Then she should have clipped you round your ear and sent you off to school then
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
If you've thought of voting Lib Dem - just do it.
- Thread starter Couldn't Be Hyypia
- Start date
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,398
That would be child abuse.
Seriously though, why do people who have the right to vote choose not to vote? Laziness me thinks.
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
No vote is truly a wasted vote because it is YOUR vote and represents YOUR view.
YOUR vote is as valid as the one Cameron or Brown or Clegg will cast,and it's nice to think that YOUR vote has just scored the equaliser against one or other of them.
Don't think about a wasted vote,just bloomin well go and vote,or you have no right to complain about the outcome.
( This post was not sponsored by party politics.)
YOUR vote is as valid as the one Cameron or Brown or Clegg will cast,and it's nice to think that YOUR vote has just scored the equaliser against one or other of them.
Don't think about a wasted vote,just bloomin well go and vote,or you have no right to complain about the outcome.
( This post was not sponsored by party politics.)
Not really, I have two of my floor fitters working in Brize Norton and not back till Friday evening, they only new they would be away on Tuesday morning so they wont be voting!
That would be child abuse.
Kumquat
New member
- Mar 2, 2009
- 4,459
Yep, Liberal vote equals:
hung parliament
arguments in Government
loss of confidence by the World in the UK
a downgrading of the UK financial rating
high interest rates, more taxes, inflation, greater loss of jobs etc. etc.
Great shout.
Since you've never seen a hung parliament here you don't really know do you? You sound like you've been reading the sun editorial.
Uncle C
Well-known member
This is the gravest economic challenge our generation has faced. It needs 100% concentration from whichever Government is in power.
Changing the voting system is a good idea, but if you vote Liberal they will use it as a bargaining chip in a hung parliament and focused policies will be f***ed.
Just imagine you are trying to do a big project at work that will get you a massive pay rise and promotion --- its the most important job you have ever done.
Then every 10 minutes, some little oik, who is a complete novice, keeps interrupting you with his opinions and criticisms.
There will be a time to look at proportional representation, but its certainly not now.
Changing the voting system is a good idea, but if you vote Liberal they will use it as a bargaining chip in a hung parliament and focused policies will be f***ed.
Just imagine you are trying to do a big project at work that will get you a massive pay rise and promotion --- its the most important job you have ever done.
Then every 10 minutes, some little oik, who is a complete novice, keeps interrupting you with his opinions and criticisms.
There will be a time to look at proportional representation, but its certainly not now.
Uncle C
Well-known member
Stock markets and financial instituations run on confidence. S&P has the UK firmly in its sights.
Greece was down graded and look what happened there. Spain is about to follow.
There was a sort of hung parliament (well it became,that there was a party with no overall majority) in 1977-1979 which ended in the Lib-Lab pact and that was an utter disaster. We actually had the winter (78-79) of discontent during that period!
All a hung parlimanent will do will lead to internal arguments about political matters between the protagonists and will not lead to what the country really needs and that is for someone to get this bloody massive debt that we have sorted out.
Behind Enemy Lines
Well-known member
You can still concentrate on the economy AND change the electoral system, the two are not mutually exclusive. If, as seems likely, the Lib Dems poll about 26-28% of the vote and end up with 80-90 seats that will be an affront to democracy. Of course the economy requires total attention but we must change the voting system to end the present farce. It is absolutely the time.
Uncle C
Well-known member
You talk as if the current system has suddenly become important. It has served this country since the start of democracy and will certainly wait a few more years.
This. Just because you don't 'win' doesn't mean its a wasted vote. Its worth remembering people died so we could do this.
I'd replace "libdem" with "a party". I think people should vote for who they want to represent them, not the one most likely to beat the one they don't want to win, or whatever.
Any vote that is not for the person you want to represent you, is, imo, a wasted vote.
Any vote that is not for the person you want to represent you, is, imo, a wasted vote.
Nick Clegg can say any pretty words and promises he wants to on TV. He can promise the earth make us all millionaires etc. etc. if he wants to, but we as Brighton fans have seen how the Liberal Dems operate in the real world in David Bellotti, Norman Baker, Anne De Veechi and the Lewes Lib Dems, how after they have operated anyone can seriously think of voting Lib Dems after that is beyond me. The Lewes Lib Dems were actually an affront to democracy in locking the doors and not allowing the taxpayers of Lewes their say on their policies (how's that for freedom of speech!).
I know of no other mainstream party whom acted like the local Lib Dems that we actually know, and their actions speak far louder than Nick Clegg's sweet words can.
Behind Enemy Lines
Well-known member
Sorry Uncle c, don't understand what you're trying to say here?
nwgull
Well-known member
Yep, Liberal vote equals:
hung parliament
arguments in Government
loss of confidence by the World in the UK
a downgrading of the UK financial rating
high interest rates, more taxes, inflation, greater loss of jobs etc. etc.
Great shout.
.....if you believe what the Tory press tells you!
BensGrandad
New member
I think that the vote should be for the prime minister and party and then they appoint a local mp from within their party. ie Vote for Cameron Brown or Clegg or whoever and their party then depending on the size of the percentage of the vote that each individual gets so the leader appoints that percentage of MPs to run until the next election is called. No voting for Soames or Baker. It could be further broken down into percentage of each county to give the number of MPs locally. This is PR with a slight difference in that the majority a PM starts with he will have to work with for the duration of that Parliament as an MP dies or resigns so another is appointed from within the party.
Wozza
Shite Supporter
Nope. It's an antiquated system that's got to go - and will, very soon.
Knotty
Well-known member
Totally agree!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,850
which seats would the appointed MPs represent, and for which party? imagine a Sommes like grandee appointed to the seat of Liverpool West, or Prescott in Chelsea and Kensington. Liberals could appoint Bellotii to one of the Brighton seats - just for giggles. full PR and party lists isnt the answer, it only empowers the party central office more, which works against what little power is left in parliament.
BensGrandad
New member
That was my point about a percentage vote for each county. eg West Sussex has a 70% vote for tory of which there are 10 seats so you appoint 7 MPs conversely Yorkshire has 80& vote for labour which has say 12 seats so they get 10 Labour MPs (rounded to the nearest). It is then left to the PM/ Party to decide who is the best person to represent that party in that particular area. You wouldnt waste Ken Livingstone in a predominantly Tory area where he would be ineffective the same as you wouldnt put Soames as the lone Tory in Barnsley. No leader of the party would do that.