Support NeoGAF

[industrian]

Shit. Down one point. I knew I shouldn't have put my PSP Go on expenses

And with that revelation you don't want to know what MySpace thinks.

 

[Dabookerman]

Since actually reading the news on a daily basis, beginning a few years ago, I found that in general I would lean towards the Lib Dem way of doing things but was always met with the "wasted vote" ethos during discussions. Thus, to my shame, I never bothered registering to vote. Consequently I never took a serious interest in British politics, and so I didn't feel justified in picking a party even if I were to register. Thanks to the easily digested televised debate, I was able to confirm that I am obviously a Lib Dem supporter (with maybe a touch of Labour), and at the same time, suddenly it feels like such a vote wouldn't be a waste at all. I've sent the electoral registration forms in already (hopefully I'll make the April 20th deadline).

So that's at least 1 Lib Dem vote that isn't detracting from another party.

Good on you!

 

[Empty]

new tory policy. totally original and not stolen from popular us television drama. at all.

Cameron has just announced a new initiative. On stage at a school in Nantwich with Gary Barlow, he said that a Tory government would introduce a national music talent competition. It will be called School Stars and it will involve local and regional heats, culminating in a national final in June 2011. The winners would get the chance to record a song with Barlow.

There's a social reason for School Stars as well. Earlier this week, I spoke about the Conservatives' big vision for this country, which is to build a big society. It's a society where people come together and work together to solve our problems. And nothing brings people together like music. So with School Stars we are going to see kids practising together in the corridors, forming bands, getting together in their lunch breaks, all of those things. I hope that by doing the brave things, and getting up on stage, more and more young people are going to be invested with self-belief, the belief that they can be someone, the belief that they can play a part and make a difference in our country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/16/general-election-2010-live-blog

change we need.

 

[Meadows]

Cameron has been acting a little bit Palin like recently...

 

[Meadows]

By the way, Clegg did an interview with the Student Room forum. It's not the best but there is a Digital Economy question which gets answered well:

Will you reconsider the Digital Economy Bill considering the manner it was pushed through, without proper scrutiny, the lack of MPs in attendance at the Bill’s hearing and also taking into account that some ministers have demonstrated considerable lack of technical knowledge on the consequences of the proposed legislation?

Nick Clegg's answer:

"We did our best to prevent the Digital Economy Bill being rushed through at the last moment. It badly needed more debate and amendment, and we are extremely worried that it will now lead to completely innocent people having their internet connections cut off. It was far too heavily weighted in favour of the big corporations and those who are worried about too much information becoming available. It badly needs to be repealed, and the issues revisited."

EDIT: Link to interview

 

[Wes]

Cameron has been acting a little bit Palin like recently...

Tory Tea Parties will be exactly that. Tea Parties with Tories.

 

[Chinner]

lets not jump over the most important question here: what kind of tea will they be serving?

 

[Dooraven]

lets not jump over the most important question here: what kind of tea will they be serving?

Probably English Breakfast.

 

[Wes]

lets not jump over the most important question here: what kind of tea will they be serving?

Lord Ashcroft Earl Grey

 

[Chinner]

Well guys, I won't be posting much today - going to Sheffield to see friends hunt down Nick Clegg.

i'll miss u guys *weep*

 

[Wes]

Should we expect to here "I met a goose in Sheffield and he was telling me about his concerns for the environment..." in the net debate then?

 

[Dark Machine]

Well guys, I won't be posting much today - going to Sheffield to see friends hunt down Nick Clegg.

i'll miss u guys *weep*

Nick's not in Sheffield today bro (I'm at Uni here) he's in Warrington and then Hull on the campaign trail, he was here like last week, dunno when he'll be back though probably at some point next week.

Also @radiohead, I share your pain man, back in Liverpool (Sefton Central) my vote is pretty damn useless apparently. Everyone is blindly Labour, still one can only hope for disillusioned reds (as I am) to make the switch to the Lib Dems. The FT did say that if my area goes blue it means the Torys have won though ;_;

 

[SmokyDave]

Well guys, I won't be posting much today - going to Sheffield to see friends hunt down Nick Clegg.

i'll miss u guys *weep*

Please tell me you've still got your laminated fact-sheet telling where you can and cannot touch MPs...

 

[brain_stew]

I think that debate was purely damage limitation for Cameron, so much to lose, no huge positives but no huge negatives either. I feel sorry for Brown because this is clearly not his arena and its not fair to expect a politician or a stateman to be able to do the whole tv thing. Clegg had the least to lose and as such came across as the most relaxed and the most genuine. All being said I actally thought that all three of them faired well. None of them embarrased themselves, they were all "presentable". Live TV, millions of people watching, so much on the line; Im admiring of the fact that they did it! I certainly wouldn't.

They didn't? I was sat open mouthed for five minutes when Cameron suggested we may have to nuke China. Cameron came off as a stuttering amateur and definitely lost the most from this.

Edit: Latest ComRes poll has the Lib Dems upto 24%, just 4 points behind labour.

 

[Cindres]

Reading the LibDem's manifesto and Clegg's interview with Student Room. It's all well and good scrapping tuition fees, but then the government has to fund the universities, increasing spending?

EDIT: "We will immediately scrap fees for final year students".
Fuck it then, get them in, i don't have to pay for my final year. Worry about spending after i've finished Uni... by which point there'll be another election.

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/16/leaders-debates-general-election-2010

does that work?

Yeah. Thanks.

 

[blazinglord]

What the fuck? You're comparing apples and oranges and not referring back to the original point people were making... which is that we pay less per capita than our American cousins and we all have basic health coverage, and a service to count on for life. We are not milked by pharmas and insurance companies anywhere near as badly as they are.

Surely you can't believe there's any validity in comparing private American healthcare to the British public national health system -- a better comparison would be private American healthcare (and insurance) with private hospitals, and schemes like BUPA or Medicash

You see, I don't understand what difference how much more America pays for their basic healthcare coverage makes. At the end of the day, it's about results isn't it? I don't think people who die earlier than their American cousins for whatever reason contemplate on their deathbed - 'well at least UK doesn't pay as much per capita than America'. The fact is that if you can afford good healthcare cover - you're probably better off under American healthcare than the NHS. I'm not advocating that we have privatisation of the NHS, but I just think that a little bit of free market is a good thing - the kind of services, technology and medicines available in the states show this. The romantic idea of equal distribution of resources doesn't work in practice.

I don't want to get into an argument about the NHS, I'm not saying that I want it all privatised. Just some substantial reforms where the NHS offers only basics (but high quality) care to everyone and for extras, people should pay for it. I know some collectivist-minded people on here will be ideologically opposed to this - but I just don't think that a penis enlargement or a boob job to counter feelings of 'depression' is a human right. Nor does society really have a responsibility to keep fellow smokers with lung disease or fat people with heart problems alive. Individuals need to take responsibilities for their actions, and if they want to destroy their bodies but extend their mortality or have non-lifesaving surgery - then they should pay for it out of their own pocket.

 

[Varion]

EDIT: "We will immediately scrap fees for final year students".
Fuck it then, get them in, i don't have to pay for my final year. Worry about spending after i've finished Uni... by which point there'll be another election.

Dammit I'm about two months off finishing my final year.

Can I have my money back?

 

[jas0nuk]

Guys, seriously, he won the debate but there is zero chance of the Liberal Democrats winning this election. People need to calm down about it.

Study the electoral geography of the country. 650 constituencies.
400 of them are safe Labour or Conservative seats e.g. North West/North East hardcore Labour seats where the vote is like LAB 60 BNP 20 CON 10 LIB DEM 10, and shire seats in Middle England where the vote is like CON 60 LD 30 LAB 10).

If, say, both Conservatives and Labour sunk to their core vote (as Labour did in the mid 80s and Con did in the late 90s) and the Lib Dems shot to first place, the 2 old parties would still get around 180 to 200 seats each. This leaves you with a guaranteed hung parliament situation with no chance of the Lib Dems getting more than 250 seats at best when you count independent candidates, SNP, the NI parties, etc. This is in itself a highly unlikely thing to happen, since when one of the 2 main parties sinks to it's core vote the tendency is that the other one starts hitting 38 to 42 percent and approaches majority territory.

This will not change without massive reform of the FPTP system or scrapping it altogether.

 

[Mr. Sam]

This will not change without massive reform of the FPTP system or scrapping it altogether.

Which won't happen without the Lib Dems. I think-- I think we just created a singularity.

 

[The Librarian]

Let's me start this post by saying that with the recent HCR bill, health care here in the US has gotten way better, but it still can be improved upon by a considerable amount. The HCR bill Obama signed in March establishes a very fractured single-payer system; everyone has to have insurance or they pay a fine.

Primarily, there are three ways to get health care in the US: private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid.

What the fuck? You're comparing apples and oranges and not referring back to the original point people were making... which is that we pay less per capita than our American cousins and we all have basic health coverage, and a service to count on for life. We are not milked by pharmas and insurance companies anywhere near as badly as they are.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about when you say this, but this "milking" only applies to those on private insurance, not those on Medicare or Medicaid. However, when you say "milking," there is and will be less of this, in general, with the recent HCR bill signed into law.

Surely you can't believe there's any validity in comparing private American healthcare to the British public national health system -- a better comparison would be private American healthcare (and insurance) with private hospitals, and schemes like BUPA or Medicash

If you're looking to compare the British health system with a system in America, it seems like it'd be Medicare.

You see, I don't understand what difference how much more America pays for their basic healthcare coverage makes. At the end of the day, it's about results isn't it?

Your own article explains exactly why this is: Because of our fractured health system, we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other Western nation, and this cost has allowed healthcare to grow to nearly 20% of our GDP (which is bad, kay?). (Note that chart has data from 2007, since then healthcare has grown to about 18% of our GDP.) Because of the way the health care system is set up in the US, more than 60% of bankruptcies are filed because of medical costs. No one should go bankrupt because they get sick, dude.

The fact is that if you can afford good healthcare cover - you're probably better off under American healthcare than the NHS. I'm not advocating that we have privatisation of the NHS, but I just think that a little bit of free market is a good thing - the kind of services, technology and medicines available in the states show this.

This is not a fact. For one, I'd like to see a better breakdown (age, specifically) of those statistics in that article. Secondly, your introductory clause for your first sentence is the biggest problem with your stance: IF you can afford it. What about those who can't? Where does that leave them? The government. So why not just have everyone on some sort of universal health system?

I'm not sure what free market principles you want included in the NHS, but in case you're thinking it, having private insurance companies is ineffective and dishonest. Health insurance companies really don't serve a purpose. What are they there for? What is the number one goal of an insurance company? To make money. Here in America, we already pay taxes for Medicare and the like, and then, to afford health coverage, we pay a certain amount to the private insurance companies. Why not just pay that amount directly to the government so everyone has some form of coverage?

Nor does society really have a responsibility to keep fellow smokers with lung disease or fat people with heart problems alive.

That's a fantastic broad stroke you're painting there.

Individuals need to take responsibilities for their actions, and if they want to destroy their bodies but extend their mortality or have non-lifesaving surgery - then they should pay for it out of their own pocket.

I don't know much about the British system other than that everyone is covered (...right?), but doesn't the government only cover a certain amount of the cost of a certain procedure or drug? It's not all free, is it? Here in the US, private insurance only covers a certain fraction of the cost of a drug or a medical procedure.

Speaking as a US citizen, I'd rather have the British NHS than what we have here.

 

[brain_stew]

This will not change without massive reform of the FPTP system or scrapping it altogether.

And what do you think will be the single biggest request that the Lib Dems have in the result of a hung parliament?

A hung parliament means voting reform, and voting reform means a long overdue return/introduction of real democracy. That's why we're all excited by the recent surge of interest behind the Lib Dems. (Well that and the fact that they delivered far and away the best manifesto).

 

[Empty]

ComRes daily poll numbers:

Conservative 35% (nc), Labour 28% (-1), Lib Dem 24% (+3).

With a uniform swing (unreliable of course) that apparently puts the Conservatives on 275, Labour on 265, and the Lib Dems on 79. Conservatives 37 short of a majority.

"Democracy" in this country rocks.

Guys, seriously, he won the debate but there is zero chance of the Liberal Democrats winning this election. People need to calm down about it.

We don't think the Lib Dems can win the election - we think that a) maybe the lib dems can push through PR in a hung parliament and b) a surge of support for the lib dems will lead to other parties adopting some of their policies to try and counter this support, moving them move leftwards/become more liberal and making for a better country, as well as better position them to win in the long long term.

 

[defel]

We all know that hype feeds on itself. Im gonna try and stay away from the polls until next tuesday at least.

 

[frankie_baby]

I don't know much about the British system other than that everyone is covered (...right?), but doesn't the government only cover a certain amount of the cost of a certain procedure or drug? It's not all free, is it? Here in the US, private insurance only covers a certain fraction of the cost of a drug or a medical procedure.

Speaking as a US citizen, I'd rather have the British NHS than what we have here.

in britain all appointments and procedures are completely free, there is just a small charge of about £7 for prescriptions although most people can get exemptions from that too

 

[Parl]

I don't know much about the British system other than that everyone is covered (...right?), but doesn't the government only cover a certain amount of the cost of a certain procedure or drug? It's not all free, is it? Here in the US, private insurance only covers a certain fraction of the cost of a drug or a medical procedure.

in britain all appointments and procedures are completely free, there is just a small charge of about £7 for prescriptions although most people can get exemptions from that too

The NHS is free at the point of use. There's nothing to "cover" as such as the cost is already there as most of the hospitals are public hospitals with no commercial motive anyway. Just a bunch of hospitals, clinics and pharmacies with publicly employed staff treating whoever happens to turn up with no bill or paperwork or anything.

In my life so far, my usage of the healthcare system has been 2 bottles of cough medicine, 1 bottle of this weird cream for a skin problem I had for a week or two as a kid, getting my foot ran over by a car and smashing by head at the window, smashing my head and getting stitches, checking if I had a broken hand when I had a strange accident. Total cost: 0

 

[DSWii60]

ComRes daily poll numbers:

Conservative 35% (nc), Labour 28% (-1), Lib Dem 24% (+3).

With a uniform swing (unreliable of course) that apparently puts the Conservatives on 275, Labour on 265, and the Lib Dems on 79. Conservatives 37 short of a majority.

"Democracy" in this country rocks..

This needs to be emphasised. A 4% difference in the country's support for Labour compared with the Lib Dems is equivalent to a difference of 186 seats. That's exactly why we need electoral reform.

 

[Zutroy]

/facepalm

Hey, I did say I hated that way of thinking. At least I realise I'm being an idiot, right?

Anyway, it's not like I'm against Labour. I would be quite happy with either in charge of the country. Plus, I'm in Scotland, so doesn't really matter who gets it, it's gonna be one less seat for the torries, and that's all that matters.



P.S. The neogaf app for the iPhone is amazing!

 

[broadwayrock]

Has anyone seen Eddie Izzard's advert for Labour?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZDreHPzU94

Its more down to earth than having the Third Doctor Who's son walking up a hill and David Tennant returns to do the voice over.

 

[jas0nuk]

We don't think the Lib Dems can win the election - we think that a) maybe the lib dems can push through PR in a hung parliament and b) a surge of support for the lib dems will lead to other parties adopting some of their policies to try and counter this support, moving them move leftwards/become more liberal and making for a better country, as well as better position them to win in the long long term.

They might be able to push PR through if Labour end up as the largest party. It's looking unlikely at this point. It'll be Con largest or Con majority. The Conservatives want to keep FPTP and would not concede over this.

I forsee problems ahead for Clegg in the next debate which will centre on foreign policy. Clegg will of course talk about Iraq being an illegal war which Brown/Blair led us into, and the Conservatives "voted for it too!!!" What after that though? The Lib Dems have some pretty extreme foreign policies, e.g. getting rid of Trident in a world where unstable countries have nuclear weaponry (and who knows what could happen over the next 30 years, by which time Trident would be obsolete and we could not quickly renew it), cancelling the Eurofighter, an amnesty for illegal immigrants, supporting an EU superstate, joining the Euro.
Cameron will take an easy hit on dropping the "cast iron commitment" Lisbon Treaty referendum (it makes him sound inconsistent about it, but imo a referendum on that now is simply too late, the treaty has been signed off) but will immediately bat it back onto Brown, because Labour lied for 13 years about giving us a referendum.
Brown will take massive hits for "misleading"/getting the defence spending figures wrong at Chilcott, helicopter/armoured vehicle funding etc and probably come off worst.

On the final debate which centres on the economy, Clegg and Cameron will go for Brown on the NI increase, "abolishing boom and bust", tax increases, waste, etc etc, Brown will go for both of them on public sector cuts and apparently uncosted tax cuts but will simultaneously "agree with Nick" constantly. Brown the master of tractor statistics and being Chancellor for 10 years will try his damnedest to get the upper hand on this one, I expect sparks to fly.

 

[curls]

The Lib Dems have some pretty extreme foreign policies, e.g. getting rid of Trident in a world where unstable countries have nuclear weaponry (and who knows what could happen over the next 30 years, by which time Trident would be obsolete and we could not quickly renew it), cancelling the Eurofighter, an amnesty for illegal immigrants, supporting an EU superstate, joining the Euro.

I am sooooo voting Lib Dem.

 

[Dark Machine]

I forsee problems ahead for Clegg in the next debate which will centre on foreign policy. Clegg will of course talk about Iraq being an illegal war which Brown/Blair led us into, and the Conservatives "voted for it too!!!" What after that though? The Lib Dems have some pretty extreme foreign policies, e.g. getting rid of Trident in a world where unstable countries have nuclear weaponry (and who knows what could happen over the next 30 years, by which time Trident would be obsolete and we could not quickly renew it), cancelling the Eurofighter, an amnesty for illegal immigrants, supporting an EU superstate, joining the Euro.
Cameron will take an easy hit on dropping the "cast iron commitment" Lisbon Treaty referendum (it makes him sound inconsistent about it, but imo a referendum on that now is simply too late, the treaty has been signed off) but will immediately bat it back onto Brown, because Labour lied for 13 years about giving us a referendum.
Brown will take massive hits for "misleading"/getting the defence spending figures wrong at Chilcott, helicopter/armoured vehicle funding etc and probably come off worst.

The only people that can actually use Nuclear Weapons offensively any more are terrorists, since they have no 'state' and retaliating against them is much more difficult than against a normal state. Japan lives without any nukes quite happily and has 4 nuclear powers on its doorstep (China, N.Korea, India and Pakistan). Trident is currently a waste of money because it was designed to be a 'first strike' or 'hidden retaliation' weapon, i.e. you could sneak the subs up to near the coast of China or Russia and launch an attack. In today's world, such an attack would be suicidal. If China launches nukes, China gets nuked by everyone else, and we all die. If the USA launches nukes, it gets nuked by everyone, and we still all die. Didn't ANYONE see the film War Games? Nukes, for a nation like ours (and yes no matter how much we fight it, an EU superstate IS inevitable if current global trends proceed for the next 50 years) should be a defensive weapon, usable in case of invasion or as a 'revenge attack' in the future, defense for all EU states in case of action against Europe will be conducted through the EU anyway. Europe is becoming more and more pacifist and in my opinion that can only be a good thing. We need our troops to have the best equipment and be looked after well so that defense is a viable and good job for people, not to spend tons of money on a nuclear missile system that can flatten a few cities and (via chain reaction) destroy the earth.

I mean, everyone's on about Iran getting nukes, what will they do? Nuke Israel? Then they'd get nuked and everyone would die, Ack-med-is-me-dad may be mad, but even he's not THAT mad. The real danger is stateless terrorists being supplied by him, so we need to get Iran back to the table to convince them we have something to offer that's better, if they need us, they can't kill us.

 

[jas0nuk]

I feel much safer knowing that the UK (a small island democracy with less than 1% of the world population) possesses the ultimate deterrent because it means we can't be seriously threatened by any extremely large powerful nation which might choose to grapple with us in the future but which we could never hope to match with conventional military forces.

We have absolutely no idea how the geopolitical world will evolve over the next 30 years. It takes years to develop and deploy a continuous deterrent - if we fail to replace it now we'd kick ourselves if ever we found ourselves in need of it in future; by then we wouldn't have time to react. Call me paranoid if you like, but if the world teaches us one thing it's that these threats come out of nowhere.

My criteria for abolishing our our own nuclear deterrent are that all countries that currently hold nukes must become stable mature democracies, and there should be no non-nuclear countries significantly larger than our own which possess large militaristic resources that could credibly threaten us.

Neither of those will happen very soon.

 

[Empty]

I forsee problems ahead for Clegg in the next debate which will centre on foreign policy. Clegg will of course talk about Iraq being an illegal war which Brown/Blair led us into, and the Conservatives "voted for it too!!!" What after that though? The Lib Dems have some pretty extreme foreign policies, e.g. getting rid of Trident in a world where unstable countries have nuclear weaponry (and who knows what could happen over the next 30 years, by which time Trident would be obsolete and we could not quickly renew it), cancelling the Eurofighter, an amnesty for illegal immigrants, supporting an EU superstate, joining the Euro.
Cameron will take an easy hit on dropping the "cast iron commitment" Lisbon Treaty referendum (it makes him sound inconsistent about it, but imo a referendum on that now is simply too late, the treaty has been signed off) but will immediately bat it back onto Brown, because Labour lied for 13 years about giving us a referendum.
Brown will take massive hits for "misleading"/getting the defence spending figures wrong at Chilcott, helicopter/armoured vehicle funding etc and probably come off worst.
.

I think you are being too generous to Cameron. He'll take big hits for how he is planning on isolating himself from Europe and limiting our power there by creating a new group in the EU parliament, while at the same time not being close to Obama who has reportedly called Cameron a "lightweight" and wants to focus on relationships with the EU as a whole rather than the special relationship of years gone by. It is lose-lose there when it comes to foreign relations. I don't think any of them will do well, Brown is held back by labour's war-mongering baggage, and Clegg's positive positions against the wars will be totally eliminated by the un-popular pro-eu position he holds.

 

[The Librarian]

The NHS is free at the point of use. There's nothing to "cover" as such as the cost is already there as most of the hospitals are public hospitals with no commercial motive anyway. Just a bunch of hospitals, clinics and pharmacies with publicly employed staff treating whoever happens to turn up with no bill or paperwork or anything.

In my life so far, my usage of the healthcare system has been 2 bottles of cough medicine, 1 bottle of this weird cream for a skin problem I had for a week or two as a kid, getting my foot ran over by a car and smashing by head at the window, smashing my head and getting stitches, checking if I had a broken hand when I had a strange accident. Total cost: 0

Hot damn. I imagine that would've cost a nice sum of pocket change here in the US.

 

[Dabookerman]

If a country is that desperate to nuke us, they will nuke us whether we have tridents or not.

In the end, we are fucked. So what is the point?

If anyone decided to nuke us, you know America or someone else will fuck them.

If it's China as Cameron likes to think, well we're all fucked.

Either way.

Fuck.

 

[Dark Machine]

Hot damn. I imagine that would've cost a nice sum of pocket change here in the US.

I've always wondered how much getting my Cruciate Ligament replaced would've been in the US. Here it took like 4 months from getting it diagnosed to having an op. Then another 4 months of after-care physio. All totally free. Yeah I could've had it done immediately but hey, I could still walk and do everything normal people could do, just not play sports. Other people were obviously higher priority, and I don't mind that in a free system. I've also had my fractured skull seen to when I was a kid, and had free dentistry from the NHS to replace half of my two front teeth after an accident.

If a country is that desperate to nuke us, they will nuke us whether we have tridents or not.

In the end, we are fucked. So what is the point?

If anyone decided to nuke us, you know America or someone else will fuck them.

If it's China as Cameron likes to think, well we're all fucked.

Either way.

Fuck.

Welcome to the world of Nuclear Weapons! The only way to win, is not to play! Honestly, was I the only person who watched that movie?

 

[Salazar]

Welcome to the world of Nuclear Weapons! The only way to win, is not to play! Honestly, was I the only person who watched that movie?

Yes, Prime Minister is much more definitive on Britain and nuclear war. Salami slices, etc.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Lib Dems rumoured to be above Labour in tomorrow's Sun/YouGov poll.

Should be confirmed at 10pm tonight.

 

[Dabookerman]

 

[Walshicus]

e.g. getting rid of Trident in a world where unstable countries have nuclear weaponry (and who knows what could happen over the next 30 years, by which time Trident would be obsolete and we could not quickly renew it),

Once a country has nuclear weapons and delivery systems they're not difficult to start manufacturing again. Most of Europe could be nuclear equipped with extremely short notice - if a threat actually turns up I have no doubt we'd have more than enough time to get to where we need to be. Besides, it's not as if Trident is actually an independent nuclear capability - it's pretty much tied to the Americans for its operation.

cancelling the Eurofighter,

Yeah, one bad move. The Typhoon is a brilliant and versatile plane which should begin to phase out older designs... but that's mostly just my love for its aesthetics speaking.

an amnesty for illegal immigrants,

Would rather they pay tax then not.

supporting an EU superstate,

The only people who use the term "superstate" without irony are idiots who've bought into The Australian and others' bullshit. Increased cooperation and pooled sovereignty arrangements within Europe are right and beneficial.

joining the Euro..

As as above. The European Single Currency would be hugely beneficial to this country.



Also; fuck it. I'm going Liberal Democrat this time. Crawley had a tiny Labour majority and I don't think it'll survive, so might as well vote for the party I want.

 

[Dabookerman]

The only one wish I have in regards to the joining of the Euro is this:

Keep Charles Darwin somewhere :_;

 

[defel]

Joining the euro is my main problem with the LibDems. Joining the Euro would be a HUGE mistake.

 

[DECK'ARD]

YouGov poll rumours confirmed, Lib Dems jump to second at the expense of both Labour and the Conservatives:

CON 33%(-4)
LDEM 30%(+8)
LAB 28%(-3)

Pretty amazing for the Lib Dems, and even if the bounce from the first debate wears off it suggests people see them as a serious contender now and not necessarily a 'wasted vote'.

 

[Empty]

YouGov poll rumours confirmed, Lib Dems jump to second at the expense of both Labour and the Conservatives:

CON 33%(-4)
LDEM 30%(+8)
LAB 28%(-3)

Pretty amazing for the Lib Dems, and even if the bounce from the first debate wears off it suggests people see them as a serious contender now and not necessarily a 'wasted vote'.

i know we should wait till they settle down in the next few days, and margin of error etc, but that said

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

 

[Wes]

If they retain a high 20% come Sunday, Labour and the Tories are going to be seriously worried.

 

[brain_stew]

YouGov poll rumours confirmed, Lib Dems jump to second at the expense of both Labour and the Conservatives:

CON 33%(-4)
LDEM 30%(+8)
LAB 28%(-3)

Pretty amazing for the Lib Dems, and even if the bounce from the first debate wears off it suggests people see them as a serious contender now and not necessarily a 'wasted vote'.

I just saw it on ITV news as well (yeah, I know). They broke down how it would convert to seats assuming an equal spread. The Lib Dems would only have 100 seats and despite having the least amounts of votes Labour would have the msot seats (150+ more than the LDs). If anything demonstrates how broken our voting system is, surely this is it.

If they retain a high 20% come Sunday, Labour and the Tories are going to be seriously worried.

If they do the tories are going to have fold on the adamant refusal to even look at voting reform if they want to take power. Hung parliament here we come.

At the very least, last night was definitely a win for democracy, and it was good that the third party (whoever it is) are finally getting proper exposure and being judged on an equal footing. UK politics needed that.

 

[Wes]

The Sun Article on the YouGov joint poll

THE General Election was turned on its head tonight when the Lib Dems pushed Labour into THIRD place following the historic leaders' telly debate.

Nick Clegg - boosted by a convincing victory in Thursday's showdown - saw his party leap eight points to 30 per cent.

The sensational YouGov poll for The Sun had David Cameron's Tories still in the lead on 33 per cent.

But Gordon Brown's ailing Labour Party was in disarray, relegated to a dismal 28 per cent.

Our landmark poll is the very first nationwide survey on how Brits plan to vote taken since the debate.

And it made political history - as the first time the party of government has dropped to third place in a General Election campaign.

YouGov chairman Peter Kellner said: "Suddenly we're in uncharted waters. The Lib Dem surge throws this election wide open. When the volcanic dust from Thursday's debate has settled, who will have suffered most - Labour or the Tories?"

Pollsters YouGov quizzed 1,290 people throughout today. The staggering result left all wannabe MPs reeling and proved the May 6 election is now officially a three-horse race.

In the shock poll, the Lib Dems took four points from the Conservatives, three from Labour and one from smaller parties. But the most dramatic shift in support for the Lib Dems was from the young, with a massive 44 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds saying they would vote for Mr Clegg. The poll proves the ITV1 debate was an utter disaster for Mr Brown. Every survey yesterday said the PM came a distant last in the Manchester clash.

It is the first time the third-placed party has overtaken Labour or the Tories in polls during a General Election campaign since 1983.

And in no previous campaign for the keys to No10 has support for the centre party reached 30 per cent.

Speaking before our poll result, both Mr Cameron and Mr Brown conceded Mr Clegg had done well.

Saying that the 43-year-old had a "good debate", Mr Cameron added that he was also pleased with how the showdown played out.

He said: "We were all nervous. But I was very happy. I got across the points I wanted to make."

Mr Brown was more bitter about the third party challenger, saying: "I think Nick Clegg was introducing himself in many ways to the public, nationally, for the first time and I think he will be rightly pleased."

But senior Tories launched a ferocious broadside against the Lib Dems' policies. Shadow schools secretary Michael Gove warned: "Nick Clegg benefits from being the new kid on the block. With novelty comes curiosity, but also increased scrutiny. The policies of his party are outside the mainstream and a little bit eccentric, not necessarily what you want at a time of crisis and difficulty."

The pollsters also asked voters which party leader had the best Week Two of the campaign.

A substantial 59 per cent said Mr Clegg, with 14 per cent opting for Mr Cameron and eight per cent for Mr Brown. But Mr Clegg was branded naive by experts who rubbished his plans to scrap Britain's Trident nuclear arsenal.

They said the move would make the nation vulnerable to rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

And it would "surrender" our world standing by potentially ending our permanent membership to the UN Security Council.

Bookies William Hill estimated seven out of every ten political bets they took today were for a Lib Dem win. Odds on a Conservative overall majority were 10/11, Labour 9/1 and Lib Dem 22/1.

Meanwhile Mr Brown denied he broke an agreement to stand on the stage at the end of the debate to allow TV cameras to fade out.

Instead he jumped into the audience and shook hands. He said: "I was just being friendly."

 

[DECK'ARD]

This is how it would break down in seats assuming a unified swing:

Labour - 276
Tory - 245
Lib Dems - 100

Which does show how broken the system is, for the party in 3rd place to have the most seats. However going into the election with the Lib Dems in second would make it almost impossible to predict.

It's a very strong case for PR, and I think this might become an issue over the next week as people realise how unrepresentative the system is. Which would further boost support for the the Lib Dems as the ones to change it.

 

[nemesun]

The Sun is not even trying to hide it anymore- Cameron this, Cameron that. Guardian has been covering Labour more intensely than rest of 'em. Times has its own agenda (Sky), and a quick look at Independent shows that they're less invested in this campaign than they were in previous elections.