Options

Sod Labour and Tories, lets all vote Lib Dem

marc822marc822 Posts: 3,118
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Labour - load of crap
Tories - another load of crap.

We go from one to the other and they are both useless.

Why even bother giving thema vote, lets give it to someone else. Mines going to Lib Dems.

They should have a go at trying to sort this sorry ass country out!
«134

Comments

  • Options
    Pices-55Pices-55 Posts: 18,401
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Very funny, but no thanks.
  • Options
    manrowmanrow Posts: 749
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Unfortunately most voters are tied to the party system - they vote for the same party time after time regardless of the part's proposals.

    For example how may Labour supporters wanted us to invade Iraq? But they still voted for them.

    If you want state control - vote Labour
    If you want to support British industry - vote Conservative.
  • Options
    SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    And increase the chances of a hung parliament? I don't think so.
  • Options
    Pink_PounderPink_Pounder Posts: 13,168
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't like the idea of voting 'in spite' at all.

    Just seems childish, dumb and counter productive. Let's show the big parties how unhappy we are with them by voting for and electing someone else for the sake of it.

    Kind of makes a mockery of the whole system, I think. We should be voting FOR a party we want to not against parties that we don't.
  • Options
    jassijassi Posts: 7,895
    Forum Member
    Webitt wrote: »
    And increase the chances of a hung parliament? I don't think so.

    I would welcome a hung parliament if it meant that we could have some concensus politics leading to some policies that acted in the interests of the majority, rather than the minority.
  • Options
    tysonstormtysonstorm Posts: 24,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't like the idea of voting 'in spite' at all.

    Just seems childish, dumb and counter productive. Let's show the big parties how unhappy we are with them by voting for and electing someone else for the sake of it.

    Kind of makes a mockery of the whole system, I think. We should be voting FOR a party we want to not against parties that we don't.

    We vote for whoever we want, regardless of our reasons be it the right ones or the wrong ones. Who decides what is the right or wrong reasons? who are you or me to judge if it is spiteful?

    I wouldn't be voting at all if I wasn't so hell bent on removing Labour.

    The system itself is a mockery, it doesn't need the electorate to help it.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,380
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scotland booted Tories out for a reason.........clever Scots.

    No Lib dems....thanks
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    manrow wrote: »
    Unfortunately most voters are tied to the party system - they vote for the same party time after time regardless of the part's proposals.

    For example how may Labour supporters wanted us to invade Iraq? But they still voted for them.

    If you want state control - vote Labour
    If you want to support British industry - vote Conservative.

    This may be why certain people dont bother voting, because of the majority who vote in the same way and have no problem with this, irrespective of how a party has performed.
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well it does appear that Vince Cable could make a decent chancellor the trouble is one man doesn't make a government.
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    manrow wrote: »
    Unfortunately most voters are tied to the party system - they vote for the same party time after time regardless of the part's proposals.

    For example how may Labour supporters wanted us to invade Iraq? But they still voted for them.

    If you want state control - vote Labour
    If you want to support British industry - vote Conservative.

    Sorry but when did the Conservatives support British industry? it certainly wasn't during the last Tory government.
  • Options
    SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well it does appear that Vince Cable could make a decent chancellor the trouble is one man doesn't make a government.

    It's easy for people to say Vince Cable would make a decent chancellor because it will never happen.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,105
    Forum Member
    Definitely voting Lib Dem here, though my vote will have zero bearing on the make-up of the next Parliament, just because I happen to live next to a lot of people who vote Tory.
    Webitt wrote: »
    It's easy for people to say Vince Cable would make a decent chancellor because it will never happen.

    Which says a lot about the state of our democracy, doesn't it? Vince won the polls after the Ask the Chancellors programme, and there were many indications that he was the most trusted of the three long before that, but in spite of that, in our supposed 'democracy' he will be denied the opportunity.

    1 in 4 voters chose the Lib Dems at the last election, yet only 1 in 10 MPs at Westminster were Lib Dems. We need massive reform of the system, and you're not going to get that by continually voting in Labour and Conservatives.
  • Options
    jim_ukjim_uk Posts: 13,280
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What happened last time the Lib Dems had a chance to deliver on a manifesto pledge? they shafted us and backed Brown over Lisbon. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
  • Options
    Pices-55Pices-55 Posts: 18,401
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Voting for Lib Dem would be the same as voting in the European president as leader, they would give away far more to Europe than we have already.
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Webitt wrote: »
    It's easy for people to say Vince Cable would make a decent chancellor because it will never happen.

    You're right it is easy, I suppose the only realistic chance of it happening is if he defects to either the Labour or Tory party but even then it would be doubtful.
  • Options
    Pices-55Pices-55 Posts: 18,401
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You're right it is easy, I suppose the only realistic chance of it happening is if he defects to either the Labour or Tory party but even that's doubtful.

    Was he not once in the Labour party? I dont know for sure but thought he was.
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pices-55 wrote: »
    Was he not once in the Labour party? I dont know for sure but thought he was.

    I have no idea.

    I've just found this on Google it looks as though he did belong to the Labour party at one time.

    http://www.vincentcable.org.uk/pages/yourmp.html



    Actually it makes sense that he probably was either Labour or Liberal because they joined together to make the Lib Dems didn't they ;)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,105
    Forum Member
    Pices-55 wrote: »
    Was he not once in the Labour party? I dont know for sure but thought he was.

    Yes, a long time ago. Though we all know that that Labour Party has no relationship to the one that exists today.
  • Options
    Pices-55Pices-55 Posts: 18,401
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes, a long time ago. Though we all know that that Labour Party has no relationship to the one that exists today.

    Ok, I just checked, it seems at University he was a Liberal but joined the Labour party on Graduation, twice tried unsuccsesfully to gain a seat as a Labour MP.

    Joined the Lib Dems in 1982 and was the one it seems who presented and signed the letter to Charles Kennedy on a motion of no confidence, I wonder how many of Lib Dem supporters know he was the main one to kick out their beloved Charles Kennedy.

    So 3 parties so far in his carrer, not very consistent in his beliefs.
  • Options
    duncannduncann Posts: 11,969
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A vote for the LibDems is a vote to keep Gordon Brown in power on about 30% of the vote.

    There are almost no Labour/LibDem marginals. They are the 4th party in Scotland and waaaaay behind in third place in the north and middle of England. Only the SNP in Scotland and Tories in England can take substantial numbers of seats off Labour.

    Voting LibDem will only split the opposition to the Brown government. You won't get a hung parliament because the system is hugely biassed to Labour (rather than, as we're often told, to the largest party). So even though the Tories may be the largest party by %, voting LibDem will stop them taking the Labour marginals and Labour will pile up seats again.

    I will be voting to remove the government and that will be by voting Conservative. All the parties offer change but only the Tories have a chance of being in government.
  • Options
    duncannduncann Posts: 11,969
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Webitt wrote: »
    It's easy for people to say Vince Cable would make a decent chancellor because it will never happen.

    On that debate he was not interrupted or challenged once in an hour by Krishnan Guru-Murthy or by his 2 opponents. He was placed in the middle like the leader or referee and allowed to say whatever he liked without criticism.

    He virtually said the LibDems would cut the NHS budget - and massively. The audience didn't seem to hear him imply this and he should have been probed on it - how many hospitals to close, how many nurses and doctors to lose their jobs, what drugs to be banned, how much longer to wait for operations. He just said there was bureaucracy and efficiencies could be made. Yet when Osborne talked about efficiencies identified by objective expert, Cable said they were fictitious. :rolleyes:

    He repeatedly criticised only Osborne. This because, as I wrote above, the LibDems can only take seats off the Tories. There are almost no Labour/LibDem marginals.
  • Options
    trevgotrevgo Posts: 28,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    duncann wrote: »
    A vote for the LibDems is a vote to keep Gordon Brown in power on about 30% of the vote.

    There are almost no Labour/LibDem marginals. They are the 4th party in Scotland and waaaaay behind in third place in the north and middle of England. Only the SNP in Scotland and Tories in England can take substantial numbers of seats off Labour.

    Voting LibDem will only split the opposition to the Brown government. You won't get a hung parliament because the system is hugely biassed to Labour (rather than, as we're often told, to the largest party). So even though the Tories may be the largest party by %, voting LibDem will stop them taking the Labour marginals and Labour will pile up seats again.

    I will be voting to remove the government and that will be by voting Conservative. All the parties offer change but only the Tories have a chance of being in government.

    Rubbish analysis. It assumes only Labour inclined people vote LibDem.

    Make yourself a prisoner of the system if you're content to leave the country in the hand of the two useless dinosaur parties. That will ensure the UK is destined to continual decline if anything will.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,105
    Forum Member
    Pices-55 wrote: »
    Ok, I just checked, it seems at University he was a Liberal but joined the Labour party on Graduation, twice tried unsuccsesfully to gain a seat as a Labour MP.

    Joined the Lib Dems in 1982 and was the one it seems who presented and signed the letter to Charles Kennedy on a motion of no confidence, I wonder how many of Lib Dem supporters know he was the main one to kick out their beloved Charles Kennedy.

    So 3 parties so far in his carrer, not very consistent in his beliefs.

    Of course Lib Dems know who signed the letter kicking Charles Kennedy - it's not as if any of this is secret. It was right that he stand down - he was suffering from alcoholism and it had impacted his ability to serve as a leader.

    Vince Cable joined the old Labour Party in 1970. When the SDP broke away from the Labour Party in 1982, he joined almost as soon as they formed, not the Lib Dems as you stated, since they didn't even exist then.

    The Lib Dems came about through a merger of the Liberal Party (which he supported at university), and the SDP (who he was a member of).

    That means his political allegiances have altered between the Liberal and SDP positions, and both parties were so similar they merged in 1988.
  • Options
    Pices-55Pices-55 Posts: 18,401
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    duncann wrote: »
    On that debate he was not interrupted or challenged once in an hour by Krishnan Guru-Murthy or by his 2 opponents. He was placed in the middle like the leader or referee and allowed to say whatever he liked without criticism.

    He virtually said the LibDems would cut the NHS budget - and massively. The audience didn't seem to hear him imply this and he should have been probed on it - how many hospitals to close, how many nurses and doctors to lose their jobs, what drugs to be banned, how much longer to wait for operations. He just said there was bureaucracy and efficiencies could be made. Yet when Osborne talked about efficiencies identified by objective expert, Cable said they were fictitious. :rolleyes:

    He repeatedly criticised only Osborne. This because, as I wrote above, the LibDems can only take seats off the Tories. There are almost no Labour/LibDem marginals.

    I agree with this totally, seems the Lib Dems have just been put in these debates to act as referee and middleman, I found it shocking to see the positive bias he was given, and you are right, the audience did not spot it.
    Seems they were swept along on a tide of Lib Dem propaganda.
  • Options
    trevgotrevgo Posts: 28,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    duncann wrote: »
    On that debate he was not interrupted or challenged once in an hour by Krishnan Guru-Murthy or by his 2 opponents. He was placed in the middle like the leader or referee and allowed to say whatever he liked without criticism.

    He virtually said the LibDems would cut the NHS budget - and massively. The audience didn't seem to hear him imply this and he should have been probed on it - how many hospitals to close, how many nurses and doctors to lose their jobs, what drugs to be banned, how much longer to wait for operations. He just said there was bureaucracy and efficiencies could be made. Yet when Osborne talked about efficiencies identified by objective expert, Cable said they were fictitious. :rolleyes:

    He repeatedly criticised only Osborne. This because, as I wrote above, the LibDems can only take seats off the Tories. There are almost no Labour/LibDem marginals.

    I think you saw a different debate to the rest of us :rolleyes:

    The reply was to a question from an A&E consultant asking them which party would guarantee that he would see no effects on his work, or the experience of his patients.

    Both Osborne and Darling skated around it - Osborne ridiculously pretending the NHS can be immune. As has been repeatedly reported by several economic thinktanks, if the NHS is ringfenced then that necessitates massive cuts in other departments. Osborne was completely deceitful in this regard. This is the Tory Party (who never, ever previously gave the slightest concern about the state of the NHS) saying there are NO savings whatsoever to be had in the organisation. What utter tosh.

    Cable gave the only credible answer, and the audience knew it.
Sign In or Register to comment.