Countdown to UK general elections 2010.

The United Kingdom general election 2010 is set to occur within a maximum of 72 days. All 650 seats in the House of Commons are up for election. The last election gave the governing Labour Party 35.3% popular vote and 356 seats; the Conservative Party won 32.3% popular vote and 198 seats; and Liberal Democratic Party won 22.1% popular vote and 62 seats.

This thread is for the political events that can, have, or will shape the upcoming election. Here are some seats that each party is fighting to win.

Labour Party
Sittingbourne and Sheppey
Clwyd West
Hemel Hempstead
Kettering
North East Somerset
Finchley and Golders Green
Shipley
Dundee East
Rochester and Strood
Wellingborough

Conservative Party
Gillingham and Rainham
Crawley
York Outer
Romsey and Southampton North
Harlow
Cheltenham
Croydon Central
Portsmouth North
Battersea
Hove

Liberal Democratic
Guildford
Solihull
Rochdale
Oxford East
Edinburgh South
Hampstead and Kilburn
Eastbourne
Islington South and Finsbury
Watford
Ealing Central and Acton

Scottish National Party
Ochil and South Perthshire
Dundee West

Plaid Cymru
Ceredigion
Arfon
Ynys Mon

Northern Irish
Belfast South
South Antrim
Fermanagh and South Tyrone
Belfast South

Current opinion polls:
Conservative Party………. 36%
Labour Party………. 32%
Liberal Democratic………. 20%
Other………. 12%





en.wikipedia.org...

Please continue to update and add extra information as the election comes closer.

Are there any British citizens that would like to voice their opinions on your upcoming election?

Ill be more than happy when the election is announced.

As it has not been its not really relevant - and we have all the fun of watching our cousins over the pond get upset about healthcare reform (though I think we had that in 1947 - still your a young country ;-) )

Just to note though that you dont refer to elector turnout in the stats - thats actually going to be quite an issue over here this time i think.

Should be interesting, the Conservatives should be miles ahead, however they have shown very little in the way of policies and their promis of change rings more hollow than the words of Obama.

I live in a safe Conservative seat, I will never vote Tory and Labour has been a nightmare, so i'm voting The Green party. They seem to be the party that closest reflects my views on society.

Originally posted by Silk
Just to note though that you dont refer to elector turnout in the stats - thats actually going to be quite an issue over here this time i think.

I agree, although I suspect that the turnout statistics will be better as more people will be motivated to vote. I am not too worried that people don't chose to vote, as this indicates that they are OK with whatever happens.

I also agree that debate at the moment is rather pointless as Mr Brown has not asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament to allow an election to roll on - although 6th May is the pundit's choice.

Regards

Everyone on this conspiracy theory website should at least realise these elections are just sharades, and voting for the main parties will change nothing.

If you don't know that,

I must ask, why are you on this forum? Why are you on a conspiracy website when you don't know/understand the basic premises of conspiracy theory, namely that the powerstructure does not operate in the way the majority of people believes it does.

Also it is always shocking to me when I see the exact figures of how many people actually voted labour eg 35 percent.

And how many of that 35 percent actually made intelligent decisions based on policy or track record. How many of those just voted, because they always vote labour, or because they like Tony Blair, or because they think the conservatives messed up.

In summary, vote labour/conservatives/lib dem and waste your vote.

Vote for someone else and at least you send a message that will be heard by everyone, those with power and those without.




[edit on 23-3-2010 by asd10]

reply to post by Misoir


I have been toying on and off with the idea of voting but which one to vote for? For me they all seem to be the same self serving bunch of liars and egotists with personal agendas to fulfil rather than a calling to serve the people. So, I am apparently spoiled for choice as to which bunch of self serving muppets at the table of self service to cheer for and yet for change would we not need real champions rather than what we have in reality – suits and yes men who in effect do seem to take their orders from hidden power broker who in turn seem to serve others?

A vile chain of deceit and contempt!

Therefore I am seriously confused as to whom to vote for. If I was going to vote for anyone then it would have probably have been the Scottish national Party but even then not likely and with the recent scandals to have beset that party recently I am of the mind that this so called peoples party is pretty much just like the rest. This is of some sadness to me as I can remember at one point I actually respected and defended Alex Salmond in conversations and I even shook his hand just before introducing him to my wife.

Years later and with a much more cynical frame of mind regarding those who dive into the political viper’s nest I will let the day pass probably and I will keep my arms crossed as I watch the elections via the media with a scowl on my face instead because the reality of the situation tells me that I have no power, the vote gives no power and the lie I crack my knuckle joints to is that we can make a difference with a vote.

I might however make it a rare occasion and break out a comforting bottle of single malt Whiskey with a hope to lighten the day of lies but vote I shall not, because they are none of them worth my time and certainly none seem worthy of my vote.

The whole system of elections is just a sham I am certain of it and all a vote does in my opinion is swap out one accomplished and skilled, arrogant liar for another and in the end what really changes?

A different policy here and an ideological change there is not change as I see it, rather it seems to be a layer of deceit that just keeps us playing someone else's cynical little game and further buys them the time to suck us dry of our resources and worse - our hope.

We perpetuate this hateful war for freedom when really we know this war is fought for anything but freedom, rather money and lots of it for a very few at the expense of the very many yet the main big three will very likely continue it.

I get drunk only once a year and only on Hogmanay, as it is a family tradition but this year I will probably just get drunk over the election too and curse and rant at the media like they are there in front of me in the flesh as I am powerless to anything else but bare my teeth and my contempt for them all.






[edit on 23-3-2010 by SmokeJaguar67]

reply to post by SmokeJaguar67


Well if you are not sure which party to vote for because you don't like the large parties I could recommend if your are on the left you should vote green but if you are on the right you should vote BNP.

Just my 2 pounds!

reply to post by Misoir


Oh no I could never vote for the BNP as they strike me as a party that would like to be moderate now that the eyes of the media are watching their every move but if they were ever given power then I hazard a guess to say we would see a much darker side to them and their motivations would drive a very bloody wedge through British society.

If someone wants to vote for them I have no problem with it because personal choice, freedom of expression I respect but for me I could never throw my lot in with them because I would rather go for a more progressive party.

I am also I hope a very tolerant person and from reading the BNP website, their associated forums there is to be found a definite undercurrent of racism and intolerance to be found . Though many will deny it, I have seen it for myself and I do not like it as it is everything I am not.

I used to support the Scottish national party because they have no fascist leanings and mainly their driving motivation is all about delivering independence from Westminster rule and in effect they would have us become a totally separate country. Such an aim is noble to me and such a party at one time seemed to the party of choice considering my political leanings but now – doubtful as they seem to be as deceitful and as underhand as those war mongers down south in London.

I could vote green but if I take the time to do something I like to think I am not just wasting my time, and for me voting for the obscure parties is a waste of my time and just a wasted vote.


[edit on 23-3-2010 by SmokeJaguar67]

reply to post by Misoir


This seems to be the most appropriate thread for voicing my great irritation and indignation at a reported suggestion from David Cameron .

Apparently "David Cameron promised to change the law to make it impossible for a prime Minister who had not been directly elected, such as Mr. Brown, to remain in office for longer than six months without calling a general election."

Much as I dislike Gordon Brown and hope that he loses, the fact that he was not "directly elected" is a fake issue. The truth is that no Prime Minister in the history of the country, including the Blessed Margaret Thatcher herself, has ever been "directly elected", because that's not the way the constitution works. You become Prime Minister in this country by being able to win votes (including, crucially, Budget votes) in the House of Commons. If you've got your Commons majority, you can become Prime Minister- end of story.

The idea that General Elections choose Prime Ministers is based partly on ignorance of history, and partly on a false analogy with the American Presidential system.

If we go back only to 1930, we can see that changing prime Ministers in the middle of a Parliament is a normal fact of life. There was nothing wrong with the way that;
MacDonald gave way to Stanley Baldwin
Baldwin gave way to Neville Chamberlain
Chamberlain gave way to Winston Churchill
Churchill gave way to Anthony Eden
Eden gave way to Harold Macmillan.
Macmillan gave way to Alec Douglas Home
Harold Wilson gave way to Jim Callaghan
Thatcher gave way to John Major
or Tony Blair gave way to Gordon Brown.
And all these changes took place without anyone feeling the need to call an election immediately afterwards.

In the same period, the following Prime Ministers came to power as a direct result of a General Election;
Attlee 1945
Churchill 1952
Wilson 1964
Heath 1970
Wilson 1974
Thatcher 1979
and, of course, Blair.

In fact (and I've only just noticed this in compiling those two paragraphs), the first group is slightly larger than the second. There is nothing illegal, unconstitutional, or even unethical about changing leadership without calling an election. It's normal. It's part of the way the system works.

My best hope is that if he tries to go through with this silly idea, it will get shipwrecked on the rocks of trying to find a legal definition for "directly elected". Which is presumably meant to mean "being leader of the winning party at the time of an election". At the moment, there's no legal obligation for a Prime Minister even to be a member of a political party, let alone be a party leader. That would have to be imposed. The legal pitfalls would be enormous.

The whole "direct election" theory is a misunderstanding of the constitution based on ignorance, and Cameron is pandering to that ignorance.
He should be ashamed of himself.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Thanks for posting that, never noticed it.

Cameron is as shallow as a politician can be and his whole personna reeks of popularism.

He will propose anything in an effort to get elected and lacks conviction on every single policy he comments on.