UK General Election 2010

[Mandorra]

ITV, 8:30.

Thanks!

It's also being broadcast live on BBC Radio4.

Since I don't own a TV, I"ll be listening to BBC Radio4 on the internet.

[Birnadia]

Come onnnnnn you know the English Democrats are racist. Purlease.

Do you mean the EDL?

[Angleter]

Did anyone see on C4 News on Tuesday, when they were going around Dartford asking people about the Tory manifesto, there was this butcher? He was asked whether he'd vote Tory and he said "no, no, I won't vote Tory and I won't vote Labour." When asked who he'd vote for, he said "neither of the major parties, I'll vote for a minor party." I bet that he was BNP, and didn't want to be 'outed' as BNP on C4 News. Otherwise he would have named his 'minor party' of choice.

[Chumblywumbly]

On the other hand, we have the delactable Richard Younger-Ross, who nabbed £11,000 on expenses, and is spending none of it on poster design. Woo!

Pfft. That's nowt.

My recently deselected MP claimed nearly £40,000 in travel expenses alone.

---

Come onnnnnn you know the English Democrats are racist. Purlease.

If you're referring to their inclusion in the poll, any party currently with a seat, or which is at least capable of gaining a seat on May 6th, is included.

As to racism within the English Democrats, though there's some dodgy characters within and surrounding the party, and undoubtedly much of their support comes from Little Englander types, I wouldn't be too quick to label them all as racists. And, as Birnadia says, don't confuse them with the English Defence League.

[Chumblywumbly]

Well, it looks like I'll be watching the first debate tonight, so I'll be commenting as it happens.

Feel free to join in with my moaning and cringing.

[Kulverint]

Well, it looks like I'll be watching the first debate tonight, so I'll be commenting as it happens.

Feel free to join in with my moaning and cringing.

I'll be watching as well.

[The blessed Chris]

On the other hand, we have the delactable Richard Younger-Ross, who nabbed £11,000 on expenses, and is spending none of it on poster design. Woo!

Pfft. That's nowt.

My recently deselected MP claimed nearly £40,000 in travel expenses alone.

---

Come onnnnnn you know the English Democrats are racist. Purlease.

If you're referring to their inclusion in the poll, any party currently with a seat, or which is at least capable of gaining a seat on May 6th, is included.

As to racism within the English Democrats, though there's some dodgy characters within and surrounding the party, and undoubtedly much of their support comes from Little Englander types, I wouldn't be too quick to label them all as racists. And, as Birnadia says, don't confuse them with the English Defence League.

Small fry. My MP (quondam MP, since the boundaries have been changed and I now get the pleasure of voting either for an avowedly Cameronite, all-female shortlist ethnic Tory, or for UKIP), the Rt Hon. Bernard Jenkin MP, if officially the naughtiest MP in the Commons. He was required to pay back fully £63,250, halved on appeal. I'm proud.

[Chumblywumbly]

He was required to pay back fully £63,250, halved on appeal. I'm proud.

*salutes*

[The blessed Chris]

Well, it looks like I'll be watching the first debate tonight, so I'll be commenting as it happens.

Feel free to join in with my moaning and cringing.

Will do. My expectations are fairly low; anything of real interest won't be said, and no tempers will be lost, until the last debate. Quite why Cleggy's there anyway is beyond me; he's bugger all use in PMQ's, will be lucky even to be in Cabinet let alone becoming PM, and all he'll do in the debates is distract from how much Cameron and Brown dislike each other.

[The blessed Chris]

He was required to pay back fully £63,250, halved on appeal. I'm proud.

*salutes*

Quite. It was, admittedly, only for fiddling rent, not for something so amusing as moat cleaning, but still, corruption on that level must be commended.

[Chumblywumbly]

My expectations are fairly low; anything of real interest won't be said, and no tempers will be lost, until the last debate. Quite why Cleggy's there anyway is beyond me; he's bugger all use in PMQ's, will be lucky even to be in Cabinet let alone becoming PM, and all he'll do in the debates is distract from how much Cameron and Brown dislike each other.

I partly agree; if he's there, why isn't, say, Nigel Farage, Caroline Lucas, etc.?

That said, this could be a great boon for Clegg; he's got the most to gain and the least to lose.

---

He was required to pay back fully £63,250, halved on appeal. I'm proud.

*salutes*

Quite. It was, admittedly, only for fiddling rent, not for something so amusing as moat cleaning, but still, corruption on that level must be commended.

'Admirable' is the wrong term, but there is something to the sheer gall of expecting the taxpayer to happily fork up several tens of thousands of pounds.

[The blessed Chris]

My expectations are fairly low; anything of real interest won't be said, and no tempers will be lost, until the last debate. Quite why Cleggy's there anyway is beyond me; he's bugger all use in PMQ's, will be lucky even to be in Cabinet let alone becoming PM, and all he'll do in the debates is distract from how much Cameron and Brown dislike each other.

I partly agree; if he's there, why isn't, say, Nigel Farage, Caroline Lucas, etc.?

That said, this could be a great boon for Clegg; he's got the most to gain and the least to lose.

---

He was required to pay back fully £63,250, halved on appeal. I'm proud.

*salutes*

Quite. It was, admittedly, only for fiddling rent, not for something so amusing as moat cleaning, but still, corruption on that level must be commended.

'Admirable' is the wrong term, but there is something to the sheer gall of expecting the taxpayer to happily fork up several tens of thousands of pounds.

Yep. The audacity alone is impressive.

I agree where the smaller parties are concerned. I'd prefer that one of the debates had been left aside to the minor parties actually, since at least with Farage, Lucas et al., we'd be given some honesty, some genuinely divisive policy, and some intellectual dissentience.

[SD_Film Artists]

My expectations are fairly low; anything of real interest won't be said, and no tempers will be lost, until the last debate. Quite why Cleggy's there anyway is beyond me; he's bugger all use in PMQ's, will be lucky even to be in Cabinet let alone becoming PM

In PMQ's the 'Leader of the Opposition' naturally gets more time during that Punch&Judy phase. And Clegg will either be PM or he won't; he'll never be in the Cabinet unless it's a hung parliament in which he'll be able to be a 'king maker' anyway.

and all he'll do in the debates is distract from how much Cameron and Brown dislike each other.

If I were to put my Lib Dem hat on, I'd say that he'll "distract" from them with good policies/debate points.

I partly agree; if he's there, why isn't, say, Nigel Farage, Caroline Lucas, etc.?

Because the Greens have no MPs and UKIP only done well in the Euro elections.

[Chumblywumbly]

I partly agree; if he's there, why isn't, say, Nigel Farage, Caroline Lucas, etc.?

Because the Greens have no MPs and UKIP only done well in the Euro elections.

Which matters how, in reference to the airing of views?

EDIT: Especially when this election will most probably see a big rise in third-party votes.

(Incidentally, I'm just watching a SNP party political broadcast on C4 with Salmond moaning along the same lines as myself and TBc.)

[SD_Film Artists]

I partly agree; if he's there, why isn't, say, Nigel Farage, Caroline Lucas, etc.?

Because the Greens have no MPs and UKIP only done well in the Euro elections.

Which matters how, in reference to the airing of views?

Because the Lib Dems represent a much larger proportion of the British population than the Greens and similar sized parties do.

[SD_Film Artists]

Why is the debate audience only selected from the local area? These are national debates not Manchester debates.

[The blessed Chris]

I partly agree; if he's there, why isn't, say, Nigel Farage, Caroline Lucas, etc.?

Because the Greens have no MPs and UKIP only done well in the Euro elections.

Which matters how, in reference to the airing of views?

EDIT: Especially when this election will most probably see a big rise in third-party votes.

(Incidentally, I'm just watching a SNP party political broadcast on C4 with Salmond moaning along the same lines as myself and TBc.)

Indeed, on many issues, the Greens and UKIP are closer to their respective "parent" parties' core voters in policy than Labour and the Conservatives are.

[Chumblywumbly]

Because the Lib Dems represent a much larger proportion of the British population than the Greens and similar sized parties do.

My point being, why should we only hear from those who are already in power? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

In the 2005 election, the Lib Dems garnered just under 6 million votes. If we're going by popularity, why should I hear from a party that only represents about 10% of the UK population?

[SD_Film Artists]

Because the Lib Dems represent a much larger proportion of the British population than the Greens and similar sized parties do.

My point being, why should we only hear from those who are already in power? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

In the [url=[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election_2005]2005 election[/url], the Lib Dems garnered just under 6 million votes. If we're going by popularity, why should I hear from a party that only represents about 10% of the UK population?

Well there's not much point in hearing from people who have no chance of forming the next government. The Lib Dem's chance is unrealistic at best, but they do have a significantly large amount of seats to effect the next government especially if it's a 'hung' one.

Having some voices from the more fringe parties could be good to add some more variety to the debate, but where do you draw the line?

[Lacadaemon]

Because the Lib Dems represent a much larger proportion of the British population than the Greens and similar sized parties do.

My point being, why should we only hear from those who are already in power? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

In the 2005 election, the Lib Dems garnered just under 6 million votes. If we're going by popularity, why should I hear from a party that only represents about 10% of the UK population?

Well Labour only got 9 million odd votes, but you wouldn't say that they represented only 15% of the population. Going by raw voting numbers, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the LDs should be included, while still considering all other parties too minor. Then there is the whole hung parliament issue too, no other party is really going to be in a king-maker position (apart from the unlikely case of the Torys being just a bit short and doing something with the NI unionists).

But mostly, I think, they get to be up there because the LDs are the ones who can muck it up for one of the other two.

[Chumblywumbly]

Well there's not much point in hearing from people who have no chance of forming the next government. The Lib Dem's chance is unrealistic at best, but they do have a significantly large amount of seats to effect the next government especially if it's a 'hung' one.

As do the other third parties.

Ideally, we should be hearing from the likes of UKIP and the DUP as to which Lab/Con policies they support or stand against.

Having some voices from the more fringe parties could be good to add some more variety to the debate, but where do you draw the line?

In the same manner, perhaps, that I constructed this threads poll; include those parties which have a seat or at least capable of gaining one or more seats.

Granted, a debate involving all such parties at once would be... rumbustious. But I think there's merit to something akin to what TBc suggested, above, that an additional televised debate involving the third parties.

---

In the 2005 election, the Lib Dems garnered just under 6 million votes. If we're going by popularity, why should I hear from a party that only represents about 10% of the UK population?

Well Labour only got 9 million odd votes, but you wouldn't say that they represented only 15% of the population.

Why ever not?

That's exactly who they do represent.

Going by raw voting numbers, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the LDs should be included, while still considering all other parties too minor. Then there is the whole hung parliament issue too, no other party is really going to be in a king-maker position (apart from the unlikely case of the Torys being just a bit short and doing something with the NI unionists).

It's not the king-makers I'm concerned with, it's those minor parties (and non-party line backbenchers, incidentally) which will help pass legislation.

[The blessed Chris]

Because the Lib Dems represent a much larger proportion of the British population than the Greens and similar sized parties do.

My point being, why should we only hear from those who are already in power? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

In the 2005 election, the Lib Dems garnered just under 6 million votes. If we're going by popularity, why should I hear from a party that only represents about 10% of the UK population?

Well Labour only got 9 million odd votes, but you wouldn't say that they represented only 15% of the population. Going by raw voting numbers, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the LDs should be included, while still considering all other parties too minor. Then there is the whole hung parliament issue too, no other party is really going to be in a king-maker position (apart from the unlikely case of the Torys being just a bit short and doing something with the NI unionists).

But mostly, I think, they get to be up there because the LDs are the ones who can muck it up for one of the other two.

In a hung parliament, yes, but Cameron's greatest problem electorally could well be UKIP. Although they're unlikely to take a seat, Buckingham notwithstanding, they cost the Tories c.30 seats in 2005, and have been estimated as costing them c.50 this election.

[The blessed Chris]

Well there's not much point in hearing from people who have no chance of forming the next government. The Lib Dem's chance is unrealistic at best, but they do have a significantly large amount of seats to effect the next government especially if it's a 'hung' one.

As do the other third parties.

Ideally, we should be hearing from the likes of UKIP and the DUP as to which Lab/Con policies they support or stand against.

Having some voices from the more fringe parties could be good to add some more variety to the debate, but where do you draw the line?

In the same manner, perhaps, that I constructed this threads poll; include those parties which have a seat or at least capable of gaining one or more seats.

Granted, a debate involving all such parties at once would be... rumbustious. But I think there's merit to something akin to what TBc suggested, above, that an additional televised debate involving the third parties.

---

In the 2005 election, the Lib Dems garnered just under 6 million votes. If we're going by popularity, why should I hear from a party that only represents about 10% of the UK population?

Well Labour only got 9 million odd votes, but you wouldn't say that they represented only 15% of the population.

Why ever not?

That's exactly who they do represent.

Going by raw voting numbers, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the LDs should be included, while still considering all other parties too minor. Then there is the whole hung parliament issue too, no other party is really going to be in a king-maker position (apart from the unlikely case of the Torys being just a bit short and doing something with the NI unionists).

It's not the king-makers I'm concerned with, it's those minor parties (and non-party line backbenchers, incidentally) which will help pass legislation.

That'd be entertaining, if pointless, where UKIP are concerned. UKIP would support almost anything if offered an In/Out referendum.

[Tomland Union]

So the Prime Ministral debate is starting now

[Hydesland]

Lmao. They look like a bunch of plonkers.