Vote early and vote often.

BillieTheBot

So its here, Blair is seeing the Queen this morning and then its a solid month before the election on May the 5th.

I think Labour will loose a chunk of its majority (though keep it) and about 2/3rds of its loss will go to the Tories and 1/3rd to the Lib Dems.

Former Member

Anything to get the Pope death and Prince Charles's wedding off the headlines is fine by me...

Predicitions: UK overall, Labour win but with reduced majority.

England: Labour loose seats to the Tories and Lib Dems. Tories gain a few seats of the Lib Dems, but this is more or less balanced by the Lib Dems gaining seats of the Tories

Scotland: Labour loose seats to SNP, Tories and Lib Dems. Tories also gain seats of SNP.

Wales: Labour loose some seats to Plaid Cymru (spelling?), Tories and Lib Dems.

Northern Ireland: Overall unionist vs nationalist remains the same. Sinn Fein loose seats to the SDLP and UUP loose seats to DUP.

Former Member

What about Birmingham?

Former Member

Thats the 'vote often' part.

Former Member

We must reduce Labours majority by any means possible.

Former Member

For once agree with Matadore. So far as Labour still has a small majority (or more to the point, that the Tories don't win).

Ideally I'd like to see a situation where Labour needs to enter coalition with the Lib Dems to govern.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Ideally I'd like to see a situation where Labour needs to enter coalition with the Lib Dems to govern.

The Lib Dems have said they wouldn't be all that keen on that, they havent ruled it out totally though.

Former Member

Labour loses majority, Lib dems become official opposition.

Former Member

For once agree with Matadore

Then you also agree that in order to do this everyone who is in a constituency with a chance of a Tory winning must vote fot that candidate over the incumbent Labour one.

Former Member

I personally would advocate voting Lib Dems wherever possible instead. By doing what you propose you might end up electing the Tories- which is fine if it is what you want but not so good if you just wanted to reduce Labour's majority.

Another option, which some people are proposing, is voting for the MP not the party they represent, based on their personal stance on the war on Iraq. If my current MP were Labour and pro-war and the Lib Dem canditate to my constituency also pro-war, I could consider voting for the Tory MP if he were anti-war.

Former Member

My MP isnt running again, but if he was I might vote for him (Labour), even though I dont really agree with him. He works hard for the area, answers all the letters I send him in detail and obviously puts thought into it. I cant really ask for much more than that.

Former Member

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

To see exactly how much they waste (sry spend) of your money and what they do for it. My MP is crap even by MP's standards.

Whatever you do do NOT vote! It only encourages them.

Look at it this way - If they received no votes, would they stop telling us what to do and how to live?

Former Member

Working closely with Government Ministers (and having had a lot of dealings with MPs) despite the widespread cynicism in this country I feel we get good value for money. The majority on all sides are intelligent, take good care of their constituents and entered politics becase they believed they could help society.

Its the few corrupt, unintelligent and lazy who give the majority a bad name.

Former Member

I'm somewhat concerned about the number of pure politicians though, people who have only ever done that. Its going to create even further differences between the voters and those in power.

Former Member

If we're predicting the results (as opposed to saying what we'd like to happen) then I predict a 10 - 15 % loss in seats to Labour with most of the won seats going to the Conservatives and a small increase in the number of Lib Dem MPs.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

I'm somewhat concerned about the number of pure politicians though, people who have only ever done that. Its going to create even further differences between the voters and those in power.

I have some sympathy with that, but it may be overstated. Charles Kennedy, who must be one of the MPs viewed as most human, was elected when he was 21. I'm not sure if Tony Benn has ever held a 'proper' job either.

That said I think it can give politicians valuable experience. One of the strengths of the Lords is the the variety of other jobs they've held and the expereience they can bring in areas like farming, defence, local government etc, much more than the commons.

My biggest worry is that politicians shoot themselves in the foot. Listening to the emergency debate on the Birmingham vote fraud (for professional rather personal reasons - I'm not that much of politics nerd) was that many MPs saw it as a chance to claim the whole (or at least significant sections) of the Labour party was at best, ignoring electoral fraud for political gain, and at worst indulging in systematic and wide scale corruption.

Now your many people listening to that or hearing reports in the newspaper will think that all politicians are corrupt (not just Labour) instead of just a small group involved in a pretty localised incident.

Former Member

The polls are pegging it closer than I thought, but I still think Labour will win.

Former Member

I suppose we'll see more "rigged" postal voting in inner city areas where the local Labour Mafia go round collecting blank voting forms and then they mysteriously turn up completed, and, surprise, surprise, voting for the local Labour candidate!

Former Member

klintock wrote:

If they received no votes, would they stop telling us what to do and how to live?

Each candidate would get at least one vote, whatever the rest of us do...

Former Member

Former Member

Jim V wrote:

If we're predicting the results (as opposed to saying what we'd like to happen) then I predict a 10 - 15 % loss in seats to Labour with most of the won seats going to the Conservatives and a small increase in the number of Lib Dem MPs.

I couldn't have pulled figures out because I've been slack at following polls but overall that's what I would have said.

Would like to see Lib Dem in opposition but suspect FPtP will put paid to that because they'll probably continue to win a good chunk of votes but keep coming second in constituencies.

Former Member

Rich Kid wrote:

"rigged" postal voting

Albeit inadvertently you got the inverted commas right there! You really do talk out of your backside sometimes. "Labour mafia"?!

Former Member

piccolo wrote:

Albeit inadvertently you got the inverted commas right there! You really do talk out of your backside sometimes. "Labour mafia"?!

With Phoney as the Godfather!
Labour are a grubby little unprincipled corrupt Mafia - if its got a beak like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if its gots feathers like a duck, then probably it is a duck!

Former Member

No doubt after seating opposite the ultra-sleezy Tory government for 18 years has had some effect on them...

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

No doubt after seating opposite the ultra-sleezy Tory government for 18 years has had some effect on them...

You want some Labour sleaze? Take a look at this bucketful for starters!

http://www.labour-watch.com/index.asp

Would someone pass the sick bag!

Former Member

"Government is not the answer to your problems - government IS the problem."

"Doddery" Ronald Reagan.

It doesn't matter who gets in or what they decide the problem is systemic - government like all concentrations of power has a huge tendency to fuck things up.

Former Member

But we need a government klintock regardless of your views, its just that we don't need a corrupt, morally bankrupt, ineffective one, no matter where they sit on the political spectrum.

Former Member

Rich Kid wrote:

But we need a government

Why do we need a government?

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

Why do we need a government?

Tell me how the country functions both domestically, and internationally, without one!

Former Member

Rich Kid wrote:

Tell me how the country functions both domestically, and internationally, without one!

No - tell me why we need a government - you made a statement - I questioned it - its called debate.

Former Member

We might want or need some of the functions of government, but do we really need them "given" to us by force?