Election - Place yer bets. - Page 7

shillelagh · 27-04-2010, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have told my daughter that I will be putting a cross next to every name on the paper.........and she is absolutely horrified.
Over the next however many days it is to the election, she is going to try to show me the error of my ways.
I don't hold out much hope for her chances of success.
I am of the opinion that this shower of Shwante, need to be shown that the voters are well and truly hacked off with their antics...and the fact that they think we can all be treated as imbeciles.
They should be shot at dawn with pig-muck.

Margaret i bet you wish you lived in this constituency ...

BBC News - Basildon boxer to fight election as 'None Of The Above'

SPUGGIE J · 27-04-2010, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by turkishdelight

I would rather have a local person too, it makes sense. However as you say you cannot vote a crowd in that have made such a mess of everything, voting for them all is not being able to demonstrate how you feel and be able use your vote against these people who have made such a mess of things. We need to stand together to get this government out once and for all.

So there is a local standing which is what seems to be a good idea in your view because he is the wrong colour your vote becomes a protest vote. What is at stake here IS what Graham can do for Hyndburn not what he can do for the Fifer.

So if Graham was an independent candidate would you have voted for him?

Eric · 27-04-2010, 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

No doubt that people think Graham is a nice guy and members in his ward seem to like him. Voting for him at the general election however helps Brown stay in office for another 5 years. So yeah, he's on the wrong side, 'cause it'll help elect a Labour government who I certainly don't feel are the answer to the problems they've created.

Are you suggesting that the quality of a candidate is irrelevant

So, if I sent over my 22 year-old cat to run for the tory party, she would get your vote? Has British democracy has come down to this: that whoever you vote for doesn't matter; what does matter is who you vote against? It is also clear that in the case of the Labour candidate, you are content to damn him with faint praise because you can't find a solid enough reason for criticism.

andrewb · 27-04-2010, 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Are you suggesting that the quality of a candidate is irrelevant

So, if I sent over my 22 year-old cat to run for the tory party, she would get your vote? Has British democracy has come down to this: that whoever you vote for doesn't matter; what does matter is who you vote against? It is also clear that in the case of the Labour candidate, you are content to damn him with faint praise because you can't find a solid enough reason for criticism.

The person matters, and the party matters. There are lots of factors. Being local is a factor. For some people being local is the number one factor. Quality of candidate and policies is what matters most to me and rates higher.

I pointed out that although some may see Graham as a nice local chap, a vote for him is a vote to keep Gordon Brown in power and a vote for that policy agenda. I don't trust the people that created many of the problems to fix them.

There is plenty of critique I could direct at Graham and the Labour Party Eric.

turkishdelight · 27-04-2010, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

So there is a local standing which is what seems to be a good idea in your view because he is the wrong colour your vote becomes a protest vote. What is at stake here IS what Graham can do for Hyndburn not what he can do for the Fifer.

So if Graham was an independent candidate would you have voted for him?

It would depend on whether he was going to support Gordon Brown and his policies.

g jones · 27-04-2010, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

No doubt that people think Graham is a nice guy and members in his ward seem to like him. Voting for him at the general election however helps Brown stay in office for another 5 years. So yeah, he's on the wrong side, 'cause it'll help elect a Labour government who I certainly don't feel are the answer to the problems they've created.

I doubt this is true. Leaders come and go.

If Labour get 260 seats for instance, Brown in all likelihood will have to resign. The Labour Party will still have 260 seats but a new leader and won't be in Government.

I would not be propping up Gordon Brown for 5 more years under most circumstances. Personally, I like Ben Bradshaw.

BERNADETTE · 27-04-2010, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

I doubt this is true. Leaders come and go.

If Labour get 260 seats for instance, Brown in all likelihood will have to resign. The Labour Party will still have 260 seats but a new leader and won't be in Government.

I would not be propping up Gordon Brown for 5 more years under most circumstances. Personally, I like Ben Bradshaw.

Is there any proposed leader for the Labour Party if they do win other than Gordon Brown? Surely the best way to win voters confidence back would be to name a new leader/elect and let the voters judge from there. As far as I can see Gordon Brown is hardly top of the pops with voters, so maybe electing a leader voted in by the public might be a starting point??? But there again why bother asking the genersal public for their views if you are going to disregard them? It seems to me that the two major parties in their arrogance think they are unbeatable, only time will tell but the arrogance of both parties will one day back fire on them. Personally I've got to say that there is not one party that inspires me to vote for them as none of them will respond with honesty on major issues!!!

g jones · 27-04-2010, 23:47

There's something wrong about it being a referendum on Gordon Brown as it is representative democracy, not a presidency. It's about political parties and not leaders. I do accept if Labour wins (unlikely given polls) then it's 5 more years of Gordon. If he loses then there is a decision to take by him and others as to whether he carries on. That makes it a referendum on Brown but it equally applies to Clegg and Cameron too.

The likely outcome is either 'sword and fall' or 'pushed' if Gordon cannot convince people. However Hyndburn is not a Gordon referendum seat. Labour could easily win another 60 seats above Hyndburn and Gordon lose the election. In fact I think if Labour lose just 25 seats our majority is lost. Hyndburn is target seat 132 for Tories.

SPUGGIE J · 28-04-2010, 06:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by turkishdelight

It would depend on whether he was going to support Gordon Brown and his policies.

He is there to support and represent Hyndburn, not whoever is in the hot seat.

Ken Moss · 28-04-2010, 06:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by turkishdelight

I could agree with you however that is a vote towards keeping Gordon in.I have to make my decision on this principle. I really like Nick Glegg and many people in the NHS are supporting him however feel that this would be a vote towards a hung parliament which i consider would be a disaster. I have spoken to many people over the previous weeks all votes appear to be either Lib Dem or Conservative not spoken to anyone considering voting Labour only people on this forum as it is also evident from the voting poll on here. Would like to here views from people who are voting Labour as to why i cant comprehend it.

Try Rishton for starters, or Peel if you want a really one-sided Labour viewpoint.

Your whole argument points towards not voting for a good candidate because of the party leader. I would have thought anyone with a bit of reasoning would vote for the best man for the job.

Still, like I've said before, this election has now turned into Government's Got Talent and the politics are being removed in favour of personalities. The TV debates have shown your party as desperate scrabblers, particularly all this 'Hung Parliament Party' nonsense.

Ken Moss · 28-04-2010, 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I pointed out that although some may see Graham as a nice local chap, a vote for him is a vote to keep Gordon Brown in power and a vote for that policy agenda. I don't trust the people that created many of the problems to fix them.

You're assuming a national Labour win from that statement. Given the current scenario, I wouldn't like to place any large amounts of money on that.

A Labour win in Hyndburn is much different and, more to the point, deserved.

andrewb · 28-04-2010, 08:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

You're assuming a national Labour win from that statement. Given the current scenario, I wouldn't like to place any large amounts of money on that.

A Labour win in Hyndburn is much different and, more to the point, deserved.

Graham is standing on a platform that supports the Brown government. He supports a government that have made a colossal amount of mistakes. That is our democracy - you're voting for somebody to represent you, but the party they belong to matters because they tend to support the policies of that party!

No doubt Graham is a local candidate. Ken, you think he's the best. I will admit to you that if someone is voting purely on who has lived in the constituency for a long time, Graham will probably get their vote. It's about much more than that though. MPs can easily adjust to local constituency work. You've got to consider what party and government they are going to support when down in Westminster.

When you consider that, in my opinion he might be the best man for the job, but he's not the best person.