Webbo Posted 8 May 2010 Posted 8 May 2010 What a cobblers comparison! 36% against 35.2% It's a fact, if Labour had 36%(it was 36.1 actually so that's nearly a whole percentage point difference) they would have won a large majority so when people say that the Tories had everything in their favour that isn't true.
nick_knowles Posted 8 May 2010 Posted 8 May 2010 myself and tommy walsh are most upset by whole sorry sequence of events
Guest DavidJCW Posted 8 May 2010 Posted 8 May 2010 davieG, could you open the poll again so I can update it for a final time? Have a go deleting the first and second threads too once I've put up the final result... it won't matter so much now if it goes. Thanks!
Jon the Hat Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Why was Nick Clegg interviewed standing next to a man in a chicken suit? Is this symbolic?
davieG Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 davieG, could you open the poll again so I can update it for a final time? Have a go deleting the first and second threads too once I've put up the final result... it won't matter so much now if it goes. Thanks! It's open.
davieG Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 It's a shame William Hague rose to prominence so early and seemingly 'failed' as I think he would make a better and more acceptable Tory Leader.
Head Honcho Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 It's a shame William Hague rose to prominence so early and seemingly 'failed' as I think he would make a better and more acceptable Tory Leader. Hague will play a huge part in the next government. With such a small number of seats he's gonna need the big players in his cabinet because there are some big decisions ahead and getting them through parliament will be even tougher.
Webbo Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 It's a shame William Hague rose to prominence so early and seemingly 'failed' as I think he would make a better and more acceptable Tory Leader. Agreed, but it was his decision to stand 1997 so in a way it was his own fault. He's still not that old for a politician so his time may come again.
davieG Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Agreed, but it was his decision to stand 1997 so in a way it was his own fault. He's still not that old for a politician so his time may come again. It was although probably under severe pressure, you rarely get a second chance in politics.
FoxyPV Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 It was although probably under severe pressure, you rarely get a second chance in politics. Unless you are Mandelson then you can have as many comebacks as you want (because he is the Prince of Darkness)
Jon the Hat Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 It's a shame William Hague rose to prominence so early and seemingly 'failed' as I think he would make a better and more acceptable Tory Leader. He looks in his element right now doesn't he?
Guest DavidJCW Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 It's open. Thanks very much, you can close it and leave the poll open... and then try deleting the first couple of posts that aren't needed.
davieG Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Thanks very much, you can close it and leave the poll open... and then try deleting the first couple of posts that aren't needed. There's not even an option to delete the first post so I've copied your last post into the first one, hence the dates are all wrong.
Guest DavidJCW Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 There's not even an option to delete the first post so I've copied your last post into the first one, hence the dates are all wrong. Ah ok. Thanks very much thought, that's perfect.
Sparky Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 It's a shame William Hague rose to prominence so early and seemingly 'failed' as I think he would make a better and more acceptable Tory Leader. Yeah spot on, certainly the best the Tories have to offer.
Ultra Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Put it like this, if Ken Clarke had led the Tories at this election they wouldn't have needed to sweat on the decisions of Clegg and co..
Guest DavidJCW Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Put it like this, if Ken Clarke had led the Tories at this election they wouldn't have needed to sweat on the decisions of Clegg and co.. Yeah, Mr. Thatcherite himself would have ended up watching as Labour won a 4th term in office...
Jon the Hat Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 Put it like this, if Ken Clarke had led the Tories at this election they wouldn't have needed to sweat on the decisions of Clegg and co.. And if your lot had the balls to get rid of Gordon (as it were) you might be the ones negotiating with Nick.
l444ry Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 And if your lot had the balls to get rid of Gordon (as it were) you might be the ones negotiating with Nick. Labour must hold its nerve and set out the right terms for an agreement in the interests of the nation that would ensure the Tories cannot come to power. What it should not do is cave in to the Tory inspired media jackals who dangle the option of a coup d’etat in the Labour party. Gordon Brown has now taken the Labour party through an election – the parliamentary Labour party he leads was elected with him as leader. That means he is in a position to deliver the PLP for whatever is agreed. A new leader would have no legitimacy and no basis for dealing with any crisis that such a new government might face. The argument goes, so it seems, that Brown cannot form a government because he lost. Yet no leader won this election. And if it is hard to explain to the public why the parties that came second and third can form a government in the first place, it would be impossible to do it with a leader whose own members had not chosen him and who was not even on offer to the electorate as recently as this last week.
Jon the Hat Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 Labour must hold its nerve and set out the right terms for an agreement in the interests of the nation that would ensure the Tories cannot come to power. What it should not do is cave in to the Tory inspired media jackals who dangle the option of a coup d’etat in the Labour party. Gordon Brown has now taken the Labour party through an election – the parliamentary Labour party he leads was elected with him as leader. That means he is in a position to deliver the PLP for whatever is agreed. A new leader would have no legitimacy and no basis for dealing with any crisis that such a new government might face. The argument goes, so it seems, that Brown cannot form a government because he lost. Yet no leader won this election. And if it is hard to explain to the public why the parties that came second and third can form a government in the first place, it would be impossible to do it with a leader whose own members had not chosen him and who was not even on offer to the electorate as recently as this last week. I meant got rid of him last year. Your point is correct, it is inconceivable that another Labour MP is foisted upon the country as PM when they did not appear on the TV Debates as contenders. However it seems the number of MP's coming out against Gordon suggests they feel they were elected despite Gordon being leader not becuase he was.
Guest DavidJCW Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 I meant got rid of him last year. Your point is correct, it is inconceivable that another Labour MP is foisted upon the country as PM when they did not appear on the TV Debates as contenders. However it seems the number of MP's coming out against Gordon suggests they feel they were elected despite Gordon being leader not becuase he was. And I would agree with that... had Gordon Brown not been PM and Darling not been Chancellor, I'd imagine Labour may have held on to power outright. The fact is is that Brown and Darling are perceived by the public, however right or wrong, to have been two of the orchestrators in the downturn of the economy and therefore aren't very popular. Why didn't Labour suffer more then? Well for the simple reason that despite the Lib Dems gathering support over the 3 weeks before the election, when it came to crunch time, the public all jumped back over to the Labour party to try and stop the Tories winning outright, and it worked. If David Milliband had been Labour leader before the election, he'd have been a fresh face as leader, more appealing to the viewers and therefore may have gained more votes for Labour to keep them as the largest party... maybe not win outright, but certainly remain having the most seats. That's my view anyway.
l444ry Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 Just before the election the Tories published this party election broadcast from the 'Hung Parliament Party'. The video summarises the results of a hung parliament thus: A brave new world of undemocratic process, economic stagnation, and dithering. Now that the Conservatives find themselves in a hung parliament and have spent 3 days trying to form some sort of arrangement with the Lib Dems, do they still stand by their 'hung parliament party' broadcast? Because if they do, it leads to all of the above coming true; and if they don't, they were just scaring people into voting for them before the election.
Jon the Hat Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 Just before the election the Tories published this party election broadcast from the 'Hung Parliament Party'. The video summarises the results of a hung parliament thus: A brave new world of undemocratic process, economic stagnation, and dithering. Now that the Conservatives find themselves in a hung parliament and have spent 3 days trying to form some sort of arrangement with the Lib Dems, do they still stand by their 'hung parliament party' broadcast? Because if they do, it leads to all of the above coming true; and if they don't, they were just scaring people into voting for them before the election. "In the national interest" is the catchphrase of the week. Try and keep up.
davieG Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 New Topic Started - http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=65879&pid=1614357&st=0entry1614357
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.