The 2005 general election is nearly upon us. Which way will you vote, and you reasons why. Here is a brief list of the potential contestants, please add your own.


More tax!
Less tax!
Dont know!
Death to all infidels!
Who gives a shit?

The great pretender.

Wisest thing David Davies could do is go cap in hand to the Lib Dems and beg to be let in.





:-)



Happiness is here again!

Standber,
No not really I feel great giving it to illegal immigrants who have never paid in a penny to the system and of course trying to heal those ones that bring disease with them like TB.

Labour targets gay vote with beermats

Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Saturday April 2, 2005
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1450747,00.html

Labour activists are hoping that gay voters will find inspiration at the bottom of their pints, by launching a beermat campaign to win their support.

The mats, distributed to clubs and bars by the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights (LCLGR), say a vote for the Liberal Democrats would "let Tory hate back in". Sponsored by the GMB union, they tell drinkers: "Go to bed with Charlie ... wake up with Howard."

inspiration at the bottom ..........LOL !

Worrying and sad that in Zimbabwe voters will queue 10 hours and more--in a hopeless cause to make their vote but over here the I'm all right jack mentality means people don't like what's going on but won't get up and use their vote. Polls predict the lowest turnout ever and there's not many new contributors to the debate on this thread. Apathy could lead us down the Zimbabwe path!

'But when there's no realistic choice, why vote?' would be the common answer. Personally I think there is a choice, and that Labour should be kept in, albeit with a far smaller majority.

Whether you agree or disagree with my political position, I believe there still is a choice. But most of the country doesn't. This is because all politicians do seem to do these days is resort to petty disputes about pseudo-policies in an attempt to win the grey/gay/youth/woman/etc. vote, rather than actually sticking to ideals and principles. A lot of people I know have told me they will not be voting, out of choice. To those people I always say the same thing; go to the polling station and actively abstein. Turnout is higher, and the politicians can't cling to voter apathy. Staying out of the polling stations is not effective. Going there and choosing to abstein sends out a message. Still, realistically no one will do that and the MPs will continue to have their excuses ready made.

Just my two pennies worth.

Yes private eye have got it, get out b'liar, get in brown.

Did you see the recent report where we are using the worlds resources up at unsustainable rate. Im afraid its time to make some tough choices and make some sacrafices. Are YOU (all) prepared too??????? if you dont our children are going to suffer (im lucky i havent got any). but greed as always been a great motivator and i cant see that changing.

So, they have found against the 'Birmingham 6'. And rightly so. Trust devious people to find ways to cheat.
And what about the six Barristers who gave their services without charge?
What were they defending? Certainly not some poor individual who had come up against the full might of the law.
Another way the Australians are showing us the the way to go! Compulsory
voting, in person or no vote. Signature checked against registration form if any doubt.

Is Foney going for a Mugabe solution?



Judge quashes 'fraudulent' council elections
By Alex Thompson and Matthew Cooper, PA
04 April 2005



A High Court judge today launched a scathing attack on the current postal voting system after quashing the results of last year's elections in two wards on Birmingham City Council.

Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an election commissioner, found six sitting Labour Party councillors in the Aston and Bordesley Green wards guilty of corrupt and illegal practices during June 10 poll.

The judge said at the hearing at the Birmingham and Midland Institute he was satisfied the fraud was "overwhelming" and had been orchestrated by local party officials.

Mr Mawrey said evidence of "massive, systematic and organised fraud" in the campaign had made "a mockery" of the election.

The judge said the system was "hopelessly insecure" and expressed regret that recent warnings about the failings had been dismissed by the Government as "scaremongering".

Reading from the executive summary of his judgment to a packed court, the judge said: "This system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that it's wide open to fraud."

Speaking outside court, a spokesman for the People's Justice Party, the successful petitioners in the Bordesley Green ward, called for postal voting to be outlawed at the forthcoming General Election.

The PJP spokesman said: "We have won justice for our party and for the people of Bordesley Green.

"We welcome the judge's decision and the chance to fight new elections."

But he added: "The Commissioner has confirmed our fear that there is every likelihood that the forthcoming General Election will be blighted by postal vote fraud.

"Birmingham now has a huge number of people permanently registered for postal votes, many without their knowledge."

Postal voting on demand had undermined the principle of the secret ballot and public confidence in elections, the PJP spokesman claimed.

The judge ruled that not less than 1,500 and maybe more than 2,000 votes had been cast fraudulently in Bordesley Green.

The PJP spokesman continued: This is a truly shocking state of affairs and we hope that the perpetrators of the fraud will now be brought to account.

"The police should mount a thorough investigation into the vote rigging.

"We have uncovered further evidence and we are keen to help the police."

The Electoral Reform Society said today's judgment highlighted the need for urgent action to protect and maintain confidence in the voting system.

The organisation has been monitoring the current postal vote system since the decision to move to postal voting on demand five years ago.

A spokesman for the organisation said: "We welcome attempts to make voting more convenient for people accustomed to a modern lifestyle, but do not believe that such convenience should come at the expense of the security or privacy of the ballot.

"We accept postal voting as part of the modern electoral process, but we believe that it must be managed in an efficient manner with little risk of fraud.

"We do not believe that electoral fraud is confined to Birmingham, to the Labour Party or, most importantly, to particular communities."

Recent cases in Blackburn, Guildford and Hackney involving people from different backgrounds and different parties disprove the view that fraud was not widespread, the ERS believes.

The ERS spokesman said: "We are not alarmist and do not believe that the outcome of, say, the general election is likely to be seriously affected by fraud, but we are concerned that the cases which have come to the public's attention so far may be only part of a wider problem.

"We believe that urgent action must be taken."


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=626344

So with rampant postal fraud and rampant gerrymandering we are headed for a fair election!!

Probably find it was Mandies or Campbells idea.

Another Prescott--BOOB!

well gf, i've left the country cos of the dreadful state of UK. I can only see it getting even WORSE in next decade at least, maybe even next 30 to 40 years. I will not return unless things improve.

That means the death penalty for Brown, Blair and Jack McConnell esp. Little catholic piece of scum that he is.

I'd prefer Joseph Stalin to take over UK right now. He might have been brutal but he would make people nicer. I've been to eastern europe many times in last few years and seen how much nicer these people r compared to selfish ignorant people in UK

Are things going pear shaped for Fony?



Labour lead drops by five points

Poll results in full (pdf)

Alan Travis and Michael White
Tuesday April 5, 2005
The Guardian

Tony Blair will this morning formally ask the Queen to call the long-promised May 5 general election, with only a slim three-point lead over the Conservatives in his back pocket, according to the latest Guardian/ICM poll.

The survey shows that the bounce in Labour's fortunes in the immediate aftermath of Gordon Brown's popular budget has proved short-lived and the eight-point lead the party enjoyed two weeks ago has been cut to three points now.

Full article here.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1452292,00.html

Tories in front by a nose---better get more postal votes rigged!! Note even the Chinese won't buy Rover even with millions of pounds of our money in as a sweetener---because of the huge black hole in it's pension pot, clever Gordon he thought but now the pigeons are coming home to roost!

Shame they wouldnt agree to a public punch up, but I suppose this is better than nothing......Who's going first? Who's got the bottle??



Special report: election 2005

BBC scoops party leaders for live TV first

Dominic Timms
Tuesday April 5, 2005
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1452743,00.html


Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy have agreed to appear on live television for the first time in the same programme.

The leaders of the three major political parties will each be grilled in a special edition of Question Time on April 28.

The BBC said today it considered an American-style head-to-head debate but didn't approach Labour because they had publically ruled it out.

However, the corporation is still heralding this as a major scoop - such was the party leaders' nervousness about taking part in live debates during the last election that the BBC was forced to broadcast three separate Question Time specials.


Article continues

This is the nearest British voters will get to a US-style debate with each leader appearing consecutively in the 90-minute special to be hosted by Question Time regular David Dimbleby.
"We did talk about a live debate but it became perfectly clear that particularly Labour had no interest," said Helen Boaden, the head of BBC news.

"It's going to be pretty splashy. We're giving a big chunk of BBC airtime over to the debate and it is going to be interesting to see how the individual leaders react to being cross-examined by the same audience."

The BBC unveiled its election coverage just hours after Mr Blair went to Buckingham Palace to confirm that May 5 would be polling day.

Ric Bailey, the executive editor in charge of Question Time, said the leaders had agreed to take part in the debate although details about who will appear first have yet to be thrashed out.

"We haven't been talking to the leaders all that long. We came up with the proposals and we got a tacit agreement. A lot of the detail and the choreography has got to be sorted out but they will appear live on the same programme," he said.

Fear in the ranks over votes still up for grabs

Don't be misled by the polls. Not since 1992 has a result been so in doubt

Martin Kettle
Wednesday April 6, 2005
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/comment/0,11030,1453182,00.html

All election results always seem inevitable in retrospect, the undefeated three-time general election winner Margaret Thatcher writes in her memoirs - but, as she then goes on to say, none of them ever look that way at the start of the campaign.
It is as certain as anything can be that there was a nervous and excited end-of-term mood among ministers yesterday when Tony Blair finally confirmed the worst-kept political secret of the year - that there will be a general election on Thursday May 5.



But it is just as certain that the mood of eagerness for the coming fray will have mingled with some genuine gut-tighten ing buttock-clenching fear, as ministers pored over a clutch of new polls showing Labour's lead narrowing. As they prepared to leave their familiar Whitehall bubble behind only the bravest will not have wondered whether they will see their ministerial offices again.
Sometimes that sort of fear is absurd. There was no evidence whatsoever to support the famous "wobbly Thursday" panic in the Thatcher high command seven days before polling day in 1987; a week later the Tories predictably trounced Labour with a majority of 102.

This time, though, Britain is embarking on the first election since 1992 in which the result is genuinely in doubt. Thirteen years ago the uncertainty had an apparently solid foundation: the opinion polls were neck-and-neck between the Tories and Labour at the start of the campaign and remained so to the end - even the election night exit polls predicted a hung parliament.

In 2005 the uncertainty is altogether harder to pin down, though it is every bit as potent. This time the polls mostly put Labour ahead - the three-point lead identified by this week's latest Guardian/ ICM survey is in line with most of the other surveys of recent days. This time it is not just the way that the public intends to vote that is the big question, as whether it intends to vote at all.

The media, of course, love a contest rather than a walkover, especially after 2001, and will play that element up. Nevertheless, there is a real sense, and not just in the Westminster village, that many voters are undecided about their voting intention or are not committed to that intention. That has fed the suspicion that all is not as the pollsters claim - and that therefore this could be the most unpredictable and exciting contest for years.

There are several serious reasons why this election is hard to call. The main one is the apparent unravelling of Tony Blair's national popularity, mainly because of the Iraq war, and the consequent disassembling of his big tent coalition that swept all before it in the past two elections.

The means, first, that the tactical voting against the Tories that marked the 1997 and 2001 contests may unwind. Labour voters in seats that Labour cannot win are likely to remain happy voting for (mainly) Liberal Democrats; Blair's unpopularity may even give this process a boost. But Lib Dem and other third-party voters may be less inclined to return the favour where Labour is strong. That could let the Tories back into the game in a lot of seats they lost in 1997 and 2001.

The second consequence could be a pronounced swing against Labour in seats where the war remains a particular touchstone - seats with significant Muslim electorates, for example, or seats containing a lot of students.

A third factor could be the disaffection of the Labour core vote, though this is sometimes exaggerated. Nevertheless, extensive disgruntlement in the Labour heartlands (and elsewhere) could result in reduced turnout, protest voting for parties of the extreme right (or possibly the left) and a general volatility that could have unpredictable results, perhaps rewarding effective single-issue campaigns such as the "Save Kidderminster Hospital" campaign that ousted Labour in favour of an independent in 2001.

Regions

Britain's regions rarely respond uniformly in elections, and if several of these factors impact together, there could be dramatic differences in different parts of the country. The north-east and Wales swung against more heavily against Labour in 2001 than the south-west and the south-east. That could suggest that the latter regions will be more difficult for Labour this time, or it may imply that opposition parties will be most likely to make gains in areas where Labour has been weakened.

There could be a similarly uneven pattern in urban Britain, too. Labour's success in 1997 and 2001 has been followed by widespread opposition successes in local government elections. The Lib Dems think they are in with a good shout in Newcastle and perhaps Sheffield and Birmingham. The Tories hope to make inroads in Edinburgh and Bristol. But it is London - where Ken Livingstone's mayoral re-election may mask a wider slump in Labour fortunes - where the contest will be the fiercest and changes possibly the largest.

If the polls are right, however, Labour may do far better than the on-the-ground experts suspect. Even when the result of an election is heavily odds-on, as it was for Thatcher in 1987, the capacity of likely winners to panic - as the Tories did on the famous "wobbly Thursday" - should never be ignored.

But it is all to play for now. "Cabinet that morning was abuzz," recalled John Major of March 11 1992, when he called a general election he would eventually win by a majority of 21. "Everyone present believed we could win, but not everyone thought we would. Looking around the cabinet table, I could see some ministers wondering if they would sit around it again."

Even Major himself was not immune from doubt. Sitting in the Queen's study in Buckingham Palace while he sought the formal dissolution, a royal corgi settled with its nose on the prime ministerial foot. "As I idly stroked the back of his neck, I wondered if Neil Kinnock liked dogs," Major wrote in his memoirs.

Not even Blair's greatest enemy can accuse him of taking the voters for granted. So when Blair had his own dissolution audience with the Queen yesterday, it is a fair bet that he too may have wondered how Michael Howard would get on with the corgis.

News today that since labour took power Industries output has slowly declined and is due to all the red tape that has been issued and the crafty taxes that labour are so good at.

UK will soon be bankrupt!!!!!! Especially if labour win again.

Come on labour, u can do it. Haha, haha.

i dont care anymore as i've now left shitty britain. now in sunnier climbs and enjoying life again.

scotinvestor

Don't shit on the place you have left....you may be happy to step into your
own dung. But nonetheless, good luck.

What was it that Tony Bliar kept trumpeting so annoyingly? Ah, yes;

EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION!

Read what his own Party think of situation today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/07/nlit07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/07/ixportal.html

Curtesy of The Daily Telegraph.