Election

[unfazed]

You have got it all wrong,  they will just put up more cameras, paint them grey so you cannot see them and you will all be driving so slow potholes will be kept to make you think you are driving faster.  :lol

http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/ne...wo-months/

[midden]

With the cuts to public services,,mostly good cuts,,

My pension and salary thinks not  :'(

who the fuck borrowed all them BILLIONS,,Labour?

Was there any complaints at the time from the public while wastefully taking advantage of 'The good times'

[Farjo]

The debt:
Increased by 75% under Thatcher,
more than doubled under Major,
went up about 60% under Labour pre-crash
then another 50% post-crash to 2010.
Under Cameron it's gone up 79%
and is now £1.36tn.

So using these figures the best period was when Brown was chancellor as during those 10 years the debt only increased by 60% :eek

[VNA]

And if Sir Fred the Shred is the most incompetent banker in British history, then Gordon Brown must surely go down as the most incompetent chancellor in British history. 

No more boom and bust - ho ho ho.

[Razgruff]

Who was chancellor when they tied us to the ERM, markets made a fortune

[Farjo]

Electoral PR:

Perhaps the Greater London Assembly is a good example. We get 2 votes, one for a local candidate, who is elected using traditional first-past-the-post for that constituency. There are 14 constituencies and therefore 14 Assembly Members elected that way.

The other vote is for the party and is London-wide. 11 more Assembly Members are allocated this way. They are allocated so that the overall number of seats for each party is in proportion with the London-wide vote.

It's much simpler than I've explained it!!!

In practice the current assembly's *constituency* members are Labour and Conservative, whereas the *London-wide* members are Lab, Con, LibDem and Green. The next election is 2016 and presumably we'll get some UKIP members from the London-wide ballot.

It is easy to understand (when explained properly) and it is useful to be able to vote in this way i.e. pragmatically in the constituency vote and from the heart in the London-wide one.


If this were adopted for Westminster elections we would have perhaps 400 constituencies, then the remaining 250 MPs would be allocated using a UK-wide party ballot.

I guess England & Wales would elect Con and Lab constituent MPs, Scotland's ~35 would be SNP and NI would have ~11 seats. But then the UK-wide vote would have allocated 24 to the Greens, 51 to the LibDems and 82 to UKIP.

The calculations are based on turnout so there are no unallocated seats.

The parties would draw up an ordered list of UK-wide candidates. If 24 seats are allocated to a party from the UK ballot then the top 24 names would become MPs.

[fazersharp]

The debt:

went up about 60% under Labour pre-crash
So using these figures the best period was when Brown was chancellor as during those 10 years the debt only increased by 60% :eek

ONLY increased by  :eek those 10 years were the boom time there should of been zero borrowing 

[Farjo]

Who was chancellor when they tied us to the ERM, markets made a fortune

Norman Lamont.

[Farjo]

[quote author=Farjo link=topic=16874.msg194860#msg194860 date=1431202233]
The debt:

went up about 60% under Labour pre-crash
So using these figures the best period was when Brown was chancellor as during those 10 years the debt only increased by 60% :eek

ONLY increased by  :eek those 10 years were the boom time there should of been zero borrowing 
[/quote]
Aye. It's doubly disappointing because they started off by paying off the debt, but after 2002 it started rising again.

Incidentally he started off saying "No more Tory boom and bust" because in the 80s and 90s there were a few of them (small by present standards). But after a few years he dropped the word "Tory" and had to borrow to keep the economy from contracting and thereby making him wrong :rolleyes

[Farjo]

Why Labour lost:
Ed stood up to the press over phone hacking. They don't forgive you for that sort of thing.

[slimwilly]

So also another help for all us busy folks ,,,what about internet voting?

We are told the internet can be safe,we do banking ion it,,so why so slow to come online ?

[fazersharp]

So also another help for all us busy folks ,,,what about internet voting?

We are told the internet can be safe,we do banking ion it,

,so why so slow to come online ?

Because the first sentence is a lie

[VNA]

Why Labour lost:
Ed stood up to the press over phone hacking. They don't forgive you for that sort of thing.

Indeed he did.  But that's not why he lost.

Alex Salmond probably has, by far, the worst press of any politician in the UK.  Yet, under his leadership his party did the impossible at the last Scottish elections - they won a majority in a coalition parliament.

Alex, like ED, is far from being a natural in terms of personality and engaging with the public. 

But what he did enjoy, and what Nicola now enjoys is the full backing of the party.

The Labour party spent the last 5 years bitching about their leader.  And yup, the press were happy to help.

And now of course we will see the real Tory party.  Prepared to be fucked.

[Farjo]

No I think that is why they lost. When all the undecideds and barely-interesteds went to the polls, what would they have had in mind? The 'fact' that Ed was a loser geek, who couldn't eat a bacon sandwich, who was week and would get overrun by the SNP, that the crash happened because of Labour borrowing, that Ed has a funny nose and a funny voice, etc etc etc etc.

You can get away with a bad press with a small electorate - Ken Livingstone had unrelentingly bad press and still became London Mayor, and as an independent candidate at that!

But on a national level people don't care enough to look past what they read in the paper.

Any leader has people bitching about them. What makes you think that it was any worse under Ed? Did you read it in the papers?