The great TP election thread

archangel

archangel

Messages
5,022
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
Well as you all know that wonderful event known as the General Election will be held.......

So I was thinking that we should have a little corner of TP where we can discuss the daily happenings in the big bad political world.....

Usual rules..... respect of others and no trolling......


I will start off with today's news that Mr Cameron has been trying to side step the televised debate and invoke a set of rules but yet in back in 2010 during a commons debate he accused Blair of hiding from the public, when asked to provide regular tv debates.....pot and black come to mind.......
 
I think they should have at least one week of the campaigning where all party's agree to only comment on what their own party will do and not what all the other party's will or will not do.
In fact if one of the party's come out and just concentrate on what their own proposals are and not constantly slag off the other party's then I'd probably vote for them. **qualifier** as long as their proposals are not completely stupid :)
 
PaulF said:
I think they should have at least one week of the campaigning where all party's agree to only comment on what their own party will do and not what all the other party's will or will not do.
In fact if one of the party's come out and just concentrate on what their own proposals are and not constantly slag off the other party's then I'd probably vote for them. **qualifier** as long as their proposals are not completely stupid :)
Click to expand...

They can't comment on what they WILL do, because that would have to mean sticking to a promise or two, and we know they certainly won't do that, irrespective of party.
 
Last edited:
Such discussions will resolve nothing and only encourage argument and the hurling of insults. People posting will have already decided which party they will vote for (including none) and will do nothing except broadcast their prejudices and grossly misrepresent and insult those they perceive as opposition.

I vote that the subjects of politics and religion are banned from TalkPhotography! :D

[Robin now goes off to hit the 'Unwatch' this thread button]

:)
 
RedRobin said:
Such discussions will resolve nothing and only encourage argument and the hurling of insults. People posting will have already decided which party they will vote for (including none) and will do nothing except broadcast their prejudices and grossly misrepresent and insult those they perceive as opposition.

I vote that the subjects of politics and religion are banned from TalkPhotography! :D

[Robin now goes off to hit the 'Unwatch' this thread button]

:)
Click to expand...


An interesting post......:D
 
viv1969 said:
They can't comment on what they WILL do, because that would have to mean sticking to a promise or two, and we know they certainly won't so that, irrespective of party.
Click to expand...
You may have a point there, but I can dream :)
 
RedRobin said:
Such discussions will resolve nothing and only encourage argument and the hurling of insults. People posting will have already decided which party they will vote for (including none) and will do nothing except broadcast their prejudices and grossly misrepresent and insult those they perceive as opposition.

I vote that the subjects of politics and religion are banned from TalkPhotography! :D

[Robin now goes off to hit the 'Unwatch' this thread button]

:)
Click to expand...
The Scotland Independence thread went ok, mostly.
If everyone plays nice it'll be fine.
 
PaulF said:
The Scotland Independence thread went ok, mostly.
If everyone plays nice it'll be fine.
Click to expand...


Everyone should play nice, I agree, there is always the padlock if it gets out of hand.....but we are all grown ups and I think we could have a thread which allows us all to discuss typical political issues.....

With a central thread we can all have a little say on everything that we feel is relevant to the election.....
 
RedRobin said:
Such discussions will resolve nothing and only encourage argument and the hurling of insults. People posting will have already decided which party they will vote for (including none) and will do nothing except broadcast their prejudices and grossly misrepresent and insult those they perceive as opposition.

I vote that the subjects of politics and religion are banned from TalkPhotography! :D

[Robin now goes off to hit the 'Unwatch' this thread button]

:)
Click to expand...
Gets my vote.
 
If all the parties spent less time bickering and slagging each other off and actually started working together to run the country in the best interests of the people the better.

I've never really been interested in politics. It's just a lot of willy waving IMHO.
 
For all the media speculation about UKIP and hung parliaments, I would not be surprised if the Tories didn't win a small majority and that from someone who is not a Tory and has never voted Tory.
 
archangel said:
Everyone should play nice, I agree, there is always the padlock if it gets out of hand.....but we are all grown ups and I think we could have a thread which allows us all to discuss typical political issues.....

With a central thread we can all have a little say on everything that we feel is relevant to the election.....
Click to expand...

....I agree. I thought for a moment that I was on Facebook :D

Unfortunately most people find it very difficult to be truly objective and we'll see how the thread unfolds.

[Robin hasn't hit the 'Unwatch Thread' button yet]
 
I would like to see voting made compulsory, provided there was an option to cross "None of the above"
 
munch said:
I would like to see voting made compulsory, provided there was an option to cross "None of the above"
Click to expand...

It's compulsory to vote in Australia, but as the penalty for failing to do so is a measly AUS$ 20.00, many don't bother.
 
PaulF said:
The Scotland Independence thread went ok, mostly.
Click to expand...
Ah that was because that was either a "Yes" or "No" vote :D
This is more complicated there is "Multiple choice" that never ends well ;)

archangel said:
Everyone should play nice, I agree, there is always the padlock if it gets out of hand....
Click to expand...
Or, since the forum upgrade the other day, we have a new tool ( no, we are not sending someone to stand for Parliament)
We can exclude members from posting in a given thread selectively ;)

RedRobin said:
[Robin hasn't hit the 'Unwatch Thread' button yet]
Click to expand...
So as above, Robin, Just say the word :D
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
Or, since the forum upgrade the other day, we have a new tool ( no, we are not sending someone to stand for Parliament)
We can exclude members for posting in a given thread selectively ;)
Click to expand...


....What is "posting in a given thread selectively" please? :confused:
 
Been voting for40 yrs , and after the first couple of times soon realised THAT THE BEST LIARS ALWAYS WIN and seen nothing since to make me change my mind on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RIR
When I lived in London, a black cabbie (the taxi-cab colour, not the driver! Bloody political correctness crap!!) once said to me (in his heavy Jewish voice) at the time of an imminent election:

"It don't matter what you vote, guv'nor.... The same party always gets in".

Personally, I'm very happy with the current government and refuse to get stressed out over it - None of the political parties are perfect and none of them ever can be - We are all human!

Boris%20Tshirt.png
 
Last edited:
munch said:
I would like to see voting made compulsory, provided there was an option to cross "None of the above"
Click to expand...

But how would that work? The people who don't vote now are expressing a "non of the above" opinion by declining to vote, so what would be the point of making it compulsory. Presumably in Australia and other places where it's compulsory, those people who are there because they've been compelled by law to be there, either vote for someone at random or spoil their ballot paper by scribbling on it or by other means. A bit pointless really.
 
munch said:
I would like to see voting made compulsory, provided there was an option to cross "None of the above"
Click to expand...
Quicksnapper said:
ut how would that work? The people who don't vote now are expressing a "non of the above" opinion by declining to vote,
Click to expand...
I totally agree with the "None of the above option, and have been saying it for years.
The way I see it Sara, if the Polls show that say 50% of the population voted,
the official stance could easily be, the other 50% just couldn't be arsed.

If there there was a NofA option and 50% of people voted for that,
and rest of the voters spread their vote between parties, there would be a clear message to who ever got in,
that at least 50% of the population (plus whatever % voted for the other, say 2 parties), had no faith in them.

So although my figures are purely hypothetical, its easy to see how a country is now being run by a party that 60-70% of the country didn't want in the first place.

That's why there will never be a none of the above, option.
It would be just too damned "painful" for any of the parties ;)
 
Cobra said:
So although my figures are purely hypothetical, its easy to see how a country is now being run by a party that 60-70% of the country didn't want in the first place.

That's why there will never be a none of the above, option.
It would be just too damned "painful" for any of the parties ;)
Click to expand...

....The bottom line is that not enough people are interested in voting irrespective of the voting method. So your 60-70% or whatever percentage doesn't truly represent a true picture of the populace dissatisfaction with the current party in power, although a large section of the population wouldn't be satisfied no matter who was in power, Queenie included. However, perhaps Queenie might be more popular :D
 
Cobra said:
I totally agree with the "None of the above option, and have been saying it for years.
The way I see it Sara, if the Polls show that say 50% of the population voted,
the official stance could easily be, the other 50% just couldn't be arsed.

If there there was a NofA option and 50% of people voted for that,
and rest of the voters spread their vote between parties, there would be a clear message to who ever got in,
that at least 50% of the population (plus whatever % voted for the other, say 2 parties), had no faith in them.

So although my figures are purely hypothetical, its easy to see how a country is now being run by a party that 60-70% of the country didn't want in the first place.

That's why there will never be a none of the above, option.
It would be just too damned "painful" for any of the parties ;)
Click to expand...

But that's where we are anyway ... And it's always been the case ...

Just looking very quickly at the voting figures for the last election ... 65% of the eligible electorate voted, which means 35% did not/CBA/chose not to for whatever reason ... This resulted in the Tories gaining 303 seats out of a possible 650 - 46% of seats. (Working on seat numbers because that's how the UK system works. If you recall we had a vote about PR .... but that's another story ...).

So ... 46% of 65% equals 30.9% of the votes (roughly speaking) went to the Tories. Which means that around 70% of the population either didn't bother to vote, or voted for someone else. OK, so I know the Tories didn't get a majority but it does mean that we have been effectively governed by a party for whom only 30% or so of us actually voted for. I understand (not looked at the figures) that the last Labour government had an even smaller governing share of the vote - somewhere around 25%.

The none-voters effectively voted for a None of the Above option by choosing not to vote and this is what we end up with.

I think that's what they call democracy isn't it??? o_O
 
RedRobin said:
....The bottom line is that not enough people are interested in voting irrespective of the voting method. So your 60-70% or whatever percentage doesn't truly represent a true picture of the populace dissatisfaction with the current party in power, although a large section of the population wouldn't be satisfied no matter who was in power, Queenie included. However, perhaps Queenie might be more popular :D
Click to expand...

I don't think Liz's popularity is really suffering much as it is to be honest.
The polls that may show that she is are probably organised by the anti brigade :)
 
Quicksnapper said:
The none-voters effectively voted for a None of the Above option by choosing not to vote and this is what we end up with.
Click to expand...
Quicksnapper said:
Which means that around 70% of the population either didn't bother to vote, or voted for someone
Click to expand...
I never checked the figures so actually its worse than I guestimated ;)

The the point I'm making is that if was was an actual vote for none of the above,
rather than an abstain, which normally means a sitting on the fence option,
would send a a definite "no sod off the lot of you"! message ( :D )
Which would actually be a stronger message than I am an "abstaining voter"
 
Cobra said:
I never checked the figures so actually its worse than I guestimated ;)

The the point I'm making is that if was was an actual vote for none of the above,
rather than an abstain, which normally means a sitting on the fence option,
would send a a definite "no sod off the lot of you"! message ( :D )
Which would actually be a stronger message than I am an "abstaining voter"
Click to expand...

I like the thought of a "sod off the lot of you" option :)
 
RedRobin said:
....The bottom line is that not enough people are interested in voting irrespective of the voting method. So your 60-70% or whatever percentage doesn't truly represent a true picture of the populace dissatisfaction with the current party in power
Click to expand...
Fair comment, maybe its down to disillusionment, which the none of the above would actually prove,
or people really CBA. In which case they have no right to complain at the elected government ;)

But as above none of the above would never be an option on the ballot, as the political parties (all of them) would not be able to put a spin on the fact that 70% of the country don't want them ;)
 
Last edited:
The way it was explained to me was that a low turn out gives the fringe parties an apparent greater weight, in terms of % of vote, than they would have if everyone voted.
 
viv1969 said:
I like the thought of a "sod off the lot of you" option :)
Click to expand...

...."Get Thee Hence And Multiply" might be a marginally more polite wordage :D
 
RedRobin said:
...."Get Thee Hence And Multiply" might be a marginally more polite wordage :D
Click to expand...
Hmmmm the "G4th & X" party has a certain ring to it :D
 
Cobra said:
Fair comment, maybe its down to disillusionment, which the none of the above would actually prove,
or people really CBA. In which case they have no right to complain at the elected government ;)

But as above none of the above would never be an option on the ballot, as the political parties (all of them) would not be able to put a spin on the fact that 70% of the country don't want them ;)
Click to expand...

....The thing is though that even if the political parties had hard facts from being able to physically count the 'None Of The Above' votes, why would any party gaining or remaining in power be particularly bothered? - It would be academic. Hey! We made it into power!

However one wants to criticise the UK voting system, surely it's better than having to suffer all the hype and media attention people are subjected to across the pond in the U S of A.
 
RedRobin said:
surely it's better than having to suffer all the hype and media attention people are subjected to across the pond in the U S of A.
Click to expand...
You have a point, but as we tend to follow the USA heaven forbid that type of campaigning ends up here :rolleyes:
 
RedRobin said:
When I lived in London, a black cabbie (the taxi-cab colour, not the driver! Bloody political correctness crap!!) once said to me (in his heavy Jewish voice) at the time of an imminent election:

"It don't matter what you vote, guv'nor.... The same party always gets in".
Click to expand...

No matter who you vote for, government always wins. Probably a similar source (originally) as the 2 nations divided by a common language!
 
Today's hot political topic seems to be the suggestion by the Greens to "group" with the SNP........I have never really understood the Greens to be honest......nor their policies......or what they are trying to achieve.....:confused:
 
archangel said:
Today's hot political topic seems to be the suggestion by the Greens to "group" with the SNP........I have never really understood the Greens to be honest......nor their policies......or what they are trying to achieve.....:confused:
Click to expand...

Given the recent interview, neither does their leader :D
 
Which party is Tarquin fin-tin-lim-bim bus-stop f-tang f-tang olé biscuit barrel standing for this year?
 
I see Farage couldn’t even be arsed to turn up to a meeting of prospective candidates in the seat he intends to challenge a few evenings ago. There’s dedication for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top