Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross
  • 13,447 comments
  • 768,729 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
I have the perfect video response to this poo incident...but I can't post it:lol: I think posting the YT search parameters should be ok:

Hey lady you forgot something :sly:
 
I have the perfect video response to this poo incident...but I can't post it:lol: I think posting the YT search parameters should be ok:

Hey lady you forgot something :sly:

7e7.jpg
 
Why the obsession with porn? I thought they'd have bigger things to worry about.

I guess they're trying to sway some Daily Mail/Express readers away from UKIP.
 
DK
I guess they're trying to sway some Daily Mail/Express readers away from UKIP.

Yup. And it's un-enforceable nonsense, as always. Unless they get their way on Digital IDs... which would be a worrisome outcome.
 
Politicians trying to regulate the internet, that'll work well. Whether one agrees with the policy or not is basically irrelevant, in my opinion. There are ways around such things and teenagers tend to be some of the best at using technology for less than honest purposes. I'd love to know how the tories imagine that they'd enforce such a policy.
 
^ I think a clue might be in TenEightyOne's post above yours. After all, Cameron has called for a crackdown on encryption.
 
I love Cameron's arrogance at the moment. I heard him on the radio a few days ago and when asked about possible deals with UKIP he said 'no we are going to win outright.' :lol:
 
DK
^ I think a clue might be in TenEightyOne's post above yours. After all, Cameron has called for a crackdown on encryption.

The more I think about it the more I think this is the crux of the matter; more snooping laws.
 
I love Cameron's arrogance at the moment. I heard him on the radio a few days ago and when asked about possible deals with UKIP he said 'no we are going to win outright.' :lol:

To be fair that's a better response than the endless tit-for-tat we've had the past few weeks over pacts. I hate it. It's a pre-judgement of the electorate (much more of an arrogant thing to do than what Cameron said imo), and completely undermines the purpose of their vote; to give a mandate for a party to govern, as a majority. If I want to vote Labour or Tory say, I can't give that with confidence because of the SNP/UKIP pact bickering (and that's just the public stuff; goodness know what talks have already happened behind the scenes). But I can't give a mandate to those coalitions either because they're not formerly campaigning under them and that's not what will be on the ballot!

At least in 2010 all the nonsense really only happened after we knew what the public had decided........not before. And only because the public hadn't given a mandate for any party to govern as a majority - special circumstances, and not trying to figure out the solution before the problem was actually there. I think they should either campaign as coalitions if that's what they think they need to secure their votes, or just shut up about it and get on with, ya know, campaigning with actual policy...........
 
To be fair that's a better response than the endless tit-for-tat we've had the past few weeks over pacts. I hate it. It's a pre-judgement of the electorate (much more of an arrogant thing to do than what Cameron said imo), and completely undermines the purpose of their vote; to give a mandate for a party to govern, as a majority. If I want to vote Labour or Tory say, I can't give that with confidence because of the SNP/UKIP pact bickering (and that's just the public stuff; goodness know what talks have already happened behind the scenes). But I can't give a mandate to those coalitions either because they're not formerly campaigning under them and that's not what will be on the ballot!

At least in 2010 all the nonsense really only happened after we knew what the public had decided........not before. And only because the public hadn't given a mandate for any party to govern as a majority - special circumstances, and not trying to figure out the solution before the problem was actually there. I think they should either campaign as coalitions if that's what they think they need to secure their votes, or just shut up about it and get on with, ya know, campaigning with actual policy...........
They do have reasons for this. Opinion polls. True they are only a snapshot but they are something.

Also the Tories only had a minority in 2010 and the general feeling is that although not much they have lost a little support.
 
They do have reasons for this. Opinion polls. True they are only a snapshot but they are something.

Also the Tories only had a minority in 2010 and the general feeling is that although not much they have lost a little support.

Oh I totally get what the polls are saying, and that they're probably pretty correct (although even the fabled exit poll has been wrong before). I just think on principle we shouldn't have all the talk, let alone political-points-scoring, over pacts before the vote, because that's not what the public vote for.
 
Political parties can and should only campaign on what they stand for and what they are proposing to do - but the fact is that the two main political parties that have enjoyed a monopoly on power for decades are both going to struggle to reach an overall majority, even more so than in 2010 where that was the outcome.

You can forget what any of the leaders say about possible pacts before the election - they will not want to highlight anything desirable about any of their opponents. After the election, however, it will be a completely different ball game.

Much is being made of the fact that the SNP stand to make substantial gains in Scotland, and could be the 3rd largest party in the UK, making them the power brokers post-election. But, most of their gains will be at the expense of Labour (the rest being Lib Dem) - so an SNP/Labour bloc will not be that much stronger than Labour were alone in 2010. Also, there's a huge problem with an SNP/Labour pact - they are fundamentally at odds with each other over many of the SNP's core policies - an SNP/Labour pact would be a marriage of convenience with the sole objective of ousting David Cameron, and would probably not last long, be horribly unstable and acrimonious, and would probably result in another general election and lasting damage to both the SNP and Labour (esp. the latter).

I think the most likely outcome is another Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition, personally.
 
That's only possible if the Lib-Dems don't get hammered in the election though.

A Conservative/Labour coalition is more likely than that.
 
I think the most likely outcome is another Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition, personally.
I don't think they're going to gain enough seats combined to solve a hung parliament - the most generous poll has them at 320 of the 326 seats needed, while combining the most optimistic results for both parties from different polls puts them at 328.

Now might be a good time to revisit the Political Compass test and the approximate relative positions of the parties in 2015:

uk2015.png

So. Spoiled ballot it is then.
 
In other countries, coalitions between the two main "opposite" parties is not uncommon. In fact, from a snouts in the trough perspective it is more beneficial to them; with a clear majority in the house the members of the two parties can conduct all the backroom deals they want and then pass it in the house with minimal opposition. This happens frequently in Austria with the ÖVP (Conservatives) and SPÖ (Labour) and has happened with the German CDU (Conservatives) and SPD (Labour) in the past too.

I honestly don't think a Labour-Tory coalition is as impossible as people will have you believe. Whether I would be happy with one, though....

Still hoping the fourth, fifth and sixth parties away from the main three ruffle enough feathers to shake the next generation up. Spoiled ballots or not, for those who will cast a counted vote there has not been a better time to stick two fingers up at the status quo.

Edit: Done the political compass again. In roughly the same zone as the previous two times I've done it, if not more libertarian on the Y axis.

CCE9bsSUoAIQ16q.png:large
 
Last edited:
I don't think they're going to gain enough seats combined to solve a hung parliament - the most generous poll has them at 320 of the 326 seats needed, while combining the most optimistic results for both parties from different polls puts them at 328.

There's also the DUP in Ireland, although I don't know how likely (or advisable) a formal coalition involving them might be.

I should have said that a Tory-LibDem coalition was the most likely coalition to gain an overall majority - the most likely outcome of the election, however, is arguably no coalition big enough for a majority government - a well-hung parliament as it were - although I assume in that case that the present PM stays on and another election is called?
 
There's also the DUP in Ireland, although I don't know how likely (or advisable) a formal coalition involving them might be.

I should have said that a Tory-LibDem coalition was the most likely coalition to gain an overall majority - the most likely outcome of the election, however, is arguably no coalition big enough for a majority government - a well-hung parliament as it were - although I assume in that case that the present PM stays on and another election is called?
I have absolutely no idea.

In theory it's the incumbent PM's fiat to try to form a new government from their own party and any willing to support it - whether as a formal coalition as this time around, on an ad hoc basis or even as a minority government - but if he can't he will be required to resign as PM. Anyone who can cobble together a government then can and become PM, though whether it's the old PM or a new one they will be required to pass the Queen's Speech to open parliament as a first test. If this motion does not pass, they will have to resign too.

At that point I have no idea what happens.
 
The last time we had two elections in a short space of time, the same year even, was 1974. That went from a Conservative majority to a Labour plurality hung parliament in February, with a subsequent outright Labour majority in October 1974. That majority was only 3 seats, mind.

The Conservatives were expected to win the (first) 1974 election but Labour's plurality was a surprise. The Conservatives attempted to form a coalition with the Liberals but this failed; Heath resigned, Wislon took over and increased the plurality later in the year.

Funnily enough, the two main parties took a battering in the popular votes and the minority parties made quite some ground in 1974.

How often does history repeat itself? Something similar could happen again.
 
Last edited:
Apparently I'm more right-wing than I was a few year's ago - I used to be green, now I'm borderline purple - this is consistent with my results from the recent questionnaire in the Telegraph...

chart


edit: The Green Party have a new party political broadcast on BBC2 this evening... (seriously, they do...)

 
Last edited:
There's also the DUP in Ireland, although I don't know how likely (or advisable) a formal coalition involving them might be.

Probably unlikely. The DUP have already laid out their demands for a pact (even though no one has really asked them for it): EU referendum, maintain defence spending, scrap the bedroom tax, sufficient border protection, and no SNP involved. So based on that a Labour deal certainly looks like a no go, and perhaps not a Conservative one either. On top of that I'm very sceptical that the DUP wouldn't use the opportunity to extract some more money or devolved powers for our assembly. If I were Lab/Con, they'd be so difficult to work with I wouldn't entertain the idea at all............but I'm not the one hungry for power so who knows :p
 
As long as it's not the bloody SNP and Labour i'm content, which leaves me with only one option really...

But I just fundamentally have an intense dislike for the SNP and their blatant tactics of screwing everyone for the sake of Scotland. Likewise, I think it deeply unfair that England has no say in Scottish politics but that Scotland has a say in policies which for the most part affect England.

First it was that muppet Salmond, now it's the equally spiteful Sturgeon.
 
Alright now I may be locked away in a hospital and not in keeping with the latest trends in British culture but surely it's not yet acceptable to drive your van onto your new neighbour's lawn without asking to unload your things :lol:
 
As long as it's not the bloody SNP and Labour i'm content, which leaves me with only one option really...

But I just fundamentally have an intense dislike for the SNP and their blatant tactics of screwing everyone for the sake of Scotland. Likewise, I think it deeply unfair that England has no say in Scottish politics but that Scotland has a say in policies which for the most part affect England.

First it was that muppet Salmond, now it's the equally spiteful Sturgeon.


Funny, It seems only a few months ago, you were all telling us how much you loved us Scots, & how you wanted us to stay & play our part in the UK. It now seems that what you meant was we were to keep quiet & not try & actually have any influence.

incidentally England does have a massive say in Scottish politics - that's how we have one Tory MP & a Tory led government. :)
 
Back