PDA

View Full Version : PPrune Ballot Box


Tartan Gannet
13th May 2001, 01:26
Until 22.00 hours BST on 7th June we will be bored out of our boxes by a rag bag of liars, egotists, and self-servers asking us to give them a very well paid job and membership of the most exclusive club in the UK, perhaps the World.

For the amusement of all I have started this thread as a straw poll.

So PPruners and Jet Blasters I pose two simple questions:-

1 Which Party will you be voting for on 7th June?

2 Have you changed your vote from May 1997 and if so from what party?

My answers:-

1 Conservative

2 Last time, New Labour.

Over to you folks, if I get sufficient response I will post the final results and the change from last time. So please vote only once. Also UK electors only.
TG

OLD_EGG_BOUND
13th May 2001, 03:22
National Democrats: Anti europe, anti immigration, anti paedophile.

www.natdems.org.uk (http://www.natdems.org.uk)

No change.

------------------


[This message has been edited by OLD_EGG_BOUND (edited 14 May 2001).]

HugMonster
13th May 2001, 03:34
I won't be voting this time. It only encourages them to think that I actually WANT any of those t*ssers thinking they know what's in my best interests.

However, if there were a Green Party candidate here, I'd probably vote for them, if I were going to vote at all.

Last time I voted SDLP.

------------------
Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip

tunneler
13th May 2001, 03:38
Doesnt matter who you vote for - the useless ****ers will just line their own pockets, destroy our country and then fanny about for 4 years before the process is repeated.

Bunch of @rsewipes the lot of em

VFE
13th May 2001, 04:08
Well since my days as a Trotskyite at college (yeah I know, but it was one of them fads you go through!) I always said that no matter what - I would vote. I mean after all, these creeps supposedly govern our lives.
But this year? I am sooooooo sick of the lot of them (it is Hobsons choice isn't it?) that I shall not even bother.

I thought that the Blair Witch Project bloke was OKish at first but now he comes across as an arrogant, power-crazed @sshole that has totally forgotten that the public voted him in to his job. I know that is a typical personality profile of a polititian but he seemed ...well..... different at first.
The fuel "crisis" finished him in many peoples eyes - including mine.

How a PM conducts him/herself during a war is usually a good indicator as to wether they are any good or not.

VFE.

PS: Where did Billy Hagues northern accent go? Maybe he lost it during his 14 pint benders! :) :) :) :)

Edited for sleaze, sex and filth which is always bound to appear when politics are mentioned!

[This message has been edited by VFE (edited 12 May 2001).]

Brakes...beer
13th May 2001, 21:53
1. Tory

2. Tory

Loki
13th May 2001, 21:55
Lib Dem then and now.

Velvet
14th May 2001, 02:22
1 Tory

2 Hopefully an Independent (wouldn't it be wonderful if there were loads of Independents not reliant on Party Loyalty, and went to Parliament to do the best for the people who elected them) - I can dream can't I

Man-on-the-fence
14th May 2001, 02:23
Last Time: Referendum
This time: Tory (probably)

Hug.
Tony Benn said a very sensible thing in the HofP at PMQ last week. A precis of it is, go and vote - people have died so that you are able to.
My suggestion is, if you think they are tossers then write that on the ballot paper (almost an abstention), at least you have "exercised your franchise".

Its not often that I agree with A W-B but I did then.

[This message has been edited by Man-on-the-fence (edited 13 May 2001).]

What_does_this_button_do?
14th May 2001, 02:31
..any party that allows us to see more of PP!!!!

Capt Homesick
14th May 2001, 04:20
Last time Lib-Dem.
This time? Given that the only effective opposition is Rory Bremner, isn't it a shame we can't do write-ins in this country?

HugMonster
14th May 2001, 04:41
MotF:- Okay, people have died for democracy. Good for them, I say.

Now, let's have a little democracy in this country, rather than a farcical show, in which there is no difference between the lying, cheating gits offering themselves for a free ride at our expense.

This will be the first time ever I have abstained. I am, as most of the longer-standing PPRuNers know, highly motivated politically. I am not abstaining out of apathy, but out of frustration with the levels to which parliamentary democracy has sunk.

Ministers are no longer considered accountable to Parliament. When did you last see an honest question given an honest answer at Prime Minister's Question time? Instead all we have is knockabout insults, point-scoring and sound-bite politics.

All recent governments have treated the electorate as if they were children with no understanding of the issues involved. Instead we have sunk to the worst depths of American personality-based electioneering, and we are, it seems, being asked in effect to elect a President in all but name. We don't even have the liberty of electing a PArliament of the opposite persuasion to keep our President in line and his powers limited. Instead we are electing someone with almost limitless power to do whatever the heck he likes, and damn whatever he said before the election. (Remember "Our Skies Are Not For Sale"?)

Nope - lying, cheating bastards, the lot of them. Damn them and all their kind. I'll not vote for any of them until I see a sign - any sign - that my vote, and the vote of everyone in this country, makes a difference, that people take note of our wishes, that it is not simply an exercise in choosing which flavour of poison you want to drink.

lone eagle
14th May 2001, 04:47
Last time I was too young but this time I will vote Tory, this is nothing to do with the merits of the party but because I can't stand Blair any longer. The race issue is something I feel very strongly about, don't get me wrong, some good friends of mine come from minority backgrounds; my problem is not with the blacks, Asians etc but with the Government who try and suppress our views on this subject. Freedom of speech is the God given right of every Englishman but yet we are forced to remain silenced by the far left who appear to have a firm grip on the reigns of power now. :mad:

Robin Cooke said that there was no such race as the 'English Race', or words to that effect, so why I ask myself, did hundreds of thousands of men die in two world wars??? We are a sad and pathetic country now, the laughing stock of Europe and we are unable to do a thing about it.

Send Clowns
14th May 2001, 13:46
Need you ask, TG?

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

angels
14th May 2001, 14:03
Interesting responses.

1) Labour

2) Labour

Evo7
14th May 2001, 14:22
Last time, Conservative.

This time, Labour.

Probably in a bit of a minority, here, but

(a) I guess I'm pro-Europe, in principle at least if not in implemenation. Our EU could certainly be improved, but I'd rather have us in it than out of it under Hague.

(b) Tactics. I'd rather get anybody than my (current) Conservative MP, and Labour was second last time around.

I'd probably vote Lib Dem if not for (b).

ickle black box
14th May 2001, 14:30
Tories - They are the most opposed to the EU at present.

If we get a one way ticket to Europe, you guys and girls won't need to bother voting again. We'll be ruled from abroad, and no matter who you vote into the UK government, they won't have the power to make much difference!)

ickle

JPJ
14th May 2001, 14:34
I think that you are wrong, Huggy. The public are undeniably cynical about politics, but the main responsibility for that lies firstly with the press, and then with the parties for allowing themselves to be led by the media.
The media, who have dumbed down remorselessly in the pursuit of ratings, refuse to cover any idea that takes longer than about twenty seconds or five lines to put across. The parties have adapted their presentation to this, and the result is 'Politics-Lite'. Inevitably this produces cynicism.
I have over the years heard senior members of all three parties speaking both in front of and away from cameras. It can be fascinating to hear a senior man who is given the time and the space to expound his philosophy in detail, whether you agree with him or not. A twenty-second soundbite just leads to yah-boo politics.
I am personally most depressed by the Europe 'debate'. The best that we can do is a mixture of 'two world wars and one world cup' and a rant about the price of bananas. Not a single well known politician has been brave enough to point out to the new generation, for whom the war is in the distant past, that the soil of Europe has been soaked in blood for a thousand years or more, and that the EU makes further wars in Europe not just unthinkable but in practice impossible.
So no, I am not cynical, and yes I shall vote.

ickle black box
14th May 2001, 17:13
JPJ

You just said
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Not a single well known politician has been brave enough to point out to the new generation, for whom the war is in the distant past, that the soil of Europe has been soaked in blood for a thousand years or more, and that the EU makes further wars in Europe not just unthinkable but in practice impossible.
So no, I am not cynical, and yes I shall vote.
</font>

You can hardly be more wrong with that statement. At present we have NATO, which provides this security. The EU army (aka Rapid Reaction Force) will make no diference to this situation. JPJ, if you think for a moment, you could consider the cause of a great deal of the conflicts in the last few centuries. They have been caused by countries invading another to gain more land and influence; and the failure of unions of states/countries.

For example;
The American Civil War. It is only know as a civil war, because the North won. If the South had won, the USA would have been divided, and it would have been known as the War of Independence. It was caused by a unwanted union of states.

The former USSR. How many wars have there been, where countries have tried to get out of the USSR. It's still happening in Chechyna.

Former Yugoslavia. Here, again, we had a union, where war has broken out, as member states try to leave.

We now have an arms race between China and Taiwan. China wants it's 'breakaway' republic back under their control. Unions have never been willing to let a member state leave, as it is usually the first of many.

Since the EU was formed, nationalism has significantly increased in a large number of the member states. Resentment towards other European countries has increased as a result of pushing a popluation into a union, where the majority of the population are opposed to it.

JPJ, please give me an example of a successful union of countries that has occoured in the last 100 years.

ickle

Man-on-the-fence
14th May 2001, 18:33
Hug

I dont disagree with a word you have written. All I would suggest is that if you are going to abstain (because that is what you believe in,) then register your abstention on the ballot paper.

Otherwise you will be classified amongst those who were apathetic towards the whole thing. Clearly you are not.

[This message has been edited by Man-on-the-fence (edited 14 May 2001).]

Evo7
14th May 2001, 19:46
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
I dont disagree with a word you have written. All I would suggest is that if you are going to abstain (because that is what you believe in,) then register your abstention on the ballot paper.
</font>

I strongly agree with this - I'd love to see "Spoiled Ballot" win a few seats. It would point out pretty clearly how damn fed up most of us are with Westminster....

JPJ
14th May 2001, 22:11
In my post about Europe, I referred to the impossibility of future wars in Europe. Of course I refer to war between European countries (which do not include the Balkans!)
Go back a century or five and you have had England v Scotland, England (then GB) v Netherlands, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh.
Germany visited France three times in less than a century. France visited everywhere on the way to Moscow. The bloodbaths of these full-blown wars between states cannot now happen, partly for ecoomic reasons, partly for social ones, and partly for military ones. Weapon systems are built internationally these days.

I stand by my assertion.

Blacksheep
15th May 2001, 10:08
Don't waste your vote. The only way to protest is to vote for a party that has little chance of being elected by accident. That way your protest is noted. Also, if you just turn up and "spoil your paper" by writing "I vote for none of these" on it the rules state that each candidate has to be shown all spoiled papers. So they know. Staying at home says nothing.

There must be a party in this list to be awarded your protest vote:

http://www.nene.ac.uk/lrs/Subjects/Politics/political_Parties.html

My own favourite is The Monster Raving Loonie's. Once, in my old constituency our candidate even retained his deposit while the Labour candidate lost his. Unfortunately Labour got the message that year and reinvented itself.

Vote for insanity. You know it makes sense.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema


[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 15 May 2001).]

Nil nos tremefacit
15th May 2001, 11:47
Tory

Tory (Save the pound/Eurosceptic/rewrite the treaties to make us a trading association/sell bananas by the lb)

Big Red ' L '
15th May 2001, 15:34
Labour (Just to keep the tories out...i.e privatisation......Good idea my arse.....)


Labour (Just to keep the tories out again...)

Next..

------------------
Its not the fall that kills you...Its the sudden stop.....

foghorn
15th May 2001, 18:34
Last time: Labour

This time: Lib Dem

Why? Arrogance, and nasty tax called IR35 that has just increased my tax bills by 15% of my income and removed any incentive to grow my company and employ other people. A bad law for UK plc.

Send Clowns
15th May 2001, 21:10
How anyone can trust Princess Tony after seeing what he is actually like is a complete mystery to me. He lies, cheats, takes bribes, takes our money to pay for his political advancement and is willing to risk destruction of our country for his pet political and economic experiments that are irreversible.

The Lib Dems are equally bad, proudly proclaiming that they will risk this country in political and economic games and demanding destruction of democracy for purposes of their own advancement.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

[This message has been edited by Send Clowns (edited 15 May 2001).]

VFE
15th May 2001, 22:06
And another thing:

My boss doesn't bring his spouse with him to work every other day and she doesn't appear at conferences and functions very often either!

Hmmmmmm......

foghorn
16th May 2001, 13:19
"How anyone can trust Princess Tony after seeing what he is actually like is a complete mystery to me. He lies, cheats, takes bribes, takes our money to pay for his political advancement and is willing to risk destruction of our country for his pet political and economic experiments that are irreversible."

Not a million miles off what a certain Mrs. Thatcher did in the eighties, then. No wonder no-one trusts politicians

I'd rather
16th May 2001, 13:49
Last time: would have voted Labour, but was living abroad and didn't get organised in time

This time: Lib Dem

SKYYACHT
16th May 2001, 20:27
Another point to be borne in mind, is that those individuals who dont exercise their right to vote, also lose the moral right to express an opinion against the elected government, or to criticise actions supposedly taken on their behalf.

The only way that government can be moderated and reflect the views of the people more truthfully is to consider true proportional representation; I think it farcical that when a certain M. Thatcher polled 47% of the votes, and then took office....53% of the electorate didnt want her.....

Anyway, I think that I will vote for the party that improves this country by the greatest margin.....so the Jury is still out!

Tailwinds

HugMonster
16th May 2001, 21:13
No, SkyYacht, the right to express an opinion (why is it a "moral" right"?) remains.

I intend to express my opinion on the entire state of democracy in this country by voting for:-

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Do I lose the right to express an opinion because none of the idiot candidates represent me, and all singularly fail to represent anything but their own desires for power? Of course I don't.

So get off your "moral" high horse, open your eyes and have a look at what's happening to democracy here.

Brakes...beer
16th May 2001, 22:55
Let's not get too cynical about politicians here. Yes, there are rotten apples in every party, but it's a shitty job (compared with ours), and most of them genuinely want to improve the country. The problem is that, once in power, they are frustrated by The System - Civil Service, media and internal party politics.

Of course, anybody may abstain, but think hard before you do so, rather than just doing it out of irritation. Do you really think the country would be the same today if the Tories had won in 1997, or if Michael Foot had become Prime Minister in 1983? Our votes, en masse, do make a difference to our future. So use them!

SKYYACHT
16th May 2001, 23:15
Hugmonster,

In general principle I agree with you. However, the main thrust of my post remains -Is the first past the winning post an adequate and fair way of electing a government?

Regarding the lack of acceptable candidates I can only say that like you, I too have a loathing for the spineless snot gobelling little toads who stalk the halls of power. I too think that there is very little choice. I dont know if failing to vote will make any difference?

Would the likes of Keith Vaz et al take a jot of notice? the whole corrupt gravy train will still pull out of the station of 7th June, but perhaps with a different driver on board.

I was not trying to "ride a moral high horse" - sorry it came across as such. Just making an observation that should those who had a right to influence the outcome of an election and not choose to exercise that right really criticise?


I accept your principle that in the event of having no acceptable candidate then to insert none of the above is an optio

I actually do believe in the old maxim that states "I may not share your opinion, but I defend your right to say it"

Now, taking it one step further, Do you think that the fundamental tenets of democracy are being eroded by recent governements.....?

Send Clowns
16th May 2001, 23:48
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif foghorn

Thatcher never increased the extant democratic deficit in England, threatened the Union, tried to ditch the pound, backed German plans for European Federation, threatened to introduce PR to the Commons, ignored Parliament completely, announced policy by leak, treated celebrities as important just because of their fame, tried to disable the upper house when it disagreed with her (which it frequently did), took bribes, allowed her party members to indulge in corruption nearly the level of Robinson's alone (which smears even the Great Tony Himself), corrupted the BBC etc. These are each a disgrace to the creep and his government, and many of them - devolution, Lords reform, accepting millions in donations with strings attached - were simply and obviously to increase or entrench the power of his own party. That is why England, which would not remain in Labour-led control has no separate parliament.

Tony Blair is a traitor.

SKYYACHT

So if Thatcher should not have had the PM's job then who should? Someone who was backed by even fewer votes? That is the only alternative, and shows very simply why PR is anti-democratic.

On your point about Vaz, under PR how would anger at Vaz or Robinson be expressed? If Princess Tony liked them, they would still get their places in parliament. All the power is with high-ranking politicians, none with the people or the back bench. Now these crooks have to fight for themselves, and the back bench can sack the government/opposition, not the other way round.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

[This message has been edited by Send Clowns (edited 16 May 2001).]

JPJ
16th May 2001, 23:54
If I were a libel lawyer, I would sharpen my pencil right now.

Nil nos tremefacit
17th May 2001, 00:09
JPJ

If you were a libel lawyer you'd get your secretary to put ink in your very expensive designer fountain pen. You would never dirty your hands.

:)

Send Clowns
17th May 2001, 01:55
Every charge is in the public domain, and easily justified. I'd be safe anyway :) Tony wouldn't want his past record actually looked at http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Velvet
17th May 2001, 02:21
Did anyone see the punch up today between John Prescott and the spectator who threw an egg.

I mean to actually have a scuffle in front of the the TV cameras, and end up ignominiously on his back with the opponent winning until the 'minders' pulled him off. It was classic, not exactly the way to win votes.

But ooh it was hilarious.

And then Blair is made to look a fool, unable to do more than mutter sorry to some woman who harrangued him for several minutes.

This election may not be so boring after all.

Mad Pax
17th May 2001, 02:36
My rotten egg stall will be open between 0800 and 1730hrs Mon - Fri at a Party HQ near you...

I personally will be voting for Cat Mandu - clearly the best option.

------------------
Oi got a bran' new comboine 'aarverster...

HomerSimpson
17th May 2001, 20:28
Last time I voted Labour.

This time I'll also vote Labour.

My reasons;
I dont agree with Lib Dem wanting to increase the higher rate of tax to 50%. It makes no sense, when they say - little boys and girls, you must go to school and get a good education, so you can get a good job - then we will tax the **** out of you till you can't afford your mortgage repayments anymore!

I agree with some of the Tory policies, such as secure centres for immigrants and asylum seekers, and low fuel tax (in principle, but it will go on somewhere else). But Mr Hague couldn't run a bath let alone a country.

And finally, Mr Blair. Get the party sorted out, and lead from the front, set an example to the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. Make Great Britain great again.


------------------
Duff, Duff, that Wonderful stuff. Ummmmm Doughnuts

foghorn
17th May 2001, 20:59
Send Clowns,

Oh dear, you do have a short memory and seem to have swallowed a lot of Tory propaganda hook line and sinker...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Thatcher never increased the extant democratic deficit in England, </font>

Abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils and the GLC. Rate Capping.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">threatened the Union,</font>

By giving people a chance to democratically vote in a referendum for better local representation? Fine democrats the Tories are, opposing devolution.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">tried to ditch the pound,</font>

A policy of waiting and seeing if it's good for Britain - solid pragmatism (that was also the policy of the Major government)? The 'hidden agenda' is a figment of New Tory imagination.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
backed German plans for European Federation,
</font>

Pure Tory propaganda, Send Clowns.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">threatened to introduce PR to the Commons,</font>

Aren't you getting Labour mixed up with the LibDems here?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">ignored Parliament completely,</font>

A view levelled at all large-majority governments, just like Thatcher's 1983-87 parliament.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">announced policy by leak,</font>

Of course that never happened under the Tories.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">treated celebrities as important just because of their fame,</font>

I remember those laughable Tory attempts to have their own celebrity endorsement - however they've stopped it now because wheeling out Ken Dodd and Jim 'nick nick' Davison again doesn't live up to Hague's 'modern' image.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">...tried to disable the upper house when it disagreed with her (which it frequently did)</font>

It infrequently did and she invoked the Parliament Act every time - that's how she got the Poll Tax through Parliament.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">took bribes,</font>

Hamilton, Mates, etc. etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">allowed her party members to indulge in corruption nearly the level of Robinson's alone (which smears even the Great Tony Himself)</font>

Hamilton, Mates, etc. etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">corrupted the BBC etc.</font>

Nearly privatised it and crammed the TV watchdogs with her cronies because it didn't always agree with her.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">devolution,</font>

see above re. democracy

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Lords reform,</font>

Of course the Tories loved the Lords with its massive in-built Tory majority.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
accepting millions in donations with strings attached</font>

of course the millions that the Tories took over the years never had any strings attached. It's a pure coincidence that BA stopped contributing to the Tories as soon as Maggie got toppled and they stopped favouring them, then....


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">were simply and obviously to increase or entrench the power of his own party</font>

see above re met councils.

----

The only possible thing you could say that would stick would that new Labour really are JUST like Tories, just as everyone says they are. But that criticism was telling in its absence, Send Clowns.


Christ, I don't want to seem to be standing on a soapbox for New Labour, they have manifestly failed to deliver what they promised: they're all bloody corrupt.

Unfortunately we have to choose the best from a bad bunch.


[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 17 May 2001).]

HomerSimpson
17th May 2001, 23:23
Foggy,

You're not Tony Blair in disguise are you? If so I'll vote for you!

Homer ;)

------------------
Duff, Duff, that Wonderful stuff. Ummmmm Doughnuts

ickle black box
17th May 2001, 23:32
It's a pity that party political broadcasts aren't subject to the trade descriptions act. We might then start to get what the parties promise.

One of my favourite lies from the last 4 years was on the number of police, made by Jack Straw "We will recruit an extra 4000 police". This sounded really good, until we discovered he actually meant 'We will recruit 4000 new police, to help replace the 5000 that are leaving, leaving only a defecit of 1000'

ickle

Send Clowns
17th May 2001, 23:35
Foggy, I would answer every piece of crap you spouted, but someone so far up The Great Creep Tony's arse isn't going to be able to see out.



------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Tartan Gannet
17th May 2001, 23:46
Foghorn, Im only sorry that instead of privatising some of the former great industries of Britain Thatcher didnt sell off the BBC to the highest bidder. I have given up listening to the BBC World Service because of its bias and even Radio 4 is getting as bad. We could well do without this parasite and its "Electronic Poll Tax", the TV licence.

On June 7th, although I abhor some of the Tory's policies, in the marginal seat I live in I will be "thinking the unthinkable" and voting Tory, (their candidate is a decent sort, quite moderate as they go), to hopefully oust my Blair supporting MP and thus reduce Phoney Tony's majority. If Labour ever drops the "New" and goes back to being the Traditional Labour Party we all loved then I will vote for it again. Send Clowns, politics does indeed make strange bedfellows, but as they say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

To all who have contributed so far, thanks, even if some of you have swayed this thread from the mere straw poll I orginally intended. I dont mind as when starting a thread one must accept that it could drift off in a different direction to what one had anticpated or desired.

I will as promised tot up the figures from intentions stated and changes admitted and publish them on eve of poll June 6th.

Send Clowns
18th May 2001, 01:04
Indeed, TG, though I hope we would still have been friends without New Labour. Sorry to here you won't be at the Bash, I'll have a dram on your behalf.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Laser Jet
18th May 2001, 01:46
TG

If you live in Reading East and Wansdyke and your Tory candidate's initials are BT IMHO you will be voting for a 2-faced tw*t. I stress it is only my opinion as I have only known him for 3 years! He used to be an acolyte of Shaun Woodward, which says it all.

Tartan Gannet
18th May 2001, 02:24
Laser Jet, near miss! I live just within Reading WEST and my Tory Candidate has the initials SR. I have known him since 1973 and will certainly be voting for him on 7th June.

Unwell_Raptor
18th May 2001, 03:04
I've just been looking back over past elections. I first voted in 1970 when I was 23 (voting age was then 21) and I have never failed to vote in a General Election. I have only ever voted for the winning candidate on one occasion, in all that time. Perhaps it's as well that I don't bet on horses.

foghorn
18th May 2001, 14:24
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Foggy, I would answer every piece of crap you spouted, but someone so far up The Great Creep Tony's arse isn't going to be able to see out.</font>

Send Clowns, well really http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif. Take a cold shower my man. That really wasn't called for. I guess you really don't have answers then if you have to descend into insults.

Did you read the end of my post? Or my previous post on this thread? No, by the simple act of countering your parroted propaganda which clearly comes straight from Conservative Central office, you tar me as some sort of New Labour fellow traveller. I've voted for all three main parties in my time and defitiely won't be voting for them this time. My friend, you just assumed about my politics :rolleyes: And you know what they say when you ASSUME? It makes an ASS out of U and ME.

stay cool my friend,
foggy.

[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 18 May 2001).]

foghorn
18th May 2001, 14:30
TGI think you're moving back to a sort of voting pattern that a lot more people should move back to - voting for the best man or woman to represent their constituency, rather than following the party political flock. It's what our parliamentary system was designed for and a good thing IMHO.

cheers!
foggy

foghorn
18th May 2001, 14:36
HomerSimpson,

Oh dear, am I being that smarmy? ;)

Tartan Gannet
19th May 2001, 22:15
The "Write in" vote is one way to register your feelings if you are not satisfied with the parties standing in your constituency.

All one does is to go to the Polling Station or use the Postal Vote if you have one and write the name of the party, person, organisation, or sentiment you wish on the Ballot Paper and put it in the box or post it back. Thus you have voted but can make your feelings felt. Sure this doesnt count in the result but is merely a spoilt paper but all candidates and their agents see these when they are scrutinised by the Returning Officer before the result is declared. As a former Local Councillor, (twice) a frequent candidate and sometime agent I have seen many trechant comments on Ballot Papers. In the last Euro Elections, faced with the totally undemocratic closed party list system brought in by Blair to please his Lib Dem friends I refused to meekly put my X against a party label but put 11 ticks against the names of the 11 candidates (across party lines but NO New Labour), that I wanted and I felt that there being 11 MEPs for the South East area then all electors ought to have had 11 votes to use as they so desired. I also wrote this reason on the paper. Yes, it was a spoilt paper but I hope someone read it.

Merely staying at home is no answer, go and vote or act quickly and get a postal vote and if needs be do as I have detailed above.

Send Clowns
20th May 2001, 02:24
Foggy,

Again I have to apologise for skimming and missing your anti-New Labour point, but I have to stand by the assertion that your assessment of previous Tory is wrong.

Some more detailed debate, since you don't believe my rather harsh last post http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/redface.gif

There was no reason democratically to have the GLC. There was no equivalent institution elsewhere in the country. Rate capping was popular, and tended to reign in corrupt local politicians such as Hatton.

The referenda for devolution did not represent democracy. Not only were they run in a distorted manner, but to use simple majority to make a major change like this is obviously foolish. You could time the referendum and pass changes that were only briefly popular but were almost impossible to revoke. Look at the petty majority in Wales : less than 51% of a ~50% turnout! What I was referring to however was the Westlothian question. That is the increase in democratic defecit. Scotland and Wales were already over-represented in Parliament. Now their MPs vote on England-only law.

Devolution is also anti-democratic. No voters know exactly what is decided in Westminster and what is decided locally. Therefore there is no accountability. PR used for devolved authorities concentrates power in the central party, away from the people.

German plans for European Federation are not Tory propoganda. They have been discussed in the German parliament. These may be pushed through by politicians even though no country's populations agree. You have accepted Blair/Lib-Dem/BBC propoganda that this is not a realistic threat.

Labour have continuously flirted with giving in to Lib-Dem demands for PR in the Commons. If parliament is hung they may well cave in. That could very well destroy political stability and accountability in this country, but I don't believe this risk would stop Princess Tony.

Thatcher never ignored parliament. She sometimes forced through legislation, but that has always been done. Blair has made every attempt to make both houses of parliament irrelevant. He seems to consider celebrities and the media to be more important.

Announcement by leak was never clear government policy under the Tories, and was generally not seen to be due to the wishes of the leadership. It is now so blatant that New Labour seem to have stopped denying it. This sidelines parliament, makes the media into the important forum, and of course the media are very cosy with Blair.

Do you really think that celebrities are important, or Gerry Halliwell should be favoured by Labour just because she's famous for having left a crap pop band? Don't you find his desire to be seen so much with famous people is a dreadful extension of the stupid cult of celebrity?

As far as I understand you are wrong in your facts. Apparently the Lords statistically sent back more legislation to the Tory government than to Labour. The Tories appreciated that actually a lot of sense came out of the very experienced upper house, and that they amended the bill accordingly, sent it back, often to approval. Labour is far too arrogant, and though historically the Lords tend to actually be very careful as to the amendments suggested Blair never listens.

Do you know the cost of legislation now? 1,000,000. Bernie Ecclestone, anti-hunt groups (both were discovered and Tonee quickly backtracked). The link was never so clear before - always it was a company backing the party that favoured a viewpoint favourable to them, rather than a party changing its viewpoint to favour donors.

Look forward to a few drinks at the bash, but probably best to keep off political discussions :)

Yours aye
RND

foghorn
20th May 2001, 02:38
Send Clowns,

Apology accepted, it was a long post I made.

Thanks for responding to my points. As you can now see I was being devil's advocate to a large degree.

You make a good point with the GLC, Red Ken was running it like a fiefdom. However in the Metropolitan County that I lived in at the time, dissolution of the County Council was seen for exactly what it was: removal of a democratically elected local body simply because it was never going to be Tory. In 1986 only the Metropolitan County councils (all Labour) were abolished, not the Shire County councils (mainly Tory at the time). If that's not a cynical, politically inspired removal of democracy, similar to that which you accuse New Labour, I don't know what is.

I'm not going to go on to discuss your other points, it's not really for this thread, and as I said I was playing devils advocate and agree with you on some. The reason why people often hold such fundamentally different political opinions is that so many things are open to interpretation. I am trying to get you to see the other side on some of the issues (as I would someone who came in and started spewing how great New Labour is.....) If you set your stall out with very vociferous and polarised opinions you should be prepared to receive at least some challenge from others and be prepared discuss these in civilised debate...

cheers!
foggy.

btw interestingly enough the person who invented the term 'West Lothian Question' is a Labour MP - Tam Dalyell.

[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 19 May 2001).]

Tartan Gannet
28th May 2001, 20:57
Hi all! Ive just been to the West of England and if the massed ranks of posters (billboards) are anything to go by the Tory vote is solid in Rural Areas.

What I cannot square is the massive mismatch between the Opinion Polls Mega New Labour Lead and what people are ACTUALLY saying in pubs, bus queues, shops etc. I think both the pollsters and Phoney Tony are in for a shock, no he wont lose, we cant expect THAT miracle, but I feel a big drop in his majority is coming. I have done my bit already as having a postal vote I have ticked the box for the Tory, both for the Parliamentary Seat and our Local Council.

It will be interesting to see if the polls alter any with recent developments?

All the best, TG :)

foghorn
28th May 2001, 21:03
TG,

Funny you should mention that - I was also in the West Country yesterday and also was surprised by the numbers of Tory posters out.

What this might point to is a reduction in Lib Dem MPs since they usually get more votes than Labour in that part of the world.

tony draper
28th May 2001, 21:43
Just an observation,it strikes me that the tories are running a much better campaign than labour.
It reminds me of Kinocks last campaign
Don't think its going to make much difference, but I think, or should I say hope, that Labour get the sh*t scared out of them.
Another observation, the tories had been in power for 14 years before they started just taking the piss out of the electorate,
Blaires mob have started treating the electorate like cretins after only four years.
I shall not be voting again this time, I doubt if I ever will again.

Tartan Gannet
28th May 2001, 23:06
The funny thing is that I am NOT exactly voting for the Tories because I like their policies, but as an anti Blair vote both at local and national level. I DO personally know the Tory Candidate and as a man he is a far, far, better person to represent me and the other electors in my area than the current New Labour MP.

If this campaign is going to swing in the Tories favour, (they CANT win nationally, but can dent the Great Helmsman's majority), it will be in the next 3 days. Also, dont discount differential turnout and the general boredom factor this far too long campaign has caused. I also look forward to the knock on effect in those areas such as Reading which have local council elections at the same time.

Warped Factor
29th May 2001, 01:35
Last time I voted Labour because I was foolish enough to believe them when they said "our air is not for sale".

WF.

Mr Creosote
29th May 2001, 05:40
For those of you who are becoming cynical about the UK pariamentary system, you may be interested to note the differences between the UK system and the Australian one.
It seems we liked the Westminster system so much we gave each state a full two-house parliament, then after federation added another two houses for the federal government.
When you add in the local governments, we end up with more politicians per capita than just about anywhere else in the world. In order to fund this, (and their lifetime retirement funds) we have income tax at a top rate of 48.5% that kicks in at just AUS$50,000 (less than GBP 20,000).
In order to counter the apathy this creates, voting has been made compulsory, with a fine if you don't turn up. The list is however maintained in paper form and sent to each polling station within the constituency, so there is nothing to stop the determined individual from voting several times. In fact this happens all the time, along with a number of dead people who presumably vote through a medium. Incidently, the voting forms for the upper houses are, because of the number of candidates involved, simply enormous - literally the size of a small tablecloth.
The tally employs a wonderfully complex two-party preference system that the majority of the electorate don't understand. The candidate that comes second in the primary vote may have been a long way behind first place, but if he has been allocated more preferences from the minor candidates can still win. For this reason, "back-room deals" between the parties are done, and "how-to-vote" cards handed out at the entrances of polling stations. If you're not careful, you can end up voting for the person you are trying to register a protest vote against.

Is voting in the UK sounding any better yet? :) :)

MisNomer
29th May 2001, 19:01
Apparently the Lib Dems are after the female vote.
Is it possible they think thet will have more success in this sector of the community because they never come first!

True Blue forever!!!!

gravity victim
29th May 2001, 19:47
Topical graffito:
"Whichever way you vote, the Government will get in."

Sums up the whole problem, really.

Flybnite
31st May 2001, 08:04
Lib Dems

National Front

Go on......Dare to be different!!

HugMonster
31st May 2001, 19:58
Dare to be different?

Last time I wanted to vote Sinn Fein just to irritate the guys at work (Unionists to a man), but didn't have a candidate. So I voted SDLP instead.

Didn't make any difference, of course - solidly UUP constituency.

This is another of the factors that pees me off about our electoral system:-

Candidate A 30%
Candidate B 25%
Candidate C 40%
Candidate D-H 1% each.

Result - Candidate C gets elected, despite the fact that 60% of the electorate specifically did NOT want him/her as their representative. Therefore, all but 40% of the electorate are effectively disenfranchised. It would be very easy to bring in a system of PR by STV (Proportional Representation by the SIngle Transferrabel Vote) which elects not the most popular candidate, but the least unpopular, so the resulting MP is far more representative of a far wider range of the electorate and their views.

Once again, Tony and his cronies promised something before the '97 election and failed to deliver on their promises, or reneged on their commitments.

Another thought:-

Win or lose, does anyone actually believe that William Hague will last more than 3 months after the election? And will anyone mourn his passing? Who to follow - Portillo or Widdecombe? Which would be the more horrendous?

------------------
Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip

[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 31 May 2001).]

Tartan Gannet
31st May 2001, 20:31
Now this WILL annoy you HM but it cant be either Portillo or Widdecombe as Tory Leader if they want to be PM should their party win the next General Election to this one in either 2005/6. After the Glorious Revolution in 1689/90 part of the settlement was that a Roman Catholic could not be Monarch, Consort, Heir to the Throne or spouse thereof, or what was to become PRIME MINISTER. As far as I am aware this Law has never been repealed, indeed Prince Michael of Kent had to renounce his albeit long distance succession to the Throne when he married the Roman Catholic Marie Christine von Rebnitz aka Princess Michael of Kent. Perhaps our Legal Eagle Davaar could advise?

Portillo is an RC by birth, Widdecombe by conversion so to become Prime Minister they would have to forswear their religion.

I do agree that unless Blair's majority next Thursday is cut to less than 80 the writing in on the wall for William Hague as Tory Leader. My guess either Maude or Alan Duncan as next Tory leader in a few months time.

cossack
31st May 2001, 20:32
Last time: Labour
Same reasons as WF above.
This time: Lib Dem
Labour will still win but I'm sure as hell not voting for a man who toes the party line and doesn't respond to emails that contain difficult questions.
So much for working for your constituents, my @rse.
Oh and BTW, Hague, not a prayer. Vote for the Conservative Parteh and save the pound. We'll cut taxes and improve public services. We don't want to be in Europe cos we're better than them.
Another @rse.
Rant over
Goes away for a cold beer...
Oh and I forgot Portillo and Widdecombe. Oh dear! Scary prospect!

[This message has been edited by cossack (edited 31 May 2001).]

Send Clowns
31st May 2001, 21:26
But Hugmonster PR would take all power away from the people, and give it to the politicians. The country would be run by backroom deals between the party leaderships, who would also decide who was high enough on the list to be garaunteedd a place. So yes, the least unpopular would get in. The least unpopular with other politicians.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

Tartan Gannet
31st May 2001, 22:27
Spot on Send Clowns! I deliberately spoiled my paper at the last Closed List Euroelections for that very reason. I like to know the PERSON for whom I am voting and not have it decided for me by party apparatchiks. As there were 11 MEPs for South East England I ticked the names of the 11 INDIVIDUALS I wanted to represent me at the European Parliament( across party lines) and not to give a blank cheque to any political party. I prefer First Past the Post especially when I look at the mess in some other countries with PR and would point out that some who did use a PR system have gone back to FPtP. I could accept the idea of multimember constituencies ONLY IF the voter had as many votes as their were MPs and could "Pick and Mix" their vote not be stuck with a "take it or leave it all or nothing" list where the figures are juggled according to some complex mathematical formula as the De Hont system used for the Euroelections.

Per Ardua Ad Asda
31st May 2001, 23:14
Tory this time.
Referendum Party (as a protest) last time.

I repeat from previous posting(s).....
Tony Bliar WILL be forever remembered as the Prime Minister who split up the U.K. The man is an @rse.

Unwell_Raptor
1st Jun 2001, 00:35
What planet did you take your holiday on TG? Are you seriously suggesting that there is a legal block on having a Roman Catholic Prime Minister?

Ed Winchester
1st Jun 2001, 01:06
Any floating voters out there?

Visit www.whodoivotefor.co.uk (http://www.whodoivotefor.co.uk) and fill in their questionnaire. They will then tell you which party best represents your views and ideologies.

I was 50% True Blue, 16% Chas Kennedy, 13% New Labourious and 20% Green.

I really think 13% Labour is stretching it a bit though - I'm not that keen on them!

As an aside,

Hugmonster - Irritating your workmates is a fairly pish poor reason for wanting to vote for Sinn Fein, wouldn't you say? IMHO, NI politics is a fairly serious game and I would imagine that flippant voting is not the norm!

HugMonster
1st Jun 2001, 01:37
I can think of worse reasons for voting for any given party...

OK, can anyone actually name a country which has given up PR to revert to FPTP?

Can anyone name a country where PR has resulted in taking power away from the people and placing it in the hands of politicians who then govern the country in back-room deals? (And does this phenomenon ring a bell with any Brits?)

Does anyone consider that our present voting system actually gives us anything more than a remote semblance of democracy as opposed to a genuine say in deciding how the country is run?

Oh, and TG? Take a look at the Catholic Emancipation Act (1829). I think you'll find that most anti-Catholic prejudice ended two centuries ago.

[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 31 May 2001).]

Send Clowns
1st Jun 2001, 02:01
Huggy, dear boy, I can. The Italians finally managed recently to swap PR for FPTP, after years of demands from the population. It has finally brought some level of stablity to government there. The reason that not many have changed is that it is almost impossible, as the minor parties that are required to form a government refuse.

Of course power goes away from the people. In this country it would be alomst impossible to move from a situation where the largest 3 parties held balance of power between any 2. This would mean that the government would be impossible to remove from power, the final power held by the electorate. All decisions would be made by the leaders of those three parties. The decisions as to who would be at the top of the candidates lists would no rest with the people, so bent politicians like Mandy, Vaz and Robinson would be impossible to remove while they gave hospitality to Blair.

The people would have no choice as to which of a party's policies would be carried forward when they agreed coalition - you could vote for a party then have them give up all the policies you think are important, the reasons that you voted for them, in order to enter a coalition. Your MP may then vote for something with which you and he fundamentally disagree, just to hold the weakened government together.

------------------
'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

HugMonster
1st Jun 2001, 02:10
Sorry, SC, I find your logic totally obscure.

Send Clowns
1st Jun 2001, 02:15
Huggy, just look at the voting statistics for all the elections of the last century. Think it through to its logical conclusion and it's obvious.

Tartan Gannet
1st Jun 2001, 09:49
U_R, Planet Earth, Country UK, time 2001 CE, and yes, as far as I am aware, while an RC can hold virtually any office, elected or appointed, PM is still barred to members of that religion. If I am wrong, please enlighten me, but every time this possibility is discussed on the TV, in newspapers, etc, this prohibition, dating back to the late 17th Century, is quoted. It was when Chris Patten was mentioned as a potential Tory Leader a few years ago.

I personally couldn't give a hoot,except that an RC PM may find his position difficult on issues such as Abortion and Euthanasia.

If one of the lawyers or constitutional experts out there have a definitive answer citing authorities on this matter, Id be obliged, whichever way these point.

[This message has been edited by Tartan Gannet (edited 01 June 2001).]

Steepclimb
1st Jun 2001, 10:56
TG you may have raised an interesting point, you may even be right but it certainly raised the absurdity of the situation. I think Portillo will be next Tory Leader, the RC thing will not raise it's ugly head. It it did Britain would be the laughing stock of the world.

It's none of my business really but as a sort of neutral outsider here's how I see it.

Some voter commented on TV recently, He said Tony Blairs government was the best Tory government. Apt I think.

Labour will get in.

The Tories will ditch Hague and may choose Portillo, raising an interesting constitutional question if Britain had one that is.

Britain will join the Euro eventually, no matter who gets in. It will be described as in Britains best interest. By then it will be.

PR may be introduced eventually as the parties come together more in the bid to win the moderate voter. PR works because it reins in the extremists but at least gives them some hope.

You must vote, because if you don't, when someone comes along and takes away the right, you can hardly object, can you?

In general if most people feel they are the same or better off under a particular goverment they get back in. If they don't they fire them.

Unwell_Raptor
1st Jun 2001, 11:26
The Human Rights Act (article 9) alone would make it impossible to enforce a ban on an RC Prime Minister.

Tartan Gannet
1st Jun 2001, 21:36
Thanks, U_R, I did wonder if that law would have an effect in this situation. Perhaps the Tories should choose Portillo and force the issue once and for all. They no longer need fear the loss of Scottish seats as they have none and are unlikely to regain any next Thursday and of course the old pact with the Ulster Unionists died in 1973 with "Sunningdale". It would be an interesting Constitutional Test case to say the least.

Again thanks for the info.

TG, (already cast my postal vote for the Tory).

tony draper
1st Jun 2001, 22:13
I am almost indifferent to the election results now, what I would like to see is a result that totaly discredits the opinion polls.
They iritate the sh*t out of me for some reason, endless hours are devoted to the dissection and analysis of a few points change here and there by the news media lovies, a group I loath almost as much as politicians,
With one exception, Jeremy Paxman of course, I love to see him make the lie spouting phonies squirm, no one does it like Jeremy.

[This message has been edited by tony draper (edited 01 June 2001).]

Tarek Nor
4th Jun 2001, 00:07
1. SNP

2. SNP

After watching Alex Salmond destroy the panel on Crossfire
how can there be another choice http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

Roundhere we keep getting visits from Wendy Alexander & Irene Adams http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

I'm sure they've help the Labour vote :rolleyes:

rgds

T N

BahrainLad
4th Jun 2001, 01:22
I agree, watching Paxman tear chunks out of any politician is one of life's great pleasures.

BBC Dimbleby (David?) is also quite effective...

tony draper
4th Jun 2001, 02:12
Heh heh,I just love Paxmans sneer of loathing when he looks at the bastiges.

Tartan Gannet
4th Jun 2001, 03:58
Thanks folks for all the feedback. I cannot determine any great "swing" from those who have to date posted to this thread, most seem to be staying with last time's choice.

On the matter of Opinion Polls, of which I have been sceptical since 1970, although the broad spectrum polls show Blair light years ahead and, if true, would mean a Tory meltdown, an ICM Poll in the marginal seats, the ones which really matter in deciding the outcome, shows New Labour 42.4%, Tory 39,6% Lib Dem 15.00% Others 3.0% now this would give Blair a majority of 65, which is more realistic and incidentally would return the two seats in Reading where I live to the Tories. It also explains the panic in the Blairite camp, all the tacit deals on Tactical Voting with the Lib Dems and their terror that the Labour voters will think its in the bag and not bother to vote this Thursday while the Tories will turn out. We shall see on the day itself.

My prediction, New Labour majority of 85 or thereabouts. Anyone else want to guess the result?

Velvet
4th Jun 2001, 04:24
Strange isn't it that if there is such a huge majority predicted, a landslide for the Labour - that Tone is now saying 'Don't let the Conservatives in by the Back Door'.

I thought Rory Bremner had it spot on tonight. Tone is all for democracy as long as you agree with him.

Tartan Gannet
4th Jun 2001, 11:21
Well said Velvet my dear! Tony's idea of Democracy is similar to that of the former so called "Democratic" republics behind the Iron Curtain. Just look at the way he has destroyed the once very democratic and participatory nature of the Labour Party and its delegate conference to ensure that his New Labour ethos and policies are rubber stamped and his toadies are shoe horned into safe seats etc.

I sincerely hope the Tories do slash his majority (they cannot win) as I look forward to seeing the look on the faces of his men on TV as the results come in as I will be sitting up watching as usual. In particular I would love to see that little Scots sh*t John Reid, the Ulster Secretary, having to spin and twist. He, BTW, is the New Labour Politician I hate the most, even more than "Mandy" or Phoney Tony himself!

ExSimGuy
5th Jun 2001, 13:35
I personally don't really give a rat's **** which of the self-serving scumbags gets in and robs all you lot blind with wasted tax money; I'm planning to stay "expat" for quite a while yet http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Of course, it would help a bit if "New" Labour stay in Westminster and take UK into Europe, as the currently cheap pound would be swapped for an even more worthless Euro, and coming back to UK to visit will be even more of a bargain for me than it is now :)

A few months ago, my ex-missus said to me "Tony has kept the country out of recession when the rest of the world is in trouble" - I asked her why then was the pound cheaper now than it has been for the last decade and more?

Go Tony ;) . ;)

------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!

Tartan Gannet
5th Jun 2001, 19:46
A thought occurs. Outside of the New Labour, Tory, Lib Dem struggle on the mainland there are of course totally different parties fighting in Ulster on other issues.

Now already there are two Sinn Fein IRA MPs who will not take their seats and after Thursday there could be at least one more. In effect the people who elect them will be without representation in Parliament for the next term of its office as those in West Belfast and Mid Ulster have been for the last 4 years. This is a negation of Democracy. Now when I was a local councillor as I have been twice in my life, the Council had a rule that if a Councillor missed 3 consecutive meetings without a good reason such as illness or family problems etc, they were deemed to have resigned from the Councill and a by-election would be called to fill the vacancy. Perhaps Westminster should adopt that rule as well. Mind you, it beats me why anyone would elect a candidate who said that he would NOT take up his seat if he won.

Steepclimb
5th Jun 2001, 19:59
TG, you know quite well why people vote for Sinn Fein in spite of their abstention from Westminster.
You're just mischief making as usual. You should move to Northern Ireland, your mindset would fit in well there.

Blackshirt
7th Jun 2001, 04:51
Being the immature ****witt I am, I shall be bring my crayons to the ballot box to doodle a cartoon of Mad Dog Maragret Thatch taking Big Bill Hague up the arse whilst sucking Tony Blair's socialist cock until it cums blue.

Rollingthunder
7th Jun 2001, 06:07
And the best of British luck to you. May you have more success than we ever seem to have. BTW, GBP20 LHR departure tax is far too much,even without T5.

"It is now up to people across the UK to cast
their votes to select the 659 members of the
next Parliament.The 45,000 polling stations are open from 0700 BST in the UK on Thursday until 2200. Much of the attention will be on the numbers of people who vote,with some opinion polls having suggested that turnout may be lower than 70%.That would be worse than the 1997 election,when the turnout was
the lowest since 1935.

The weather, as always,may have a role to play.

Forecasters were suggesting a mixed picture across the UK - with early sunshine in Northern Ireland, Wales and western England,
but rain and cloud dominating in the
south east and in Scotland.

[This message has been edited by Rollingthunder (edited 07 June 2001).]

Tartan Gannet
7th Jun 2001, 13:21
Well folks, this isnt the best piece of psephology on the Peter Snow standard but as far as I can analyse the net movement where people have indicated how they voted last time and thus I derive the following for the "Constituency of Jet Blast Central"

Net Movement

Tory +1
New Labour -2
Lib Dems +2
Others -1


Most who responded indicated that they will be staying with their 1997 choice.

Hope you all found this amusing and interesting.

BTW I will have to be up in Scotland next week at my father's house near GLA and wont have the computer with me, so you will be getting a Tartan Gannet Break from Saturday. (Cheers from U_R, HM, TW, IBB, JPJ and various others). Its not that I will be in mourning when I see the grinning face of Blair and his big mouthed wife on the steps of number 10 tomorrow, with I hope a significantly reduced majority but alas still the Government. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Thanks again all who responded to this thread.

Winston Smith
8th Jun 2001, 00:04
Sorry to hear you are leaving us for a while, Tartan Gannet. But don't worry; I'll keep them in check! :) :) :) :) :)

ExSimGuy
8th Jun 2001, 00:22
Oh - yes - it's on now isn't it?

First result due 23:30Z - 02:30 here, excuse me if I have another apricot&grape wine and quietly zonk out but I haven't the real interest to wait up for it; the news tomorrow is predictable http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Anyway, the pound (stirling - not Egyptian) is lower than I can remember, and the Euro (sorry - North Atlantic Peso) is doing no better. I think I'll stay put where the local currency (and my salary :) ) are fixed to the Mighty US Dollar.

Have a good time in the lowlands, TG :)

------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!

[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 07 June 2001).]