General Election 2015

[Ebeneezer Goode]

stv plz

 

[Alty]

I read an article on the Guardian website and it was pretty critical of the 'Yes' campaign. Admittedly, my interest in politics back then wasn't what it is now so I didn't pay a great deal of attention at the time.

Am I right in thinking that AMS is where the voter gets two votes, one for a local constituency representative and one for a national party? Whereby the party votes are used to essentially top-up the constituency seats, with the aim of achieving a balance between proportionality and local accountability? Assuming I'm right, this is pretty much the extent of my knowledge, but hypothetically it sounds like a good idea.

That's the one. Certainly seems to work well.

stv plz

Any particular reason? From what I can see STV seems to be an attempt to help moderate parties as they're more likely to pick up transfers than 'extreme' ones...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It removes the need for tactical voting. You only need to vote for who you want, not against who you don't. Ends up with a much more representative result IMO.

 

[Pyeman]

Now my knowledge is really being stretched.

Is STV an alternative form of proportional representation?

 

[Alty]

Now my knowledge is really being stretched.

Is STV an alternative form of proportional representation?

 

[Pyeman]

Thanks for the info.

Whilst I can see some of the attractiveness of STV, I think it misses one of the most important aspects of our political system, i.e. being able to vote for a local representative who is directly responsible for the constituents in his of her region.

AMS seems a better option than STV to my mind, but I would never claim to be an expert on the subject and I'm sure there is much more to the argument than I'm fully aware of.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

But you do vote for local representatives, they're just slightly less local.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Can't really recall what the pros and cons of various voting systems are but remember rather liking the idea of AV+

 

[Alty]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31742155

Coward.

 

[Spear]

I reckon its the right call, the election is in the bag for us, and the media will try and spin it so labour win, especially the left wing BBC

Well said Dave.

 

[SUTSS]

Should be empty chaired.

 

[Stringy]

They should make the debate like wrestling entertainment. Stick some chairs in the middle of the ring then if Cameron shows up unannounced play some dramatic entrance music. And have the commentators going nuts for it.

 

[GodsGift]

Should be empty chaired.

I'd pay good money to watch Miliband debate with himself, he'd probably still lose.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

what I do not understand with the Gen Elec so far is Scotland.

going off the polls the SNP is winning a landslide of seats off anyone in that area.

yet its been bang on proved they spouted tonnes of lies and deceit during their independence vote and had they won Scotland would now be financially f*cked.

yep granted is a big lack of trust in the other parties also, but I din't understand this mad-cap surge in Scotland to an SNP party which could have left them in a hell of a state.

although these same polls say they will get the borders who detest the SNP so I imagine its far fetched

 

[Alty]

No chance the SNP will win as many seats as is predicted.

They're also in danger of getting into a Lib Dem tuition fees type mess with the shite they're promising on Trident.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31742155

Coward.

Bit of a mess, innit?

Cameron was on safer ground when he was pushing for the Greens to be included in the format, because that was arguably an unfair omission, but he's got nothing to fall back on now. Because he laid down the challenge prior to the last election, he can't offer a principled objection to the debates going ahead so the charge of cowardice seems eminently reasonable. I guess, given Miliband's low approval ratings, Cameron's calculating that he has more to lose from participating in the debates but it's not as though his own ratings are much to write home about. His obstinacy seems a bit odd to me.

 

[PuB]

The Tories, and big Dave in particular, do not want any televised debates. The reason for trying to get so many other parties involved is an attempt to turn the whole thing in to a political bore fest that most of the populous will ignore.

I say the broadcasters should tell him to bugger off and go ahead with the debates as planned.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

he's playing a very dangerous game though.

I can only speak for myself, but I am one of them group of floating voters who can vote either Labour or conservative based on who I believe is right at the time and am also in one of them prime key seats which could swing either one way or other in this election (I think it was classed about 15th in the list of possible key seats)

Considering a big reason I voted Tory last Election was down to a view Labour offered no answers for me him decided to hide from a main debate vs Labour would instantly give the view that the tories have no answers this year......which is a small part pointing towards Labour.

doesn't mean it makes my choice, lots of things do but it is just a way of saying he frankly hasn't any answers to possible questions which come up. Little things can just swing votes one way or other, he just plays into Labour's hands today. their best option is to just say go ahead with the debate with the Lib Dems and just claim the conservatives have no bottle to answer people's worries and questions.

of course there should be a Labour Vs conservative debate....they are by a mile the 2 big parties and one of them two leaders will be PM.

 

[Gladders]

As i said at the start of the thread they reckon Cameron will lose less by not doing the debates at all

 

[SUTSS]

I don't think he has much of a choice now they are going ahead anyway.

 

[Layer Cake]

Surely he won't sit out? I'm thinking he was hoping the whole election debate would go away if he flatly refused. But if broadcasters are going ahead anyway, it leaves him in an awkward position.

 

[Red]

It does when his party's policies will be scrutinised and derided without him there to defend them.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

it may have been posted elsewhere, but i love this wee clip as it suits the old politics aspects at present.

 

[SUTSS]

First election leaflet through the door today and it came from the nutter standing for UKIP (he's not a nutter because he's standing for UKIP. I've met him a few times and he is genuinely nuts. Once told me that because of EU membership I could serve 5 years in prison for knocking over a wheelie bin in Prague.)

 

[Modernist]

First election leaflet through the door today and it came from the nutter standing for UKIP (he's not a nutter because he's standing for UKIP. I've met him a few times and he is genuinely nuts. Once told me that because of EU membership I could serve 5 years in prison for knocking over a wheelie bin in Prague.)

Thought it was an awful budget, so many vague promises, I can only sumise he's after the pensioner's vote because they are ones who actually do go out and vote. The rest of us will continue to be worse off under the Tories. Nice breaks for the rich though...shock!

 

[Alty]

First election leaflet through the door today and it came from the nutter standing for UKIP (he's not a nutter because he's standing for UKIP. I've met him a few times and he is genuinely nuts. Once told me that because of EU membership I could serve 5 years in prison for knocking over a wheelie bin in Prague.)

Not had any yet. As far as I know there are only 4 parties standing in Putney which is surely quite unusual?

By the way, UKIP's candidate in Tooting is called Przemek Skwirczynski. Honestly.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Having just had a look, are the Lib Dems not fielding a candidate in Putney? I gathered that they wouldn't be standing everywhere this election but it's still a surprise to see them not feature on such lists. Doesn't really auger well...

I think we have 7/8 standing here - the usual five, the Peace Party, the Guildford Greenbelt Group and someone apparently standing under the banner of "Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol"

 

[Alty]

Having just had a look, are the Lib Dems not fielding a candidate in Putney? I gathered that they wouldn't be standing everywhere this election but it's still a surprise to see them not feature on such lists. Doesn't really auger well...

I think we have 7/8 standing here - the usual five, the Peace Party, the Guildford Greenbelt Group and someone apparently standing under the banner of "Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol"

Having checked, the LDs are standing after all. Although their candidate has only 50 or so followers on Twitter and says he's going to encourage LDs in Putney to campaign in other constituencies where the LDs have a better chance.

I think we can expect a lost deposit.

I'm very unsure of how to vote. If the LD vote collapses it'll be interesting to see how many of those voters turn out and who they opt for. If the majority of the 7,000 go for Labour then it's not impossible there could be a genuine fight on.

Part of me is tempted by Labour. Turfing a Tory out would be good and the mansion tax is a good landmark policy. But they're still not substantively different in most areas. And the EU and tuition fees policies are both stupid. Gah. Dunno. I'm there to be swayed during the campaign I guess.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

It's just Ed Balls that does my head in. Have no problem with Ed Milliband, know he gets much stick but I don't mind him. But cannot bring myself to vote Balls in as chancellor in charge of our economy.

Another awful comment from him yesterday. From one sentence to the next he lays into the current economic policy - that's fine, it's his job. And then says he wouldn't actually change anything in the budget. Criticises the government for budgeting to cut too much and then criticising for not cutting the deficit as much.

He makes such little sense, can't come up with any coherent arguments, it just doesn't inspire any confidence.

Otherwise, not sure which of Tory or Lib Dem to vote for currently, actually be my first vote in my current constituency having moved here a year ago.

 

[.V.]

It's just Ed Balls that does my head in. Have no problem with Ed Milliband, know he gets much stick but I don't mind him. But cannot bring myself to vote Balls in as chancellor in charge of our economy.

Another awful comment from him yesterday. From one sentence to the next he lays into the current economic policy - that's fine, it's his job. And then says he wouldn't actually change anything in the budget. Criticises the government for budgeting to cut too much and then criticising for not cutting the deficit as much.

He makes such little sense, can't come up with any coherent arguments, it just doesn't inspire any confidence.

Otherwise, not sure which of Tory or Lib Dem to vote for currently, actually be my first vote in my current constituency having moved here a year ago.

Presumably he critises the government because he will cut the deficit by bringing in more income.