A hung parliament would be a disaster for this country, I would rather see Labour get in again with a working majority than see a hung parliament and coming from a die hard tory that is saying something

 

Hung parliaments lead to instability, both political and economic, we would have back door deals in smoke filled rooms just to keep a minority in power, we would have minority groups like the Lib Dems, SNP, Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and quite possibly the BNP effectively able to blackmail parties into agreeing to stuff by threatening votes of no confidence

 

Major's reign was a disaster because of the EU rebels holding the tories to ransom and that was with a small working majority so imagine what a hung parliament would be like, sod that

 

Exactly what I was going to say B.A. :)

Exactly what I was going to say B.A. :)

As ever, you completely ignore my post and have nothing to come back with...can somebody PLEASE ban this complete idiot/troll? What is the point of you being here if you aren't going to form a coherent response to anything? I just know next time the BNP come up I'm going to have to bring up that point-by-point dissection of their policies AGAIN and that you'd ignore it. AGAIN.

I was going to make exactly the same points that B.A. made but he said them first so why do I need to repeat them? To satisfy you I will then? :rolleyes:

 

 

A minority Government doesn't work and you always get another election a few months after like in 1974. We need a clear Tory working majority to get legislation through to sort out the Labour mess of the last 13 years. If it's a hung parliament you'd have secret meetings and the Lib-Dems blackmailing and trying to get PR which no-one else but them wants, in order to ensure their support.

Edited January 11, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

I was going to make exactly the same points that B.A. made but he said them first so why do I need to repeat them?

A minority Government doesn't work and you always get another election a few months after like in 1974. We need a clear Tory working majority to get legislation through to sort out the Labour mess of the last 13 years. If it's a hung parliament you'd have secret meetings and the Lib-Dems blackmailing and trying to get PR which no-one else but them wants, in order to ensure their support.

Because I asked you specific questions! PR for example, what's your argument against that?

 

In any case, the Lib Dems have said they wouldn't commit to going into coalition with a minority government without PR - which would hardly be a secret meeting seeing as everyone knows that they have that as a key condition.

 

In any case, that's pure political bias against hung parliaments :P And I would hardly say the last 13 years of Labour governance have been a complete mess, it's only really been the last five or six...

Because I asked you specific questions! PR for example, what's your argument against tat?

 

In any case, the Lib Dems have said they wouldn't commit to going into coalition with a minority government without PR - which would hardly be a secret meeting seeing as everyone knows that they have that as a key condition.

 

In any case, that's pure political bias against hung parliaments :P And I would hardly say the last 13 years of Labour governance have been a complete mess, it's only really been the last five or six...

 

Lib Dems will probably end up with around 20 MP's in the next parliament and maybe 15% of the national vote, is it good for democracy to have a party with a tiny minority of the country supporting it and tiny minority of MP's holding a party that got nearer 40% to ransom all the time ? if the public wanted PR they would vote Lib Dem so in the grand scheme of things the wishes of 15% should not be imposed on 100% of people

 

Clegg would effectively be holding parliament to ransom by threatening to bring down Cameron every time he did something Clegg didn't like

 

 

Lib Dems will probably end up with around 20 MP's in the next parliament and maybe 15% of the national vote, is it good for democracy to have a party with a tiny minority of the country supporting it and tiny minority of MP's holding a party that got nearer 40% to ransom all the time ? if the public wanted PR they would vote Lib Dem so in the grand scheme of things the wishes of 15% should not be imposed on 100% of people

 

Clegg would effectively be holding parliament to ransom by threatening to bring down Cameron every time he did something Clegg didn't like

20 MPs? Have you been paying any attention? :lol: They got 62 MPs with 22% of the vote last time, and that's when their support was at a lower level than it is now! I could alternately say in the grand scheme of things, why should the wishes of 35% of the people be imposed on 100% of people? Why is it just that a party that polls 35% of the vote gets 356 seats but one that gets 32% of the vote gets 198 seats? Because of the way the borders are drawn, the vast majority of seats are safe and we get such odd disparity. This only disenfranchises most of the people in the country, because it holds the nation's government to ransom to a handful of seats - how can a government accurately claim to represent a nation when it only got in by pandering to a select number of seats? A lot of people who would vote Lib Dem have been phased out because of the current system...

 

That's the point of hung parliaments, they encourage moderation of the worst excesses...I'm not saying they're a perfect solution, but at the moment we need as much stuff to go through that has essential agreement. Landslides and massive majorities don't encourage this.

Lib Dems will probably end up with around 20 MP's in the next parliament and maybe 15% of the national vote, is it good for democracy to have a party with a tiny minority of the country supporting it and tiny minority of MP's holding a party that got nearer 40% to ransom all the time ? if the public wanted PR they would vote Lib Dem so in the grand scheme of things the wishes of 15% should not be imposed on 100% of people

 

Clegg would effectively be holding parliament to ransom by threatening to bring down Cameron every time he did something Clegg didn't like

Even if the Lib Dem vote is as low as 15% - which I very much doubt - that would still make them one of the largest third parties in Europe. At 20%, they would be the strongest third party. As for the number of MPs, I think there will be at least 50.

 

First past the post worked reasonably well when Labour and Tories got over 90% of the vote between them. At the last election those two parties only got around two-thirds of the vote between them.

 

As for the point about "holding parliament to ransom", if that's what the electorate think, they will act accordingly at the following election.

Even if the Lib Dem vote is as low as 15% - which I very much doubt - that would still make them one of the largest third parties in Europe. At 20%, they would be the strongest third party. As for the number of MPs, I think there will be at least 50.

 

First past the post worked reasonably well when Labour and Tories got over 90% of the vote between them. At the last election those two parties only got around two-thirds of the vote between them.

 

As for the point about "holding parliament to ransom", if that's what the electorate think, they will act accordingly at the following election.

 

It is all hypothetical anyways as Cameron is going to get in with a significant majority unless something shocking happens between now and May

I have not got a lot to say in this thread except I'm in complete agreement with Tyron & Suedehead on this topic.

It is all hypothetical anyways as Cameron is going to get in with a significant majority unless something shocking happens between now and May

Did you not read what I'd said? :lol: He needs a swing of 7%, which is more than Margaret Thatcher achieved in 1979 (5.9%) with a far better campaign and a far weaker and less universal opposition, just to get a majority government at all! Cameron is eliciting little enthusiasm from the public so far other than 'at least he's not Gordon Brown', which isn't the sort of way he's going to get elected with a majority at all! Add in the fact that Brown's position will only get stronger as the economy gets better and you have a very likely minority government with a weakened Labour and strengthened Lib Dems holding Cameron back.

 

And, given that Thatcher managed to p*** everyone off and had plummeting approval ratings until the Falklands, even if Cameron managed a majority I don't think he'd be able to secure it...

Did you not read what I'd said? :lol: He needs a swing of 7%, which is more than Margaret Thatcher achieved (5.9%) with a far better campaign and a far weaker and less universal opposition, just to get a majority government at all! Cameron is eliciting little enthusiasm from the public so far other than 'at least he's not Gordon Brown', which isn't the sort of way he's going to get elected with a majority at all! Add in the fact that Brown's position will only get stronger as the economy gets better and you have a very likely minority government with a weakened Labour and strengthened Lib Dems holding Cameron back.

 

Won't happen

 

Cameron is consistently 10-13% ahead in the opinion polls

 

Brown is facing internal strife within his own ranks

 

The economy is going to get only marginally better before the election and even then stealth taxes are p***ing off more people by the day

 

Brown incurred such a national debt on his watch that we are almost a banana republic and people blame him for that

 

Immigration is increasing relentlessly

 

We are still in Afghanistan (while Cameron will be too each military death damages Brown)

 

 

Did you not read what I'd said? :lol: He needs a swing of 7%, which is more than Margaret Thatcher achieved in 1979 (5.9%) with a far better campaign and a far weaker and less universal opposition, just to get a majority government at all! Cameron is eliciting little enthusiasm from the public so far other than 'at least he's not Gordon Brown', which isn't the sort of way he's going to get elected with a majority at all! Add in the fact that Brown's position will only get stronger as the economy gets better and you have a very likely minority government with a weakened Labour and strengthened Lib Dems holding Cameron back.

 

And, given that Thatcher managed to p*** everyone off and had plummeting approval ratings until the Falklands, even if Cameron managed a majority I don't think he'd be able to secure it...

 

 

I won't be so mean as to PM you on the day after the election when me and B.A. are proved right and Cameron has a good majority. One poll just out for Political Betting showing them at 40% and Labour 24%!! Dream on about a hung parliament but it ain't gonna happen. Do you go on any political sites or forums like I do or is your prediction of a hung parliament just wishful thinking? :rolleyes:

Edited January 11, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

I won't be so mean as to PM you on the day after the election when me and B.A. are right and Cameron has a good majority. One poll just out for Political Betting showing them at 40% and Labour 24%!! Dream on about a hung parliamnt but it ain't gonna happen.

These polls are ridiculously inaccurate when it comes to judging swings, and very, very volatile - need I remind you that just last month Cameron was on 38% and Brown on 32%?

 

Do you realistically think that Cameron would have a lead of 16 points? That would be record-breaking! Attlee was voted in in 1945 on a tide of euphoric optimism for the government that lay ahead. And that was a lead of 12 points! You seriously think someone like Cameron, who doesn't have all that much public enthusiasm, will really get a 16 point lead?

 

I think you're the one that's dreaming on...

These polls are ridiculously inaccurate when it comes to judging swings, and very, very volatile - need I remind you that just last month Cameron was on 38% and Brown on 32%?

 

Do you realistically think that Cameron would have a lead of 16 points? That would be record-breaking! Attlee was voted in in 1945 on a tide of euphoric optimism for the government that lay ahead. And that was a lead of 12 points! You seriously think someone like Cameron, who doesn't have all that much public enthusiasm, will really get a 16 point lead?

 

I think you're the one that's dreaming on...

 

I think the final lead Cameron has will be 10-12% come polling day

 

 

Won't happen

 

Cameron is consistently 10-13% ahead in the opinion polls

 

Brown is facing internal strife within his own ranks

 

The economy is going to get only marginally better before the election and even then stealth taxes are p***ing off more people by the day

 

Brown incurred such a national debt on his watch that we are almost a banana republic and people blame him for that

 

Immigration is increasing relentlessly

 

We are still in Afghanistan (while Cameron will be too each military death damages Brown)

-Not consistently - as I said, just last month Cameron was on 38 and Brown was on 32.

-Internal strife comes and goes. I have no doubt it'll be yet another failed revolution, if he was going to be toppled it would've happened after the European elections...

-The key changes will be psychological - people will be upbeat about the exit from recession that will have occurred by then, and generally we've been in recovery for the past four or so months.

-National debt? By your judgement of national debt, Japan, Germany, America, all worse than banana republics - Japan have had one of 125% of GDP for years now. Germany and USA are approaching 100%, if not past it by now...we're on about 70%!

-Immigration isn't actually increasing at all, and hasn't since the beginning of the recession. Half the EU influx of 2004 has left by now!

 

Don't get me wrong, Labour are going to lose the next election, but I severely doubt Cameron will manage a majority.

I think the final lead Cameron has will be 10-12% come polling day

You think the optimism that Cameron has even begins to rival Attlee's? No, mark my words, it'll be far more along the lines of Thatcher's swing in '79, except that won't be enough to get him a majority...

You think the optimism that Cameron has even begins to rival Attlee's? No, mark my words, it'll be far more along the lines of Thatcher's swing in '79, except that won't be enough to get him a majority...

 

Also Cameron has all the press behind him just about, The Sun effectively dictates who is going to win the election

 

Cameron = Sun, Mail, Express, Star, Telegraph, Times, Standard

 

Brown = Mirror, Guardian

As the old saying goes "a week is a long time in politics" so at the moment I think the Conservatives will have a modest overall majority.

But if Labour got rid of "Liability" Brown, then things would tighten up in the polls.

 

Next General Election - Overall Majority

Matched: GBP 774,217

Betfair.com

 

Conservative Majority 4/9 Odds On

No Overall Majority 14/5

Labour Majority 18/1

 

Also Cameron has all the press behind him just about, The Sun effectively dictates who is going to win the election

That's just another reason for hoping the Tories don't win. The election should be decided by the electorate not a squalid rag like the Sun. The fact that the owner isn't even British just compounds the insult.

I don't get the hatred of PR.

 

It works perfectly fine up here, well there is that minor flaw in that it allowed the SNP to get enough seats to form a Minority government.

 

On the major plus side, the fact that the SNP have a tiny majority means no independence :cheer: the best policies are getting through [Like Forth and Tay Bridge tolls being killed, Scotlands last two toll bridges. People were charged to enter Fife in the North and the South. Not cool. The SNP also took the Labour administrations free uni one step further by getting rid of the graduate endowment. A pledge that won them the student vote and the election]