2010 General Election megathread

[Titanic99]

But still less then the majority (326 seats) needed to form a government.

 

Not if you include the other smaller parties and that's without offering the Unionists the £200 million, that was offered to them by the party with the policies no-one else agrees with.

[JFKvsNixon]

Get the Queen to choose.

 

Do you mean the Queen of hearts?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8668624.stm

[retep]

Get the Queen to choose.

 

Who Mandy?

[Grandad.Malky]

Most likely a once in a generation opportunity for PR.

 

But only if Clegg doesn’t get wooed by some Tory claptrap.

[Berberis]

 

By 0.8%.......... so near and yet so far, better luck next time.

 

2005

Lab35.3% Con32.3% Lib 22.1%

 

2010

Lab 29% Con 36.1 % Lib 23%

 

2005

LAB: 356 / 9,562,122 votes / 35.3%

CON: 198 / 8,772,598 votes / 32.3%

LIB: 62 / 5,981,874 votes / 22.1%

 

Majority: Labour +30

 

2010

CON: 306 / 10,683,787 votes / 36.1%

LAB: 258 / 8,604,358 votes / 29.0%

LIB: 57 / 6,827,938 votes / 23.0%

 

Majority: Conservative -20

 

In 2005, The Labour party received over 1,000,000 less votes then the 2010 Conservative party, but win 50 more seats

 

If there is a next time, the only party win any money to fight another general election is the Conservatives. I'm sure people like you will whine like mad if one is called.

 

Tomorrow the markets will slide again and this will focus the Lib Dem’s to form a coalition with the Conservatives. Labour will be dogged by infighting for the next 6-18 months.

[JFKvsNixon]

Not if you include the other smaller parties and that's without offering the Unionists the £200 million, that was offered to them by the party with the policies no-one else agrees with.

 

I think that you need consider that extremely unpopular choices will need to made, very soon. Can you see all the Labour and Lib-Dems and the minority parties MPs agreeing to the specific unpopular cuts with their own individual interests. I can't.

[Longcol]

In 2005, The Labour party received over 1,000,000 less votes then the 2010 Conservative party, but win 50 more seats

 

 

Turnout in 2010 was 2 million more than 2005. Boundary changes took twenty odd seats from Labour.

[Titanic99]

I think that you need consider that extremely unpopular choices will need to made, very soon. Can you see all the Labour and Lib-Dems and the minority parties MPs agreeing to the specific unpopular cuts with their own individual interests. I can't.

 

They do, but the Libdems campaigned on the following:

 

"The Lib Dems are opposed to reducing government spending and propose to delay this until 2011-12. They would not scrap the NI increase, although their manifesto recognises it as "a damaging tax on jobs and an unfair tax on employees" and would try to reverse it "when resources allow". They campaigned on making income tax "fairer" by allowing people to earn £10,000 tax-free, funded by a "mansion tax". They want to cap public sector pay rises at £400. Their plans for a local income tax to replace council tax are rejected by the other parties."

 

Whereas the Tories campaigned on:

 

The Conservatives want to make an extra £6bn of efficiency savings in the current financial year. They would reverse Labour's planned 1% rise in National Insurance (NI), which they describe as a "tax on jobs". They want to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m and incorporate an allowance to recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the taxation system. The Tories also want to impose a public sector pay freeze.

 

I'm not sure how they can compromise there and if Clegg agrees to going down the Tory road then he is consigning his Party to the History books, as this is betrayal of everything they fought for in this election.

[Grandad.Malky]

Turnout in 2010 was 2 million more than 2005. Boundary changes took twenty odd seats from Labour.

 

You’re wasting your time “there are none so blind as those that can’t see” nobody wants a Tory government.

 

serapis I'm sure people like you will whine like mad if one is called.

 

What do you mean if, its nailed on.

[JFKvsNixon]

They do, but the Libdems campaigned on the following:

 

"The Lib Dems are opposed to reducing government spending and propose to delay this until 2011-12. They would not scrap the NI increase, although their manifesto recognises it as "a damaging tax on jobs and an unfair tax on employees" and would try to reverse it "when resources allow". They campaigned on making income tax "fairer" by allowing people to earn £10,000 tax-free, funded by a "mansion tax". They want to cap public sector pay rises at £400. Their plans for a local income tax to replace council tax are rejected by the other parties."

 

Whereas the Tories campaigned on:

 

The Conservatives want to make an extra £6bn of efficiency savings in the current financial year. They would reverse Labour's planned 1% rise in National Insurance (NI), which they describe as a "tax on jobs". They want to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m and incorporate an allowance to recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the taxation system. The Tories also want to impose a public sector pay freeze.

 

I'm not sure how they can compromise there and if Clegg agrees to going down the Tory road then he is consigning his Party to the History books, as this is betrayal of everything they fought for in this election.

 

I don't think that the Lib-Dems will join the Tories, I think that the most that they'll do is that they will agree not to appose them. They'll let the Tories make the savage cuts (which lets face it, will need to be made irrespective of who wins the election) and then force another election.

 

I don't think that the Lib-Dems really don't have that many options.