Grim... wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Calls for Clegg to quit
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
Michael Jordan wrote:
Our willingness to fail gives us the ability and opportunity to succeed where others may fear to tread. I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
I love that mini-speech.
It's also on the front of a venture capital website, which amused and scared in equal measure.
Remember folks, PR prevents strong government:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13305522
BBC wrote:
The Scottish National Party will form Scotland's first ever majority government after a stunning election victory.
The party has reached 65 seats in the 129-seat parliament, with some counts still to declare, taking key seats in Labour heartlands.
The party has reached 65 seats in the 129-seat parliament, with some counts still to declare, taking key seats in Labour heartlands.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13305522
The fact it's the first majority government in four (sub please check) elections probably strengthens the argument that PR leads to more coalitions, though.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
The fact it's the first majority government in four (sub please check) elections probably strengthens the argument that PR leads to more coalitions, though.
Quite. But fun to have examples to show that it's not impossible. The only other example I can think of offhand is Germany in 1957 or thereabouts.
Also, majority of 1 seat.
I was really pleased by the SNP's success. Mainly because I want them to finally hold the referendum they keep wanking on about, lose it and then Alex Fucking Salmond can shut his big racist wobbly face up for ever.
Craster wrote:
Also, majority of 1 seat.
Quote:
with some counts still to declare
They're not like the BNP, then?
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I was really pleased by the SNP's success. Mainly because I want them to finally hold the referendum they keep wanking on about, lose it and then Alex Fucking Salmond can shut his big racist wobbly face up for ever.
Or win it, either way is good. The Scottish seem to be under the misapprehension that the English give a shit either way
Trooper wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I was really pleased by the SNP's success. Mainly because I want them to finally hold the referendum they keep wanking on about, lose it and then Alex Fucking Salmond can shut his big racist wobbly face up for ever.
Or win it, either way is good. The Scottish seem to be under the misapprehension that the English give a shit either way
No, I'd genuinely be sad if Scotland left the Union.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who think otherwise but the majority of Scots I know aren't exactly relishing the SNP majority, and nor are they keen—even with the ConDem coalition—to see Scotland independent. They like the parliament and devolution, but they don't want to go further.
I would genuinely be interested to see how much support there is now, but also how much there will be once the SNP's had time to make good on all its promises.
but the majority of Scots I know aren't exactly relishing the SNP majority, and nor are they keen—even with the ConDem coalition—to see Scotland independent. They like the parliament and devolution, but they don't want to go further.I would genuinely be interested to see how much support there is now, but also how much there will be once the SNP's had time to make good on all its promises.
CraigGrannell wrote:
majority of Scots I know aren't exactly relishing the SNP majority.
Of course, the majority are (insert voting system is not full PR disclaimer here), or they wouldn't have just been voted in with a majority.
Well, yes, but I was talking about the majority of Scots I know, not every Scot everywhere. (And at least a few of them are also against the list-based PR system Scotland uses, although none are against PR per se.)
The majority of Scots I know are very pleased with the result today, and I know a fair few 
70/30 in favour of 'No', experts suggest.
I believe this is what experts term a 'whipping' 
My local lot voted 18,000 Yes, 45,000 No.
Muppets.
The Lib Dems have fucked themselves into oblivion again, and they've fucked up this country's chances of fixing its broken electoral system along with it. Well done, you fucking idiots.
Muppets.
The Lib Dems have fucked themselves into oblivion again, and they've fucked up this country's chances of fixing its broken electoral system along with it. Well done, you fucking idiots.
Interesting point from Bio-Dimbleby about how London, despite not having council votes yesterday, voted more often in favour of AV, and how this might be a significant factor.
It'd be interesting to see how many people voted 'no' yesterday just because they had to put something, and the status quo felt like a safer bet. Impossible to tell, obv.
It'd be interesting to see how many people voted 'no' yesterday just because they had to put something, and the status quo felt like a safer bet. Impossible to tell, obv.
The press, Tories, the rich, Labour dithering and unions being fucking idiots are to blame for the No vote as much as anti-Lib Dem sentiment. But, yeah, a dropped ball. Now watch as the electoral boundaries change and Labour voters all whine about the Tories winning a commons majority in 2015 with 33% of the vote. (According to seat estimates I've seen, Lib Dems will be having even more fun—current calculations have then with anything from two to nine seats in the Commons. Lucas also screwed under current estimates, which is a pity.)
Oh, I blame all those parties as well. But the Lib Dems are the ones who were stupid enough to fall for it in the first place. Everyone knew the Tories would fuck them over if given an inch, and that's exactly what's happened. Even without the lies from the Tory/Labour No campaign, AV was a shitty compromise that nobody actually wanted, and even most people voting for it are doing so because it's the lesser evil. They were idiots to stake everything on it.
People make a big fuss about tuition fees, but really, students aren't THAT influential (I doubt most even bothered to vote - hell, I never even heard anyone talking about it at the university I work at). Many people voted for the Lib Dems for the sake of electoral reform/strengthening a third party just for the political well-being of the country. This was a shabby, doomed result.
People make a big fuss about tuition fees, but really, students aren't THAT influential (I doubt most even bothered to vote - hell, I never even heard anyone talking about it at the university I work at). Many people voted for the Lib Dems for the sake of electoral reform/strengthening a third party just for the political well-being of the country. This was a shabby, doomed result.
Grim... wrote:
They're not like the BNP, then?
Narp. The SNP describe themselves as social democrats, which they basically are. And they are a member of the European Free Alliance, which is an special club organisation for regionalist and pro-indpendence left of centre political parties. Quite the polar opposite of the BNP on several levels.
The SNP, earlier:
Attachment:
trollface.gif
It's a no vote then.
At least the public have their priorities straight even if the politicians don't. I now hope the LD's are made to cough up the money spunked away on this nonsense out of party funds. £90 million quid wasn't it? How many nurses does that pay for?
Bunch of fucking muppets.
At least the public have their priorities straight even if the politicians don't. I now hope the LD's are made to cough up the money spunked away on this nonsense out of party funds. £90 million quid wasn't it? How many nurses does that pay for?
Bunch of fucking muppets.
Personally, I am pleased with the election results in Scotland. The SNP have done a good job here with no real scandals or controversies that I can think of. Apart from their dream of independence they have very few earth shattering policies, it is mainly small steps like freezing prescriptions and getting more young people into apprenticeships. Labours big policies seemed to be not having independence and eliminating youth unemployment. I really don't think the majority of voters in Scotland were voting for or against a government on the basis of an independence referendum and the eliminating youth unemployment thing just sounds like an unrealistic goal.
The SNP have delivered most of what they said they would while they were a minority government and have gained trust and respect from a lot of people in Scotland. Meanwhile, Labour lost them because of the recession, Lib Dems lost them because of the Coalition and the Tories never had them! I expected more wins for the Greens but I think that although in the main their policies are sound, they do throw in some weird ones that just make you want to roll your eyes.
So basically, yeah. Good result. If they continue to increase apprenticeships, keep Scotland as a frontrunner in reducing CO2 emissions and green engineering and generally doing what they are doing then I'll be happy. Plus they want to make one police force, and that suits us just fine
(paves the way for an easy transfer east in the future if the possibility with my work arises!)
My facebook friend stream has been full of people today pleased with the results for Holyrood.
The SNP have delivered most of what they said they would while they were a minority government and have gained trust and respect from a lot of people in Scotland. Meanwhile, Labour lost them because of the recession, Lib Dems lost them because of the Coalition and the Tories never had them! I expected more wins for the Greens but I think that although in the main their policies are sound, they do throw in some weird ones that just make you want to roll your eyes.
So basically, yeah. Good result. If they continue to increase apprenticeships, keep Scotland as a frontrunner in reducing CO2 emissions and green engineering and generally doing what they are doing then I'll be happy. Plus they want to make one police force, and that suits us just fine
(paves the way for an easy transfer east in the future if the possibility with my work arises!)My facebook friend stream has been full of people today pleased with the results for Holyrood.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
It's a no vote then.
At least the public have their priorities straight even if the politicians don't. I now hope the LD's are made to cough up the money spunked away on this nonsense out of party funds. £90 million quid wasn't it? How many nurses does that pay for?
Bunch of fucking muppets.
At least the public have their priorities straight even if the politicians don't. I now hope the LD's are made to cough up the money spunked away on this nonsense out of party funds. £90 million quid wasn't it? How many nurses does that pay for?
Bunch of fucking muppets.
Is this one of these posts?
Have you been eating the propaganda Chinny? Like the rest of the country, it turns out 
Don't feed the 80s-obsessed troll.
CraigGrannell wrote:
The tiniest flicker of a silver lining was summed up succinctly on Twitter by Jon Snow: "coalition will sustain for full parliament: after last night none of parties especially Labour(!) can afford for it not to!" And he's right. Lab's gains weren't enough and wouldn't necessarily be repeated in a general election. We'd probably still end up with a hung parliament, but this time with an even weaker junior party. Worst-case scenario is if UKIP continues to strengthen and becomes the third party in the UK—although that at least might spoiler the right.
*depressedface*
*depressedface*
The problem, IMO, is that Labour are still tainted by the damage done by Blair and Brown, and Miliband basically isn't popular amongst the grassroots or charismatic enough to inspire a revival amongst the usually dependable Labour supporters. In some ways he was the least worst option, but still crap material for leader and obviously far out of his depth. Any competent leader would at this stage be really rolling up his sleeves and rebuilding the party more comprehensively than Blair ever did, but there's no signs of that yet, which doesn't bode well.
UKIP the third party? Doubtful, outside of protest votes in the Euro elections, which hopefully won't be the case next time. They're just too extreme, and weird, and need PR in place to get anywhere at all.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
You know if you get a Tory council they're going to be cocks if you need, for instance, assistance with disabled children.
Just as bad when you grow up and become an adult and still need assistance.
Depressing, my local council now has 45 Tory councillors, and only 3 LibDem and Labour apiece, all down to the collapse in the LibDem vote. Today's results were for me the Torypocalpypse, act II.CraigGrannell wrote:
The Greens bother me. They get so much right and their policies almost all align with my political leanings, but then they chuck in shite like wanting to ban research on stem cells and to push hard for 'alternative medicine',, Gnh.
Guess that would change if there were nearer towards gaining some sort of power (as a coalition partner, etc), usually Green parties elsewhere in Europe moderate themselves along their path to mainstream respectability. Unfortunately though, some of the anti-science mindset still lingers even then, e.g. the German Greens recently winning a solidly conservative southern state by scaring everyone shitless about nuclear power.
Quote:
That nicely highlights the problem with modern politics and left/right. In a left/right axis, the Lib-Dems are mildly right, as are the Tories and even Labour (who may now move left). Economically, the Libs have always been more Tory than Lab, but with an underlying conscience (hence fighting for a 50% tax rate).
The LibDems a mixed bag, really. They, thankfully, aren't like an explicitly right-wing liberal party like the German FDP or Dutch VVD, but aren't unambiguously left-liberal either. Like all 'centre' parties, they have a mix of people nearer social-democratic positions, and at the other end economic liberals like Clegg and Cable, with the only real cohesive ideal being liberalism on social and personal issues. Personally, I wish that they would either align themselves fully on the centre-right or centre-left, without any of the ambiguity. The all-things-to-all-men approach is a major cause of their current mess.
Quote:
The real difference in the parties is apparent when placing them on a liberal/authoritarian axis where the Libs remain 'left' on that, but Lab is 'right' of even the Tories.
Wouldn't say Labour, even New Labour, are to the right of the Tories on social issues. They did after all introduce measures that at one time would be considered extremely radical, such as civil partnerships, and the often-derided Human Rights legislation genuinely benefits social minorities. The problem lies that Labour leadership are unfortunately still in New Labour mode, i.e. thinking it is still 1994, that they have to outflank Michael Howard as being 'tough', and make knee-jerk reactions to appease right-wing populist tabloids. Also, unfortunately the working class 'core' Labour supporters are often more conservative than we give them credit for, and tolerate authoritarian politics far more readily than, say, the educated middle class who the LibDems appeal to (appealled to?). Still, I agree with you generally that the authoritarian bullshit has to go pretty sharp-ish, as that alienated far more people than Labour high-ups seem to realise.
kalmar wrote:
Have you been eating the propaganda Chinny? Like the rest of the country, it turns out
At the start of this I would have been a yes, but I resented the question being asked in the first place at the present time (given the fact that the economic climate dictates there are more pressing issues). But that wasn't why I voted no (and I did waiver at the last minute). The current system is shit but not as shit as AV. If we had the same system as Scotland/Wales I'd be all for it, but with the facts on the table I decided against AV because I consider it a poor choice and not the right kind of shift.
If this makes me a troll I'd suggest the pro AV crowd are remarkably bad losers. Hell I wouldn't even be spouting off here now if it had been closer. But I'm now deeply annoyed money has now been wasted on all of this given the margins involved (and note I gave no consideration to the cost until I looked it up after the vote came in which was the point I became cross). I genuinely thought it would be closer.
I've not followed the campaign at all but I did take time to check up on the facts of how AV works so I haven't seen/heard any campaigning. Nobody has knocked on my door, I've seen nothing on TV, I can't say either campaign has managed to reach me in any way.
Of course, it was the 'No' campaign that had all the money thrown at it, leading to this result. And whilst I agree that AV was not the best solution, it was certainly better than FPTP - which is all this country will ever get now for decades. Any chance of any kind of voting reform in this country is utterly fucked now for a very, very long time.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
I've not followed the campaign at all but I did take time to check up on the facts of how AV works so I haven't seen/heard any campaigning. Nobody has knocked on my door, I've seen nothing on TV, I can't say either campaign has managed to reach me in any way.
Same here to be honest, but I was voting "yes" because we have it here already for the non-westminster stuff, it's dead easy and seems to lead to more balanced representation. So I've thought less about it than you!
What was it you found lacking in this proposal, leaving aside the cost thing?
Zio wrote:
Of course, it was the 'No' campaign that had all the money thrown at it, leading to this result.
Sorry, that's poppycock. As usual I've been travelling the country and the only evidence I've seen of campaigning is a single "No to AV" placard. Compare that to the general election where you couldn't move for campaigning if I liked it or not. And frankly posters and placards aren't enough to change my mind. Besides, the 70/30 ratio indicates to me that either the no campaign was one of the most influential political campaigns of recent memory or people just didn't want AV.
Present me with a good solution and I will accept change. Present me with a bad solution and I'd prefer to stick with what I have.
imo what probably lost it were the following:
1) Labour were split down the middle. So all the people that blindly follow labour were split into some voting av/some not
2) There are no tabloid libdem newspapers (ie sun/notw/express/mail for cons and mirror/people for labs) to back their agenda
3) Lots of people were out to get Nick Clegg
4) Lots of people seem to like the conservatives at the moment, so what they back is likely to be voted for.
5) People not understanding what they were voting for.
Malc
1) Labour were split down the middle. So all the people that blindly follow labour were split into some voting av/some not
2) There are no tabloid libdem newspapers (ie sun/notw/express/mail for cons and mirror/people for labs) to back their agenda
3) Lots of people were out to get Nick Clegg
4) Lots of people seem to like the conservatives at the moment, so what they back is likely to be voted for.
5) People not understanding what they were voting for.
Malc
kalmar wrote:
chinnyhill10 wrote:
I've not followed the campaign at all but I did take time to check up on the facts of how AV works so I haven't seen/heard any campaigning. Nobody has knocked on my door, I've seen nothing on TV, I can't say either campaign has managed to reach me in any way.
Same here to be honest, but I was voting "yes" because we have it here already for the non-westminster stuff,
As I understand it you have Single Transferrable Vote, not AV. AV is almost STV lite. The problem is that STV would be like turkeys voting for Christmas at Westminister.
But you either do it properly or not at all. STV would change the face of parliament. AV is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. And frankly that's not worth the bother. You either reform or forget it. I believe even Nick Clegg didn't want AV before he had the whiff of power waved under his nose.
If they were asking if we wanted STV I'd probably go "fuck it, yeah, lets do it". But AV just didn't grab me as a system. Arguably a more important reform would be to make voting compulsory like they do in some countries so we didn't get shit turnouts.
Compulsory voting sounds like a dreadful idea to me. I also don't think it's morally right - the right to do something does not obligate you to do it.
A vote of no confidence should be introduced, though. "none of the above" says a lot more than "spoiled ballot", which doesn't even distinguish between political protest and people too stupid to know how many people they're supposed to vote for.
A vote of no confidence should be introduced, though. "none of the above" says a lot more than "spoiled ballot", which doesn't even distinguish between political protest and people too stupid to know how many people they're supposed to vote for.
Malc wrote:
2) There are no tabloid libdem newspapers (ie sun/notw/express/mail for cons and mirror/people for labs) to back their agenda
Newspapers aren't the force they used to be. Circulations have been falling off a cliff for years.
The latest figures show The Sun around 2.8 million, where it was over 4 million in the 1990's. Even papers like the Daily Mail which market heavily are still dropping year on year.
Only The Mail, Sun and Mirror now do more than 1 million copies per day. Papers like the Express and Star are nowhere, and some of the broadsheets would now frankly be better just going around to peoples houses to tell them the news than bother a printing press.
Still alot of newspapers sold granted but not the influence they once were and declining all the time. They may play up their influence but their reach and power is considerably reduced.
sinister agent wrote:
Compulsory voting sounds like a dreadful idea to me. I also don't think it's morally right - the right to do something does not obligate you to do it.
The other thing I would enable would be a "none of the above" option.
You have to complete a census, so no problem forcing people to vote.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
Zio wrote:
Of course, it was the 'No' campaign that had all the money thrown at it, leading to this result.
Sorry, that's poppycock. As usual I've been travelling the country and the only evidence I've seen of campaigning is a single "No to AV" placard. Compare that to the general election where you couldn't move for campaigning if I liked it or not. And frankly posters and placards aren't enough to change my mind. Besides, the 70/30 ratio indicates to me that either the no campaign was one of the most influential political campaigns of recent memory or people just didn't want AV.
Present me with a good solution and I will accept change. Present me with a bad solution and I'd prefer to stick with what I have.
I agree with Chinny, on these points. For the record, I voted 'no' for the reasons he outlines in his ultimate point.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
sinister agent wrote:
Compulsory voting sounds like a dreadful idea to me. I also don't think it's morally right - the right to do something does not obligate you to do it.
The other thing I would enable would be a "none of the above" option.
You have to complete a census, so no problem forcing people to vote.
The census is inconsequential, though. You can't get governments formed as a result of people putting any old shit on the census.
The 'none of the above' option would help though, obv.
sinister agent wrote:
My local lot voted 18,000 Yes, 45,000 No.
Muppets.
The Lib Dems have fucked themselves into oblivion again, and they've fucked up this country's chances of fixing its broken electoral system along with it. Well done, you fucking idiots.
Muppets.
The Lib Dems have fucked themselves into oblivion again, and they've fucked up this country's chances of fixing its broken electoral system along with it. Well done, you fucking idiots.
Christ almighty teenangst. The Lib Dems fucked over something that would never have been on the table at any point now or in the future if they hadn't brought it to the table themselves, under the very specific circumstances that they were able to do so?
I'm struggling to work out what any type of result could have arisen under any circumstances, given those conditions.
Even though the result wasn't the one I wanted, I'm pleased I got the chance to vote for it, rather than having to stand in a square getting shot at to make my voice heard.
Country wants, country gets.
Country wants, country gets.
Grim... wrote:
Even though the result wasn't the one I wanted, I'm pleased I got the chance to vote for it, rather than having to stand in a square getting shot at to make my voice heard.
Country wants, country gets.
Country wants, country gets.
Move away from Gaywood.
The areas that voted yes seem to be Oxford, Cambridge and parts of London where people who call their children Quentin and Flora live. Or upcoming places where Quentin and Flora will go to live.
And parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh which again may be the academics or yuppies.
And parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh which again may be the academics or yuppies.
Grim... wrote:
Even though the result wasn't the one I wanted, I'm pleased I got the chance to vote for it, rather than having to stand in a square getting shot at to make my voice heard.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
sinister agent wrote:
My local lot voted 18,000 Yes, 45,000 No.
Muppets.
The Lib Dems have fucked themselves into oblivion again, and they've fucked up this country's chances of fixing its broken electoral system along with it. Well done, you fucking idiots.
Muppets.
The Lib Dems have fucked themselves into oblivion again, and they've fucked up this country's chances of fixing its broken electoral system along with it. Well done, you fucking idiots.
Christ almighty teenangst. The Lib Dems fucked over something that would never have been on the table at any point now or in the future if they hadn't brought it to the table themselves, under the very specific circumstances that they were able to do so?
Yes, which is exactly the point. The chances of electoral reform are now in a worse position than they'd be in had the Lib Dems never bloody bothered. They've also screwed themselves over in the process, making an even narrower two-party system than what we already have even more likely for another god knows how many terms.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
The areas that voted yes seem to be Oxford, Cambridge and parts of London where people who call their children Quentin and Flora live. Or upcoming places where Quentin and Flora will go to live.
And parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh which again may be the academics or yuppies.
And parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh which again may be the academics or yuppies.
So, the more educated and intelligent people of the UK voted Yes? That tells us something
I didn't vote as I couldn't decide.
It's that simple.
It's that simple.
I just answered the black & white question they offered. "Would you like to keep the same shite system we've had forever or would you like a slightly better one?"
No point trying to second guess politicians, yes winning might have ended the reform debate but at least we'd have a better system.
As for Scotland my choices were;
Labour: bunch of fucking halfwits that fucked over half the sensible stuff that was on the table & then added it to their own manifesto. See also pushing for those fucking trams in Edina.
Lib Dem: Offering fuck all of nothing.
Cons: Pfft.
SNP: Not perfect, but the best of a bad bunch & they mostly did a good job last time. I'm neither for or against the union & polls reckon only 30% of Scots want independence anyway so what's the huge worry. (That said I'd feel terrible for leaving everyone else in perpetual Tory hell)
Greens: Close to my ideals, but with a smattering of mental policies. Their gaffer is a gay, atheist heathen too
So how'd I vote?
First vote (Constituency): SNP
Second vote (Region): Green
Referendum: Yes
Note: I'd have voted Green twice, but they couldn't afford to run in most of the constituencies
No point trying to second guess politicians, yes winning might have ended the reform debate but at least we'd have a better system.
As for Scotland my choices were;
Labour: bunch of fucking halfwits that fucked over half the sensible stuff that was on the table & then added it to their own manifesto. See also pushing for those fucking trams in Edina.
Lib Dem: Offering fuck all of nothing.
Cons: Pfft.
SNP: Not perfect, but the best of a bad bunch & they mostly did a good job last time. I'm neither for or against the union & polls reckon only 30% of Scots want independence anyway so what's the huge worry. (That said I'd feel terrible for leaving everyone else in perpetual Tory hell)
Greens: Close to my ideals, but with a smattering of mental policies. Their gaffer is a gay, atheist heathen too
So how'd I vote?
First vote (Constituency): SNP
Second vote (Region): Green
Referendum: Yes
Note: I'd have voted Green twice, but they couldn't afford to run in most of the constituencies
Mr Dave wrote:
I didn't vote as I couldn't decide.
It's that simple.
It's that simple.
Attachment:
1.jpg
Wullie wrote:
I'm neither for or against the union & polls reckon only 30% of Scots want independence anyway so what's the huge worry.
Mm. Frankly, I'm uneasy with Cameron et al getting all fighty about this—it just seems bad tactics. It would make more sense for them to let the SNP bang on about independence and not even bother responding, given that most Scots seem happy enough with their Parliament (and, according to a large number of reports I've read in the past, also happy to let certain... 'difficult' laws be dictated by Westminster, such as those on abortion).
Quote:
(That said I'd feel terrible for leaving everyone else in perpetual Tory hell)
^^ However, fuck that. Don't feel sorry for the English—after yesterday, it's clear they get what they deserve for being idiots, especially Labour voters and the unions. The unions were so rampantly anti-AV, and therefore cleverly shored up the Tories for at least a generation. Nice one, unions, you fucking dolts.
I'd feel a little sorry for the Welsh if Scotland naffed off on its own, though.
Quote:
Greens: Close to my ideals, but with a smattering of mental policies. Their gaffer is a gay, atheist heathen too
Given what's going on in Brighton, the Greens have a really small chance of getting somewhere during this term, but they really need to make it count. A big Labour resurgence could remove Lucas from the Commons, and so the Greens have to shout, but also really need to ditch the mental. They seem to consider themselves a true alternative, but they still have that slight stench of extremism that doesn't sit right with me. (That said, if a Green stood in Hart—about as likely as our Tory quitting and giving the seat to third-placed Labour—I'd probably vote for them in 2015, unless they were a total nutjob.)
Page 7 of 21 [ 1037 posts ]