", but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent phrase for women. One wonders why.)//
Possibly because women who face reality don’t need to ‘man up’.
//Rather than "prepared", I nearly said "man enough", but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent phrase for women. One wonders why.)//
Possibly because women who face reality don’t need to ‘man up’.
I can't see the point of voting for a Party that has no chance whatsoever of being elected as a Government. UKIP has no MP's at present and stands little chance of getting many, if any in the 2015 General Election. So what purpose is served by voting for them ?
There are some that argue that it is a "protest vote" But surely all that will be achieved by voting for these no-hoper parties is that either Labour or the Tories will get into Parliament and be the next Government ! Its just peeing into the wind.
So if people vote for UKIP as a protest against, say Labour, then all it will mean is that the Tories might get in. Same goes if you want to protest against the Tories.
So, apart from a self-satisfied warm feeling, I am not sure what is achieved by a protest vote ? A wasted vote it would seem to me.
There are some that argue that it is a "protest vote" But surely all that will be achieved by voting for these no-hoper parties is that either Labour or the Tories will get into Parliament and be the next Government ! Its just peeing into the wind.
So if people vote for UKIP as a protest against, say Labour, then all it will mean is that the Tories might get in. Same goes if you want to protest against the Tories.
So, apart from a self-satisfied warm feeling, I am not sure what is achieved by a protest vote ? A wasted vote it would seem to me.
It depends Mikey
The electoral position it is (or maybe was) in gives it certain options that a protest group does not have.
The coalition actually stops this from being a realistic deal but if the Tories had a slim majority or were governing as a minority party and Farage had this sort of electoral position he might be in a position to do a deal whereby he would agree to disolve UKIP after a suitable referendum.
The point of UKIP as a party is that where their share of the vote threatens the governing party they potentially have power in a way that a protest group does not.
It's quite an interesting tactic although not one I think that they foresaw
The electoral position it is (or maybe was) in gives it certain options that a protest group does not have.
The coalition actually stops this from being a realistic deal but if the Tories had a slim majority or were governing as a minority party and Farage had this sort of electoral position he might be in a position to do a deal whereby he would agree to disolve UKIP after a suitable referendum.
The point of UKIP as a party is that where their share of the vote threatens the governing party they potentially have power in a way that a protest group does not.
It's quite an interesting tactic although not one I think that they foresaw
// For Pete's sake, Ludwig, haven't we had enough of this grotesque pas de deux of ours? //
QM, you never fail to take the bait. Can't you tell I'm just pulling your leg? I know it winds you up when people say Gordon Brown wasn't elected, which is exactly why I keep saying it.
..and also because it's true of course ;o)
QM, you never fail to take the bait. Can't you tell I'm just pulling your leg? I know it winds you up when people say Gordon Brown wasn't elected, which is exactly why I keep saying it.
..and also because it's true of course ;o)
Em.."some are pissed off with both parties, so why not." I take that is the warm feeling that I was mentioning then.
Jake. It would seem to be a very risky venture, to vote for a no-hoper party, just on the off chance that your vote damages the party that you are p*ssed off about ! Farage has no sort of election position...that is just my point. He is frightening Dave, which has some sort of merit I suppose !
I can see a good reason for voting LibDems or perhaps Scottish Nationalist, as they have a real chance of making a change, as can be seen by the LibDems unexpected good fortune in 2010 ( I am not sure who was more surprised, Cleggie or the rest of us )
There are all sorts of loony tunes at Election time and they all appear to having a smashing good time. But they achieve nothing. I'm glad that Caroline Lucas won for the Greens in Brighton, as she seems such a nice lady but what has her one seat for the Greens actually achieved ?
Jake. It would seem to be a very risky venture, to vote for a no-hoper party, just on the off chance that your vote damages the party that you are p*ssed off about ! Farage has no sort of election position...that is just my point. He is frightening Dave, which has some sort of merit I suppose !
I can see a good reason for voting LibDems or perhaps Scottish Nationalist, as they have a real chance of making a change, as can be seen by the LibDems unexpected good fortune in 2010 ( I am not sure who was more surprised, Cleggie or the rest of us )
There are all sorts of loony tunes at Election time and they all appear to having a smashing good time. But they achieve nothing. I'm glad that Caroline Lucas won for the Greens in Brighton, as she seems such a nice lady but what has her one seat for the Greens actually achieved ?
Ludwig, I'm surprised that you've clearly forgotten the last time we did the "unelected prime Minister" thing. It was only weeks ago, after all.
You said you were pulling my leg then, too, and I said I would go on responding to you in my usual vein, as it gave me an opportunity to make the point - for the benefit of anyone else reading our exchanges - that Cameron is just as unelected a Prime Minister as Brown was. (As you can see, I've just done precisely that once more!)
However, when you raised it again yesterday, I decided enough really was enough and that our joint joke/leg-pull should end; hence my reference to 'bowing out'. No more encores, no more curtain-calls for you and me on this matter.
Naomi, I'm not at all clear how a query about a linguistic peculiarity can be seen as an anti-feminist dig, but have it your way. YOU, on the other hand, were the one who introduced the phrase, 'man up', so have you any idea why there is no 'woman up'? I can surely ask you about your own use of language without offending you.
You said you were pulling my leg then, too, and I said I would go on responding to you in my usual vein, as it gave me an opportunity to make the point - for the benefit of anyone else reading our exchanges - that Cameron is just as unelected a Prime Minister as Brown was. (As you can see, I've just done precisely that once more!)
However, when you raised it again yesterday, I decided enough really was enough and that our joint joke/leg-pull should end; hence my reference to 'bowing out'. No more encores, no more curtain-calls for you and me on this matter.
Naomi, I'm not at all clear how a query about a linguistic peculiarity can be seen as an anti-feminist dig, but have it your way. YOU, on the other hand, were the one who introduced the phrase, 'man up', so have you any idea why there is no 'woman up'? I can surely ask you about your own use of language without offending you.
