2010 General Election megathread

[andyofborg]

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.

 

the compromise is that some of the extra savings are used to raise the tax threshold for the low paid

[Berberis]

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

 

Boundary changes mean nothing as they are there to make the vote fair and overseen by an independent body.

 

On the subject of the turnout, approx 2.5 million more people voted in the 2010 general election, but the population as a whole has risen almost the same about between 2005 and 2010.

 

I'm not sure what your claims are, but neither of the points you have raised have any bearing on the 2010 election result.

[Berberis]

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

 

More people want a conservative government then wanted a Labour government in 2005.

 

"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

[Longcol]

Boundary changes mean nothing as they are there to make the vote fair and overseen by an independent body.

 

On the subject of the turnout, approx 2.5 million more people voted in the 2010 general election, but the population as a whole has risen almost the same about between 2005 and 2010.

 

I'm not sure what your claims are, but neither of the points you have raised have any bearing on the 2010 election result.

 

I wasn't saying the boundary commission changes were unfair.

 

The point I was making is that Labour got more seats in 2005 than the Tories in 2010 with a million less votes was largely due to changes in boundaries and the vastly increased turnout.

[wednesday1]

[quote=serapis

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.

 

 

Well I hope your latest predicton turns out to be as accurate as your predictions (ad nauseum) that Labour would be anihilated at the election!

[Grandad.Malky]

More people want a conservative government then wanted a Labour government in 2005.

 

"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

 

Been there done that

[taxman]

Ooo, apparently Mandy has come up with a cunning plan to woo the Libdems. Gordy and Nicky met this afternoon!

[epiphany]

Ooo, apparently Mandy has come up with a cunning plan to woo the Libdems.

 

If it involves Brown, I doubt Clegg will be interested.

 

Brown is in the way of any potential progressive alliance.

[wednesday1]

If it involves Brown, I doubt Clegg will be interested.

 

Brown is in the way of any potential progressive alliance.

 

 

 

May be a case of beggars can't be choosers, the Glib Dems will probably never get as close as this to having some sort of say in Govt. for another generation.

[Berberis]

Well I hope your latest predicton turns out to be as accurate as your predictions (ad nauseum) that Labour would be anihilated at the election!

 

I'll admit labour did not receive the drubbing I thought they would, but then again, I made those predictions well before the polls started to waver.

 

However Labour HAS been annihilated in England with 106 less seats than the conservatives and as before is relying on Scottish labour MP's to bolster its numbers. Maybe this is why Gordon Brown is so uninterested in an English parliament, he knows Labour would be gone for good if there ever was one. One day maybe. At least the 2010 general election was a step in the right direction.

 

I’m sure if I were in your shoes, I would also be looking for something to divert my attention away from the fact Labour had just been well and truly beaten at the ballet box. It’s just a shame Gordon Brown is still unwilling to accept that fact.