Support NeoGAF

[Meadows]

Public sector borrowing for the year just came in, it was recorded at £141bn down from Labour's prediction of £149bn from October 2009 which was based on their spending plan, which is down from a peak of £156bn in 2009/10. These figures don't include the fiscal intervention which makes the deficit higher. The figure was expected to be £145bn by the OBR which overshot.

Also consumer spending went up according to initial estimates which is great news for retailers and an economy dependent on consumption, matched with a fall in export demand one could say that domestic consumption is on the rise which is good for local employment and this can be seen in the latest private sector employment figures which were up by around 40k last month.

All in all it has been a very good month for the government and if the chancellor's deficit reduction plan works it is great news for the UK as we will be one of the first heavily indebted western nations to get onto a path of sustainability. All we need now is a law to stop Labour ever running a deficit in boom years, but I fear that is too much to ask...

I think the country will have learnt a lesson and very close tabs will be kept on spending after we return a surplus for the first time.

 

[Mr. Sam]

So, enough about AV, how about dem tuition fees? £9,000 "in exceptional cases only" claimed the gov, only 122 out of 123 universities have put in the paperwork to have the maximum limit because it's a status symbol. "Reassuringly expensive".

I knew it was bullshit then, so you can colour me unsurprised.

 

[Meadows]

So, enough about AV, how about dem tuition fees? £9,000 "in exceptional cases only" claimed the gov, only 122 out of 123 universities have put in the paperwork to have the maximum limit because it's a status symbol. "Reassuringly expensive".

They don't automatically get to make their fees 9k, they have to have it approved, so it's kind of a thing of you may as well try and get the highest amount possible because if the worst comes to the worst then you just get what you would without applying anyway.

I mean, Leeds Met for 9k a year? Please.

 

[JonathanEx]

Offa is a six person team (and a dog) with no powers. It's essentially "have you got arrangements to widen participation. yes? good." Expect most (if not all) to go through.


Lincoln's charging 9k, which isn't going down well because... it's Lincoln. Lincoln previously stated that they could 'break even' on 7.5k, but the excuse for 9k was that so they could actually improve things rather than just sustain things and afford bursaries for students and things. But they did admit that they were keeping an eye on others and not wanting to look bad.


Either way, estimates I've heard are that 70% of fees will never be paid back!


Lolpolicy!

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I think the country will have learnt a lesson and very close tabs will be kept on spending after we return a surplus for the first time.

I think Ed Balls might disagree with you. We need an investigation into the cause of our recession so we never make the same mistake again. Even if it reports back that 'it started in America' like Gordon kept saying we can take appropriate action to protect ourselves from external shocks. If it reports back that we borrowed too much in the good times and over-leveraged ourselves then we can take appropriate action to make sure we never do that in the future. Until we clear up what the true cause of the deficit was without the banker bashing we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

They don't automatically get to make their fees 9k, they have to have it approved, so it's kind of a thing of you may as well try and get the highest amount possible because if the worst comes to the worst then you just get what you would without applying anyway.

I mean, Leeds Met for 9k a year? Please.

Leeds Met are going to get a baptism of fire in this new free market. At the end of the day they won't fill up their places and will have to lower their fees or raise their standards to justify those fees. Since the latter is unlikely I am going to guess that after the first couple of year charging the top rate they will lower it to something like £5000 as dumb middle class students' parents don't want to spend too much money on sending their idiot kid to a second rate uni.

 

[Meatpuppet]

On the 9k... what exactly did people expect to happen? Take a look at what courses typically cost to an oversees student; I think my course worked out at over 100k save for the fact that I was lucky enough to be Irish and hence eligible for the UK costs.

 

[Zutroy]

So I just finished watching HIGNFY. I hadn't heard about these super injunctions before. Who are the people it's covering? The way they spoke about it made it seem like it was common knowledge. All I could find was about an MP who tried to get one. Apparently the others are a footballer and an actor. Any names?

 

[Meadows]

So I just finished watching HIGNFY. I hadn't heard about these super injunctions before. Who are the people it's covering? The way they spoke about it made it seem like it was common knowledge. All I could find was about an MP who tried to get one. Apparently the others are a footballer and an actor. Any names?

didn't John Terry try and get one or whatever? To be honest I don't really care about any of it.

 

[J Tourettes]

So I just finished watching HIGNFY. I hadn't heard about these super injunctions before. Who are the people it's covering? The way they spoke about it made it seem like it was common knowledge. All I could find was about an MP who tried to get one. Apparently the others are a footballer and an actor. Any names?

I think an oil company (maybe Shell?) took one out a while ago and it actually prevented or attempted to, an MP asking questions about it in the Commons. Carter Ruck seem to specialise in them and it's no surprise to see Justice Eady involved in the latest shitstorm.

 

[Subliminal]

I will really be disappointed if the No camp wins. The yes campaign hasn't been great but the no campaign has been sleazy, untrue, condescending and full of shit.

 

[avaya]

I will really be disappointed if the No camp wins. The yes campaign hasn't been great but the no campaign has been sleazy, untrue, condescending and full of shit.

This is surprising to you? The Yes campaign would have done better from painting the No camp as establishment, evil, will take your first born, etc.

The shit always rises to the top.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I think an oil company (maybe Shell?) took one out a while ago and it actually prevented or attempted to, an MP asking questions about it in the Commons. Carter Ruck seem to specialise in them and it's no surprise to see Justice Eady involved in the latest shitstorm.

They need to fix the system so rich people can't abuse privacy laws.

 

[Songbird]

Hey there UK-ers, I'm back after a good week away and it's been great to hear differing views about May 5th. Some good points have made me reconsider my position and then reconsider even more, so I have some left to do I reckon. Keep on being excellent, guys!

 

[Lo-Volt]

Senior Liberal Democrat minister Chris Huhne has threatened legal action over "untruths" told by Conservatives opposed to the Alternative Vote system. Mr Huhne said Tory ministers backing the No campaign undermined their credibility by making false claims about the costs of introducing AV. He warned the row could damage the coalition government.

Foreign Secretary William Hague denied Tories had told "untruths", and said the coalition could still work well. The 5 May referendum was a Liberal Democrat condition for entering coalition with the Tories. But with all Lib Dems in the Cabinet backing the change and their Tory colleagues speaking against it, the two parties making up the coalition have been increasingly pitted against one another during the campaign.

Chris Huhne, who refused to rule out resigning as energy secretary over the tensions, said arguments between the Yes and No campaigns would make it a lot more difficult for the coalition to work together in the future. BBC News

So maybe the strain on the Lib Dems is proving more severe as the year goes on, but what can they expect to do about all of this if they lose the referendum? For all of the anger, ending the coalition prematurely exposes their MPs to a difficult general election campaign, while staying in the coalition until the end of the term could damage their reputation more if they can't make more marks on the government until 2015.

 

[Walshicus]

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/21/baroness-warsi-humiliated-in-no2av-debate-on-sky/


Holy shit, I've never seen a Sky News reporter doing their job so well. Wow.

 

[phisheep]

So maybe the strain on the Lib Dems is proving more severe as the year goes on, but what can they expect to do about all of this if they lose the referendum? For all of the anger, ending the coalition prematurely exposes their MPs to a difficult general election campaign, while staying in the coalition until the end of the term could damage their reputation more if they can't make more marks on the government until 2015.

What they can expect to do if they lose the referendum is to campaign for PR, instead of campaigning for what they only recently referred to as a 'shoddy little compromise'. And crank up the price for any future coalition with anybody to some sort of PR system.

Then get on with government.

They've learnt a good lesson here, in that a concession to have a referendum on a (relatively) indefensible change isn't much of a concession at all. Last time round it was very nearly a concession too far for the Tories - or Labour - to make. Next time round it might not be.

Its bad maths basically. The LibDems have, what, something like 20% of the popular vote on a primary platform of electoral reform and sort-of-centrist policies. 20% ain't enough to win a referendum. They need to pick one they can win.

 

[Walshicus]

We're not going to get PR if this referendum fails. Not for a generation, at any rate. It's that simple.

 

[louis89]

If the AV No campaign has had this much success with the fallacious arguments it's been using against AV (this coming from a No supporter), I can't see a pro PR campaign getting anywhere at all in the face of the plenty of genuine and extremely serious arguments against that voting system.

AV is essentially what we have now with a little twist. PR would completely and utterly change the fundamental nature of elections and government in the United Kingdom.

 

[Zenith]

According to hints from Private Eye, Ryan Giggs and a male actor from Shameless are 2 people who have super-injunctions.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I don't like Adam Boulton usually, but he does a pretty great smackdown on Baroness Warsi in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRtL20Ue54&feature=player_embedded

BTW, does anyone have any idea where this "6 out if 10 Australian people don't like AV and want to go back to FPTP" statistic comes from? I've never seen it in any official manner, yet the No to AV lot peddle it out all the time. It might be Australians want to move to a more proportional system, but I somehow HIGHLY doubt people want to "go back to" a system that was put out of use in 1918 and literally no one around nowadays in that country will have used.

Goddamn, he absolutely destroyed her.

 

[Parl]

What they can expect to do if they lose the referendum is to campaign for PR, instead of campaigning for what they only recently referred to as a 'shoddy little compromise'. And crank up the price for any future coalition with anybody to some sort of PR system.

The "miserable little compromise" comment by Nick Clegg was a reference to get Gordon Brown to improve on his 'miserable little compromise' of limited electoral reform (AV) as part of a deal to coalition with Labour after the hung parliament. It's quite commonly taken out of context. Of course, it's still a compromise on their preferred electoral system, but that's what you have to do when you're ditstant third in the Commons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-want-to-push-this-all-the-way-declares-clegg-1950668.html

 

[Ushojax]

According to hints from Private Eye, Ryan Giggs and a male actor from Shameless are 2 people who have super-injunctions.

They were right about Andrew Marr having one and they've been banging on about that since last year. The Giggs stuff has been floating around for a while too.

 

[phisheep]

If the AV No campaign has had this much success with the fallacious arguments it's been using against AV (this coming from a No supporter), I can't see a pro PR campaign getting anywhere at all in the face of the plenty of genuine and extremely serious arguments against that voting system.

AV is essentially what we have now with a little twist. PR would completely and utterly change the fundamental nature of elections and government in the United Kingdom.

I think they are different things entirely, and that it is a mistake to see AV as some sort of stepping-stone to PR. Indeed, quite possibly a change to AV mmight slow down an eventual move to PR - on the basis that it was chosen by referendum and after all the people have spoken - or something like that.

PR (in pretty much any variety) has a much better selling point than AV, in that it is quite simply about having the constitution of the legislature more nearly reflect the accumulated votes of the electorate. It's quite difficult to argue against on any principled grounds. Conversely, AV is about the complicated minutiae of choosing a single constituency representative and it is difficult to make a (universally acceptable) principled argument in favour of it - at least one that holds much water.

In particular, I don't see anybody arguing that we should go for AV and stop there. And if that isn't the desired end result, why should I vote for it - it is just tinkering.

Of course, there is the whole palaver about which variety of PR would be appropriate. For me - as a big supporter of local MPs and a committed localist - I'd prefer a regional top-up.

But I'm not voting for AV. Not in my constituency. It's very much a Tory/LibDem marginal with Labour nowhere and a growing number of fringe candidates - but what I hear from the AV crowd and from the likely party alignments the idea of AV here would be to get a LibDem MP locally in order to usher in a Labour Government nationally, which clearly nearly nobody here wants.

The "miserable little compromise" comment by Nick Clegg was a reference to get Gordon Brown to improve on his 'miserable little compromise' of limited electoral reform (AV) as part of a deal to coalition with Labour after the hung parliament. It's quite commonly taken out of context. Of course, it's still a compromise on their preferred electoral system, but that's what you have to do when you're ditstant third in the Commons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-want-to-push-this-all-the-way-declares-clegg-1950668.html

Fair point. I not only misquoted but took it out of context. I apologise.

Point stands though that it is a "baby step in the right direction – only because nothing can be worse than the status quo". Trouble is, it is so baby a step and with so little real impact and so dependent still on marginal constituencies, that I am not inclined to vote for it.

I still think there is danger in taking this step, because one man's "baby step" is another man's "will of the people".

As I said earlier, the price of a coalition will go up next time round. Constitutional change takes time, and having the referendum is a reasonable first step - I'm not particularly fussed that the result is likely to be no this time round.

Mind you, I'm an old guy, and tend to take the long view.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I quite like the Additional Member System too. I think that's what you're referencing.

I'm still making up my mind on how to vote. I'm leaning yes, though I think that's more to do with disgust for the No campaign's scare tactics than any particularly compelling argument.

Where I live, the Conservatives are more than likely to amass 50+% of the vote in the first round, so it would literally make no difference.

 

[phisheep]

I quite like the Additional Member System too. I think that's what you're referencing.

I'm still making up my mind on how to vote. I'm leaning yes, though I think that's more to do with disgust for the No campaign's scare tactics than any particularly compelling argument.

Where I live, the Conservatives are more than likely to amass 50+% of the vote in the first round, so it would literally make no difference.

I share your disgust with the No campaign tactics. Not at all happy with it - way too reactionary and not showing any signs of principle. Plus, if the vote is No, it will get spun entirely the wrong way (no appetite for change, and so on). We'll get over that eventually - at the latest with the Lords reforms.

Your last point is key. If where you live it will make no difference, then why should your vote on this count anyway? The votes in the more marginal constituencies vwill be interesting.

Most worrying thing about this whole affair is they need to find someone who can write sensible referendum questions that actually find out what the people want.

 

[Meadows]

One thing this AV thing has taught me is that referendums are awesome! It really forces you to make an opinion and encourages active discussion from both sides.

We should do referendums more, especially on big issues such as ID Cards etc.

 

[Empty]

Most worrying thing about this whole affair is they need to find someone who can write sensible referendum questions that actually find out what the people want.

this has probably been mentioned before but i really liked the the two stage new zealand referenda on changing their voting system where they first asked two questions, do you want a referenda on a new voting system, and out of these voting systems (av, stv, ams, av+ etc) which would you like to vote on. then in the second referenda asked whether people wanted first past the post or the chosen new voting system. i think that's the best way to get the publics will put into place without splitting reformists votes between different kinds new voting systems, and getting rid of 'nobody wants a referendum arguments, it costs so much' which distracts from the real concerns, but i'm not sure there's a majority in the commons at the moment for any referendum that could possibly introduce proportional representation.

 

[Parl]

As I said earlier, the price of a coalition will go up next time round. Constitutional change takes time, and having the referendum is a reasonable first step - I'm not particularly fussed that the result is likely to be no this time round.

Mind you, I'm an old guy, and tend to take the long view.

Well, I'm 23 and agree.

Even though in Australia only a very small amount of seats are won by somebody who didn't win the first round, the extra advantage is that it removes most of the reasons behind tactical voting - there would now be basically no reason to not vote for you preferred party as your first choice. Those who prefer the idea of a specific minority party being in power can put them first, and still put their 'lesser of two evils' above the other one.

 

[Wes]

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/21/baroness-warsi-humiliated-in-no2av-debate-on-sky/


Holy shit, I've never seen a Sky News reporter doing their job so well. Wow.

Damn. Nicely done Boulton.

One thing this AV thing has taught me is that referendums are awesome! It really forces you to make an opinion and encourages active discussion from both sides.

We should do referendums more, especially on big issues such as ID Cards etc.

I completely agree. Referendums are a good thing.

 

[Parl]

One thing this AV thing has taught me is that referendums are awesome! It really forces you to make an opinion and encourages active discussion from both sides.

We should do referendums more, especially on big issues such as ID Cards etc.

That's a good point, but they're also pretty expensive, and the most popular opinion is not always the correct one. People want positive results for their country (or their wallet), the policies people support are only means to reach those goals. So people can end up supporting a policy that doesn't achieve the result they want (especially when you look at things in the long-term). In reality, giving the people what they want can sometimes involve policies that are supported by less than a majority.

But, on constitutional issues, a referendum is the way to go, imo.

 

[Meadows]

That's a good point, but they're also pretty expensive, and the most popular opinion is not always the correct one. People want positive results for their country (or their wallet), the policies people support are only means to reach those goals. So people can end up supporting a policy that doesn't achieve the result they want (especially when you look at things in the long-term). In reality, giving the people what they want can sometimes involve policies that are supported by less than a majority.

But, on constitutional issues, a referendum is the way to go, imo.

I think if the no and yes parties are as much of a factor as they were in this referendum then people would be able to make an intelligent decision on any referendum.

On the issue of expense, I think that it's worth it, and also that over more and more referendums we'd be able to streamline the process. Maybe we could introduce an online ID system of some kind purely for referendums to make the process easier, although obviously this would need to be made secure; a very hard process in these "Anon" times.

 

[Zenith]

I've just moved to another county. Can I still vote in the referendum or do I need to be registered here?

 

[Meadows]

I've just moved to another county. Can I still vote in the referendum or do I need to be registered here?

I think you should be ok.

 

[phisheep]

I've just moved to another county. Can I still vote in the referendum or do I need to be registered here?

You'll need to reregister at your new address to vote in person in the new county, and it is now too late to do that.

You'll still be able to vote at the old place, but it's too late to apply for a postal vote now.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/information_for_voters/home_movers.aspx

 

[zomgbbqftw]

They were right about Andrew Marr having one and they've been banging on about that since last year. The Giggs stuff has been floating around for a while too.

Well I thought that Ryan Giggs stuff is why Imogen Thomas is all over TV, I feel sorry for her if he did the dirty and ruined her reputation in the process while keeping his squeaky clean image.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

One thing this AV thing has taught me is that referendums are awesome! It really forces you to make an opinion and encourages active discussion from both sides.

We should do referendums more, especially on big issues such as ID Cards etc.

We should. Take a look at the Swiss direct democracy model. If a person can garner enough signatures they can get a nationwide referendum on their subject, it's 50k over there, but here it would be closer to 500k given the population disparity.

It does lead to some idiotic decisions, but by and large it is very good and we need a way for people to be directly involved in law making or people will become more and more disenfranchised and end up voting for BNP/EDL type parties.

 

[Parl]

We should. Take a look at the Swiss direct democracy model. If a person can garner enough signatures they can get a nationwide referendum on their subject, it's 50k over there, but here it would be closer to 500k given the population disparity.

It does lead to some idiotic decisions, but by and large it is very good and we need a way for people to be directly involved in law making or people will become more and more disenfranchised and end up voting for BNP/EDL type parties.

I think this is a great idea for this country. My main problem with increased direct democracy is the concern it could result in people voting for stuff that's against the interest of the country, but if it works over in Switzerland, it could work in the UK I guess.

 

[DECK'ARD]

So apparently the No vote's lead has dropped by 8% in the latest YouGov poll. Still a 10% gap, 55% to 45%, but maybe AV is not as doomed as it seemed.

I think the overly negative No campaign may prompt a bit of a backlash in the run up to the poll, as they've been so over the top that while effective it has made them not seem that believable. And more of the same old politics, so people might think to Hell with it let's have a change.

Have to see what the polls say in the coming days, but I think it will end up a bit closer than we thought.

Finally saw some Yes campaigning going on in my town as well. Quite a simple line "Make MP's work harder", was going down well.

 

[louis89]

Except that the whole idea of "make MPs work harder because their safe seats won't be so safe any more" is flawed because really safe seats where the winning candidate gets over 50% of the vote are unaffected whether you have AV or not.

 

[Walshicus]

Except that the whole idea of "make MPs work harder because their safe seats won't be so safe any more" is flawed because really safe seats where the winning candidate gets over 50% of the vote are unaffected whether you have AV or not.

Actually, not entirely true. Bear in mind that there just aren't that many [in fact I don't know if there are *any*] seats where the sitting MP was elected with 50% or more of the *electorate*. In every election there are large swathes of people who don't bother voting because they know their vote will be wasted.

The introduction of AV will impact voter behaviour; people who in previously safe [or even majority] seats will be more likely to vote under AV.



EDIT: And besides, even if AV made only half of "safe" seats competitive, that's still a net gain for the electorate.

 

[Empty]

Lesbian kisses could be banned from television screens until late into the night under radical Government plans to stop children being exposed to ‘indecent’ images.

A review launched with the backing of David Cameron is expected to recommend that sexually suggestive scenes currently allowed before the 9pm watershed – such as the famous lesbian embrace on soap opera Brookside – should not be shown until later in the evening. A ban on explicit advertisements on high street billboards is also being considered.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-face-watershed-crackdown.html#ixzz1LDxocr1J

bah, how disappointing.

 

[Meadows]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-face-watershed-crackdown.html#ixzz1LDxocr1J

bah, how disappointing.

it's just a recommendation, hopefully this is really far away from coming into effect.

 

[Chinner]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-face-watershed-crackdown.html#ixzz1LDxocr1J

bah, how disappointing.

dailymail. not true. it's not even backed by the government. non story. blah blah blah.

 

[Empty]

yes you guys are right. first time i read it as they'd heard that cameron was backing the conclusions and i was disappointed at that, but on a second look it actually just sounds like he started the inquiry. oops.

 

[phisheep]

Except that the whole idea of "make MPs work harder because their safe seats won't be so safe any more" is flawed because really safe seats where the winning candidate gets over 50% of the vote are unaffected whether you have AV or not.

I think it is more fundamentally flawed than that. Can't see that it will make a blind bit of difference to how hard MPs work at all. Many, perhaps most, MPs - regardless of party - do a reasonably good constituency job anyway; the lobby-fodder stuff is mostly just turning up and voting; and the really hard legislative work happens in committee.

There needs to be room in all that for a 'day job'. Yeah, I know we keep hearing that being an MP should itself be a full time job, but that's a bunch of nonsense usually touted by Ministers - who of course have a full-time ministerial job on top of being an MP and it doesn't seem to do them any harm.

It might - just might - make candidates work harder during the brief period of an election campaign. But that just hands the advantage to candidates who have a big party machine behind them and a decent accountant to fiddle the expense rules. That, I think, is the opposite of the effect we want if we are to broaden participation.

I don't buy it.

 

[Walshicus]

I think it is more fundamentally flawed than that. Can't see that it will make a blind bit of difference to how hard MPs work at all. Many, perhaps most, MPs - regardless of party - do a reasonably good constituency job anyway; the lobby-fodder stuff is mostly just turning up and voting; and the really hard legislative work happens in committee.

It will make every MP without 50% of the electorate voting for them more sensitive to voter demands providing said MP wants to retain their job. Party voting becomes more fluid as less people worry about wasting their vote, and the previous dominant parties can no longer be assured of a captive 1st preference segment. Euro-sceptic voters can punish their conservative MPs with a vote for UKIP - left wing Lib Dem voters can punish their Lib Dem MPs with a vote for Labour; all with the security that second and third preferences bring to avoid "wastage".

So yes, anything that increases the fluidity of first preference vote shifting will likely result in more responsive MPs.

There needs to be room in all that for a 'day job'. Yeah, I know we keep hearing that being an MP should itself be a full time job, but that's a bunch of nonsense usually touted by Ministers - who of course have a full-time ministerial job on top of being an MP and it doesn't seem to do them any harm.

It's not nonsense, it's a valid position given the money MPs earn.

It might - just might - make candidates work harder during the brief period of an election campaign. But that just hands the advantage to candidates who have a big party machine behind them and a decent accountant to fiddle the expense rules. That, I think, is the opposite of the effect we want if we are to broaden participation.

I don't buy it.

I think you're confusing two issues.

 

[Meadows]

God the Lib Dems in the area I vote (Aberconwy) and area I live (York Outer) have been terrible.

In Aberconwy the Lib Dems said that they were the only ones that could beat Plaid Cymru, saying, "PC thought they would beat us in the general election *pic of bar chart showing more LD votes than PC, but not showing LAB or CON who got more votes*"

In York Outer they've been sending handwritten (photocopied...so what's the point?) letters saying all of the things that the councillor has done, trying to make it look all personal and shit, disgusting.

I'd have heaps of respect for a candidate that released a black and white, Calibiri font, size 12 leaflet saying:

We aim to:

- Policy A
- Policy B
- Policy C

without resorting to any bullshit like "ANY NON-LD VOTE IS A VOTE FOR LABOUR, WHO WILL SELL YOUR GREEN BELT LAND AND EAT YOUR CHILDREN"

 

[killer_clank]

The Canadian election result is a perfect example of the idiocy it would be to turn down the opportunity we have on Thursday to finally get rid of FPTP.

As far as I can see (reading between the lines), their Tories got a majority because the vote between the two left parties were split in certain key areas, causing them to win seats they might not normally have got.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I'd have heaps of respect for a candidate that released a black and white, Calibiri font, size 12 leaflet saying:

We aim to:

- Policy A
- Policy B
- Policy C

without resorting to any bullshit like "ANY NON-LD VOTE IS A VOTE FOR LABOUR, WHO WILL SELL YOUR GREEN BELT LAND AND EAT YOUR CHILDREN"

I live in the Lambridge ward in Bath, and recently recieved a leaflet from the local Conservative candidates, regarding the sort of tangible results they've brought to the nearby environment -- parks / landscape gardening, the pleantries that make the area nice etc. and it provided a simple list of what they wanted to ensure for the area. Really low-level local stuff. I didn't find a lot of those things politically important to me personally, but it was a specifically targetted local leaflet that I couldn't help but admire for not merely sniping at the opposition. Their general election leaflets were completely the opposite and a horrible turn off - YOUR LIB DEM COUNCIL IS SHIT, THEY WASTED YOUR MONEY ON THIS AND THIS, AND LABOUR ARE BLAH BLAH THEY SUCK, VOTE FOR US WE'RE AWESOME


Two days until the big vote! My faith in Britain's electorate is definitely on the line