It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CONSERVATIVES WIN... UK Election...

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
all ive got to say about yesterdays election and all elections is.......SAME S%$T DIFFERENT A*&SHOLE!!!!!!!

[edit on 7-5-2010 by cosmodromia tis parnasida]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by cosmodromia tis parnasida
 


Unfortunately so far it's the same #### and the same ass####


Well here's the stats if anyone is interested.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Party Seats Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%
Conservative 301 97 3 +94 10,561,428 36.2 +3.8
Labour 255 3 91 -88 8,478,042 29.0 -6.3
Liberal Democrat 56 8 13 -5 6, 727,864 23.0 +1.0

Turnout 29,200,556 population About 62 million

Looking at the map, there's still quite a few results to come in.





[edit on 7-5-2010 by kindred]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Oh my giddy aunts! I was just woken up from what I'd hoped would be the whole afternoon asleep, by people shouting at the telly! I'm pretty surprised that Brown & Cameron are making speeches about offers to the LibDems so early. I only caught the last bit of Cameron's, but it didn't sound like he went far enough. I suspect that he couldn't go much further without a revolt in the Tory party.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
What a long night, what a surprise - NOT!

Dow & Paddy Correct! Conservatives WIN but with no overall majority.


Nice to see a good debate here in what appears to be an election mess of grand proportions. Or is it just panning out nicely?

Clegg

A very disappointing result for Lib/Dems. Nick Clegg says “ The Tory’s have the right to first try at forming a government, the situation is fluid.” He rightly cautioned other leaders during the TV debate against "rushing into making claims or taking decisions" which did not stand the test of time.*

Hmm Fluid as in, I’m up for grabs to my parties best options knowing that I hold the Ace?.

As Clegg’s wife is a top lawyer he seems to be missing the point of law here as this is not the case. Under the rules of Britain's constitution, the sitting prime minister in a hung parliament makes the first attempt at forming a ruling coalition.

Brown

Lord Mandelson
Asked if it would be "inconceivable" to have a Labour minority or coalition government which did not have Gordon Brown as prime minister, Lord Mandelson said: "Frankly there are quite a number of permutations." Quick translation: Browns head could go!

Hung - historically the pitfalls and implications are hugely negative.

The minority fringe (swingers) are the real problem here. legislation momentum is often dragged out to useless as the silent ones pile on the pressure, watering down round after round .
Hung also historically prepares a web for real corruption with many slippery palms.

*If Brown does a Heath then surely another election is on the cards later in the year repeating the two that were held in 1974?

Whatever happens, you can bet that the British public this time around will take a lot more active interest in this political soup than previously.

PLUS...what happens to all those postal votes currently under fraud investigation ?

The plot will thicken.






I




[edit on 7-5-2010 by Velvet1]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
David Dimbleby is doing a grand job on BBC news, it's like he's doing a proper 24hr shift, he must be knackered.

It does look like we eill go back to he polls at some point, whether it would be under a different voting system, is highly unlikely imo. It's going to take a while to come up with a new system, that all parties can agree on.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


It shouldn't be for the parties to decide upon it should be up to us the peopleto tell them what system we want!

Idealistic and naive I know, but no less true.

MP's are elected to represent us and do what we tell them, not for them to tell us what to do...we seem to have lost touch with that somewhere along the line.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 


Loved reading through your thoughts this morning, it's people like you and the many fine others on here that keep a proper debate going.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 




I LOVE DD.... He is the man.

I actually booked the day off back in Feb for today.... thought ahead that It'd be a long night.

He is doing well and the BBC have had some good debates on it all both last night/this morn..... and today too.

It's the result I think we all knew was coming, It's just what happens next that will be interesting.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Velvet1
As Clegg’s wife is a top lawyer he seems to be missing the point of law here as this is not the case. Under the rules of Britain's constitution, the sitting prime minister in a hung parliament makes the first attempt at forming a ruling coalition.

Yes, but arguably he's already made that "first attempt".

He has said to Clegg "Come and join us"; if Clegg says "No", the attempt is effectively over. Room for somebody else to try.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
David Dimbleby is doing a grand job on BBC news, it's like he's doing a proper 24hr shift, he must be knackered.

It does look like we eill go back to he polls at some point, whether it would be under a different voting system, is highly unlikely imo. It's going to take a while to come up with a new system, that all parties can agree on.




We may well see, IF the parties decide on a political shoot out (?) that drags on and on, not see any kind of order until late May. This would cause a lot of civil unrest, during what are already extraordinary times.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Velvet1]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 




I LOVE DD.... He is the man.

I actually booked the day off back in Feb for today.... thought ahead that It'd be a long night.

He is doing well and the BBC have had some good debates on it all both last night/this morn..... and today too.

It's the result I think we all knew was coming, It's just what happens next that will be interesting.





Better than fiction! No doubt we'll all be glued to 'their' seats for the foreseeable future.

Now, betting for another election within the same year?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
It shouldn't be for the parties to decide upon it should be up to us the peopleto tell them what system we want!

Idealistic and naive I know, but no less true.

MP's are elected to represent us and do what we tell them, not for them to tell us what to do...we seem to have lost touch with that somewhere along the line.




It is idealistic but doesn't make it naive or wrong.... It's BS that politicians tell us what they know we want to hear and BS us all the way through it all... and then just change their minds when they get in.... Take Labour and the EU referendum...

Take what Happened in the 1st debate on TV.... David Cameron saying he wants political reform and he will make it happen.... yet both Labour and Tories both rejected the Lib-Dems proposal in the Commons of exactly that, political reform...... they're both, The main two parties, full of crap and completely disingenuous... they pay lip service to the people and their needs but laugh and mock us behind closed doors...

We need a reform and we need to get all Greek on their ass if we don't get one.

[edit on 7/5/10 by blupblup]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Velvet1
 

Dow & Paddy Correct! Conservatives WIN but with no overall majority.
No, they weren't correct. The result was that the Tories lost less badly than the rest. Otherwise we wouldn't be waiting to see what deals are in the making.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
No-one is discussing the concept of our democracy being an illusion and the point that no matter who gets in the agenda will be carried out regardless. They might appear to have different policies and agendas but are they really on different sides?

Cameron is public school, Oxford educated, a multi millionaire and related to royalty and other old establishment familes. Both Cameron and Clegg have attended Bilderberg meetings. How much can they really relate to us plebs and were do their true loyalties lie?

How does this unusual collaborative government that is being discussed, link in with the european bank asking for a world government and countries falling apart at the seams? What's it leading up to for England?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by DrHammondStoat]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


It shouldn't be for the parties to decide upon it should be up to us the peopleto tell them what system we want!

Idealistic and naive I know, but no less true.

MP's are elected to represent us and do what we tell them, not for them to tell us what to do...we seem to have lost touch with that somewhere along the line.


I would say 90% of the population don't even understand the system we hav now. All voting systems have strength's and weakness's. Are the British electorate well versed enough in politics to come up with the best system.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Velvet1
As Clegg’s wife is a top lawyer he seems to be missing the point of law here as this is not the case. Under the rules of Britain's constitution, the sitting prime minister in a hung parliament makes the first attempt at forming a ruling coalition.

Yes, but arguably he's already made that "first attempt".

He has said to Clegg "Come and join us"; if Clegg says "No", the attempt is effectively over. Room for somebody else to try.



Agreed in principle. Now which way will Clegg 'swing'? That is the crucial question that will ultimately decide if this gets hung high, low or back to the drawing boards.

I see a lot of cover-up movements in the market swings today, so if you take that as an indicator, then chaos remains as the order of the day.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 

What's it leading up to for England?
Well, the LibDems have said they're not going to say anything else about offers today so we'll have to wait. What a Lib/Con deal would mean for the rest of the UK would mean tho is much clearer. Rule by parties that have no mandate. Its bound to stoke the fires of further devolution.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
No-one is discussing the concept of our democracy being an illusion and the point that no matter who gets in the agenda will be carried out regardless. They might appear to have different policies and agendas but are they really on different sides?

Cameron is public school, Oxford educated, a multi millionaire and related to royalty and other old establishment familes. Both Cameron and Clegg have attended Bilderberg meetings. How much can they really relate to us plebs and were do their true loyalties lie?

How does this unusual collaborative government that is being discussed, link in with the european bank asking for a world government and countries falling apart at the seams? What's it leading up to for England?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by DrHammondStoat]



You potentially open a highly debatable area via a correct assumption that all is never quite as it seems.

Of course the highly controlled 'old boy' network is alive and well. Nothing ever 'changes' here. Nepotism rules like rites of passage.

A very small minority who bother to study historical facts, agendas and correct reasoning, learn, but make not even the slightest dent to the millions who know only a fed surface world of illusion.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I would say 90% of the population don't even understand the system we hav now. All voting systems have strength's and weakness's. Are the British electorate well versed enough in politics to come up with the best system.


Can't disagree with you there....me, I'd abolish the party alignment system altogether.
Person with the highest vote per constituency get's elected.
Free votes.
Power of recall.
More referendums on both local and national issues.
Separate English Assembly like Stormont and Holyrood etc.

Pretty simple really.

[edit on 7/5/10 by Freeborn]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Can't disagree with you there....me, I'd abolish the party alignment system altogether.
Person with the highest vote per constituency get's elected.


Ironically, that is the system we have!

The party system is not actually officially recognised by parliament, it's just the way it is.

When people vote, they vote for their own representative, not that of a party, although that is often the way people vote.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join