Fun talk:2010 United Kingdom general election

Anyone with the energy to develop can do so (or Funpage it if preferred). &mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.69 / talk / contribs 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As it was announced today summat needed doing but ... (procrastination, paint drying, manana...).

Vote for the Non of the Above/Reopen Nominations candidates.

82.198.250.69 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Clegg dancing joke anyone? Great great aunt Moura Budberg a more interesting character.

82.198.250.69 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline section
I've added a timeline section called The Race to Number 10. I'm not in any way precious over it so if anybody wants to massively amend it and/or delete it then I won't mind. I just thought it might be interesting as the month rolls by. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. I like the first item already! 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidates?
Shouldn't this be "Parties?" This is a parliamentary, not a presidential election. Bondurant (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I knew some of the details would be wrong. I don't know much about this. 15:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what's wrong: it all hinges on the leaders, when it should be on the actual candidates. Roll on PR (I think [at least I think I think {I think}]) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to stick my oar in with this article when I get some time to devote to it. Sadly, one of my pesky clients actually wants me to do some work for them right now. Don't they know there's an election on? Tsk. Bondurant (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

PR = Proportional Representation rather than Public Relations (for which see Lord Mandelweasel aka Peter Mandelson aka The Prince of Darkness).

The B(ullying) N(utter) P(lonkers) may be disqualified. 82.198.250.69 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the Brainless Nazi Pillocks? How so? Apart from plotting to kill each other, that is. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They're doing a MarcusCicero thing with the BNP. It's unfair to exclude them just because they're evil. Give evil a chance. 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Failing to comply with electoral law - by restricting membership on racial grounds. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.69 / talk / contribs 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't they change that policy? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Mei II / talk / contribs 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Last I heard, their proposed policy (that membership wouldn't be restricted but prospective members would be subject to interviews before being approved) was rejected by the court, since it would mean that they could continue to discriminate in practice.  16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Taxis and Parties
It used to be said that the Liberal Party MP (precursor of the Lib Dems) would fit into a taxi (or two if one particular MP was involved), and a Labour MP compared himself to a taxi a few days ago.

Any further examples? 82.198.250.69 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have exhausted this well. 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That used to be said when the liberals had about 5 MPs, ie back in the seventies. They now have 63 so that's a pretty big taxi. But nice nod to the near-spherical Cyril Smith. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Simon Hughes (Lib Dem MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark) used to drive a taxi (before Stephen Fry). He auctioned it off at a party conference a few years ago. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Animals and MPs
Norman Tebbit as a semi-housetrained polecat, Ken Livingstone and his newts: any other 'beastly' MPs (of whatever vintage)? 82.198.250.69 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Same
Am I the only person who now feels that it doesn't matter which of the 3 main parties you vote for anymore as they're basically all the same? Also, I note this election has been based more on ad-hominem attacks than in the past, which could prove my point above, e.g. rather than boasting about what you're going to actually do (because it's the same as the others are going to do) just resort to "ZOMG!!!11 Look what this n00b fag did 8 years ago lolol!!!!" 09:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One wears a red tie, the other wears a blue tie. Economic policies seem to be the only significant difference besides that, and neither party are sticking to their grassroot policies now. The only thing stopping people from voting for one party or another will be their own personal principles. 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did he do it?
So how come Brown - hardly one of the world's most gifted orators - decided to go head to head live with the others tonight? Seems a bit of a strange decision.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe he believes he can come out on top by talking smart, rather than talking style. Or maybe he believed it would reflect badly if he refused to debate. --Grey (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing Labour have got going for them is their experience and the lack of experience on the other side. He'll talk that up big-time and try to portray the others as unready for office. Yes, I know that leaves him open to the "Well it's all your mess so why should we trust you?" response, but he'll pass that off as a global problem rather than a British one.
 * Don't forget, also, that these things are largely going to be about reciting pre-prepared answers. I know the questions are being kept secret, but you just know there'll be one on each of the economy, health, crime, education, and sleaze/reform, which doesn't leave much scope for the unexpected. Immigration, perhaps? Maybe transport and the environment, and at least one debate will ask about a hung parliament. I doubt we'll hear anything too surprising. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point is that every other British Prime Minister (I think) has refused to debate like this. Whatever you may think of their policies both Blair and Thatcher were good communicators.  Refusing to "lower themselves" to the level of the opposition didn't hurt them as they both finally lost to internal knives rather then the electorate.   It seems to me that Brown isn't in the same league - why take the risk?
 * As for the opposition lacking experience - that's always true. If we only elected governments with experience of government then we'd never change the government.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I didn't really make my point very well. Neither Thatcher nor Blair ever faced the prospect of losing an election so they had nothing to gain by participating in a debate. John Major did, but he was so soporific it wouldn't have been a good idea, and Paddy Ashdown would probably have wiped the floor with both Major and Kinnock anyway. Brown faces a different situation to the first two: he's behind in every poll and has been for ages. He's losing and he needs to try something to get back into the race. As Chancellor, people really did trust him (seriously - it's hard to recall that now). If he can put a decent performance together, he might just be able to get a "Better the devil you know" result and pull a narrow win out of the fire.


 * Like you, I think it's a strange decision. Most predictions are for Clegg or Cameron to "win" the debate and I agree: Clegg even came through a Paxman interview pretty well. So while I personally think it's a mistake, I can understand Brown's reasons for doing it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Back when this idea was first mooted and the party leaders were approached, the Conservatives, if I remember right, had a fairly solid double-figure lead over Labour, and Brown's personal approval rating was through the floor. Given that situation Gordon Brown, or at least the puppet-masters, must have thought that agreeing to a debate was a no-loss situation, either Gordon would do well which would narrow the lead, or Gordon wouldn't impress the public, but given how bad his figures were, a failure to impress wouldn't effect the polls that much.  Of course, since then, the polls have narrowed by quite a bit, and we're now looking at hung parliament territory.  And now I'll put my comma shotgun away. -- 17:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How to get the vote above 50%
Include 'none of the above' option.

What have your MPs done for you? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the NotA option, but I disagree with the criticism implied by your question.


 * It's true that some MPs are a waste of space but it's also true that some of them work damn hard and get a lot done for their constituencies and the people they represent. The same is true of local councillors. Back when I was involved in politics I knew several MPs and councillors and got to see first hand how much work they did and how draining it could be.


 * When you campaign for a "good" one you often meet people who will tell you how grateful they are. The expenses saga annoyed me a bit because a lot of people tarred everybody with the same brush, and it wasn't deserved. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The STV system for most Students Union elections tend to have re-open nominations (affectionately known as "RON"). I'd be more than happy with that as an option. 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on the limited visibility and non-memorability of most MPs (and so far all I have seen campaign wise is - a few slagging-another-party-off posters and a UKIP bannered car). A volcano in Iceland has had more impact on the news. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it be because they are all out in their constituencies trying to get re-elected? or do you expect them to parade endlessly across your television screen just so you can see their faces? God, why am i even replying to you? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is yet another reason to favour PR. In many constituencies, you won't find any campaigning because everybody knows that one party could put anybody or anything up for election and still win. Under PR the concept of a safe seat disappears and you have to campaign for every vote. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly worthwhile to get rid of the idea of "safe seats". However, under such a system you'd probably want to make senior ministers not actually represent a local constituency (I don't think they should anyway) as it might look a bit odd if you have a PM who isn't actually elected in their local area - the usual practice is to parachute Ministers or their important up-and-coming into those safe seats, while shoving the young, idealistic knobs that they don't like (it is an Old Boys Network whether you like it or not) into the areas that they have no chance of winning. 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple. Get PZ Myers to claim it's a poll to crash, you'll have 120% turnout! --Kels (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's actually some evidence that fraud took place in the 1992 UK General Election. Several marginal seats had unusually high turnout - unusual even for a marginal - and many voters who wouldn't normally vote (elderly, infirm etc) complained about people already having voted on their behalf. There's one article on the topic here.


 * Personally, I think that if the Tories did fix the '92 election it was the worst thing they could possibly have done. If Labour had got into power in '92, the Tories would have been back in Number 10 within 6 years instead of still not being sure after 13. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot recall #ever# seeing my MP locally - or any of the candidates for election.

Given that there have been 'snouts in trough' (MPs expenses) and 'hands in the till' (other expenses) incidents - we are about due a few 'peculiar partners and extramarital relationships' and more 'use of unparliamentary, politically incorrect and other unsuitable language.'

82.198.250.4 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

SNP
It has bothered me for a while that I don't actually know what their policies are, beyond "Scottish independence!!11!1" and "smaller class sizes" (which IIRC failed miserably). Does anyone know? 18:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much Scottish independence, with full membership in the EU (plus euros for all) and um yeah. I'm Scottish, and while I think a case could be made for Scottish independence, it would seem likely to happen as a reaction against the English more than anything else. My mum's English, and the SNP supporters I've met are to her what the BNP are to foreigners. --Grey (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and 'It's Scotland's oil' --Grey (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall them protesting in the late 80s against the poll tax in Glasgow, and helping set it in Perth. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they're centre-left, but I've never really seen proof of that. I mentioned this because there was one of those Party Political things on the TV which basically consisted of Salmond whining about not being allowed to play with the big boys. 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And we're off...
The first ever British debate thingy is starting. Time to start my live-blogging, Ed-style.-- 19:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzz.-- 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder what the effect of this will be... --Grey (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I knew they'd mention airbrushing at some point. --Grey (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I thought, Nick Clegg steps back and lets the two boys fight, then comes out looking better. --Grey (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1st Question: Predictable question on immigration.
 * Brown= Nobody gets in that we don't want from outside the EU.
 * Cameron= We're going to try and stop people from inside the EU from coming in as much as possible.
 * Clegg= The other two talk a good game but bollocks up the execution.  We'll let in good immigration, keep out bad immigration, and ignore the fact that that is what the others have claimed in the past as well.-- 19:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Question: Law & Order. 'de hoodies iz going to murder me in my jeep sleep. What you going do 'bout it?
 * Cameron= More police on the street, tougher sentences, longer time in jail, FLOG THE BASTARDS!, why don't we deport to America anymore?
 * Clegg= More police on the street, they can take over from the dealers.  Preventative, early social care, despite the fact that social workers are so over worked they can't cope with the workload they've got.
 * Brown= More of what we've done, plus you will be able to get an injunction against the police so they actually do something about crime in your area.  Because, yeah, that's going to work. snigger -- 19:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

COR, look at the legs on that, wonder how old she is?-- 19:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

53, good enough for me. Wonder if her father's a coach.....-- 19:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

3rd Question: MPs' expenses. How are you going to restore faith in MPs?
 * Clegg= You're not, until MPs admit that they are wrong.  Flipping, capital gains tax, duck arses houses.  The Lib Dems were too stupid/naive to take advantage of the system compared to the others.  That makes us the good guys.
 * Brown= Right of recall ('cause that works really well in the States), public can petition the House of Commons (although they can now), reform of the House of Lords (ye Gods, its 1997 again).
 * Cameron= Anger, ANGER, apology, grovel. Slash Whitehall by an appreciable fraction, presumably not literally.-- 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

4th Question: We don't want no - education! How are you going to improve it, 'cause there are too many exams.
 * Brown: You're in school until you're 18, 'cause that now replaces National Service.  We'll look at the exams, but give you more, 'cause we're frightened of India and China.
 * Cameron: Quango, paperwork, too many exams designed solely for league table type stuff.  Better teachers, more teaching, set the schools free! (aka privatise the hell out the bastards).
 * Clegg: Curriculum is too large.  We need to be like Sweden, blond and bouncy.  Teachers get over 400 pages of addtional instruction on how to teach each year.  We'll get rid of that, presumably stream-lining the process (N.B. not sure about last bit, distracted by thoughts of blond and bouncy, but not goaty).-- 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You got it right (the 400 pages thang that is) Totnesmartin (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

5th Question: Budget deficit time!
 * Cameron= Got to get the economy moving and growing.  Time for the growth hormones and senna leaves.  LESS TAX!!!, especially for really rich heir(esse)s.
 * Clegg= Cut, cut, cut.  Get out that bris knife, time to remove the hood from Trident.  Continue to tax the rich, 'cause they never vote for us anyway.
 * Brown= "I don't know, I really don't know, it's all gone wrong, nothing I do is ever right, why won't they leave me alone".  MOAR (sorry) TAX!!!-- 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

6th Question: British Armed Forces are underequipped and underpaid.
 * Clegg= No argument about that.  Too much bureaucracy, too much Trident.  Scrap Trident, give the money in pay and equipment.  Tribute to the forces.
 * Brown= Tribute to the forces.  Doing the right thing by our troops.  Massive increase spending on the armed forces during the past few years.
 * Cameron=  Tribute to the forces.  We don't do enough for them.  Steps are being done, but not enough.  Fought the government to stop cuts in the training of the Territorial Army.-- 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those tributes were a bit sickening. The guy asked a question and wanted an answer, not to be fellated repeatedly. 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

7th Question: Health:  The vison for the future of British healthcare and an increasing elderly base.
 * Brown= Increase at home help (presumably by shipping in the carers from outside the EU, 'cos otherwise we can't afford it).  Guaranteed care.  Free health checkup, seen within two weeks for cancer diagnosis & first consultant appointment.  There are now more nurses and shorter waiting times compared to the NHS under the previous Tories.
 * Cameron= Love the NHS based on personal experience.  Improve the NHS and patient choice.  Improve access to medications, give the rising costs.  5 times more managers hired than nurses.  A cancer drug fund should be set up.  NHS will be crippled by the government's VAT rise.
 * Clegg= All of us want to improve the NHS, but priorities are wrong.  The government employs too many bureaucrats and IT systems while local wards close.  The others are engaged in a phony debate.  There isn't the money at the moment to pump into the NHS to pay for what the others promise, and pay for everything else that they've promised.

(Can't think of anything funny to say about the NHS, but then I'm on MTX at the moment. Don't bite the hand that keeps you alive;-)-- 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Cameron:Too many managers! Me:Whose idea was that? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

-i2 Question: How are you going to change the current care system, where you have to pay for your care if you've saved all your life.
 * Cameron= If you save more than £8 000 pound, then you get to keep your house and assets to pass onto your children if you have to go into care when elderly.  But we can't afford this now.  Respite care for carers.  Too difficult for carers now, in terms of budgets, benefits etc.
 * Clegg= Let's work together.  Let's extend Labour's aim of giving respite care to carers.  An aim of a week off each year for carers.  Too difficult for carers now, in terms of budgets, benefits etc.
 * Brown= Care at home.  You get to stay in your home and receive the care.  Free care if you have to go into care.  Respite care for carers.  Too difficult for carers now, in terms of budgets, benefits etc.

There's so much consensus on this question they're beginning to sound like a roundelay, all singing the same thing, just at different times.-- 21:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Thoughts:

Cameron= Waxy, shiny bastard who looked like somebody had forcibly jammed a rod up his arse. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that Madame Tussauds wheeled him out for the debates.

Brown= Crumpled, smirky bastard who looked like he had been hit by the rear-end of a hairy goat's arse. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that the London Dungeon had wheeled him out for the debates.

Clegg= Looked like he really wanted Vince Cable there to hold his hand. He's the Dear Leader, so guess I can't call him a bastard. Shame. Wouldn't be surprised to find out that PlaySchool had wheeled him out for the debates.

Final Result:

JFK on the TV. Nixon on the Radio-- 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And now to get the last of Ed out of my system, I'm off to wiki-stalk the nearest goat.-- 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. At some point I'll add a little section that explains the more obscure British political terms like flipping, quangos, National Service, and Clegg.-- 21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Every poll done so far has Clegg a clear winner - and it's impossible to disagree with that. After that, things get a bit more complicated: some (most professional polls) have Cameron 2nd ahead of Brown; others (Twitter, etc) have Brown 2nd and Cameron 3rd. I honestly can't believe that anybody thinks Cameron did well. He was nervous from the start and fucked up almost every answer including the biggest gaffe of the night - China is a nuclear threat to the UK.


 * I personally thought Clegg won by a mile but could and should have won by more. He pulled his punches. In his final summing up he opted for a "let's all be nice and fluffy"-type statement when he had the perfect opportunity to smash Brown and Cameron into the floor. This time, he got an easy ride because Brown and Cameron spent more time attacking each other and let him off the hook. In the next debate, you can guarantee that they'll both be after the figures the Lib Dems included in their manifesto. Marks out of ten: Clegg-8; Brown-5; Cameron-4. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all kidding aside Clegg did well, which for me is brilliant because I'm a paid up member of the party and really want to see a hung parliament so that the Lib Dems can show what they can do. I think Clegg backing off of attacks was deliberate, the on-the-spot polling showed that Cameron's rating dipped every time he launched an attack on Brown.  The next debate should see more attacks launched, but I don't think that either Cameron or Brown will be too interested in pressing in Clegg about budgetary details, because  a) all the parties have big problems there, and if it does come down to a furball over projected budgets you've got to think that the two parties who have been in power over recent living memory are going to get it worse, and b) it'll remind journalists that Cable did well in the Channel 4 Chancellor's debate, and that fact will almost certainly then appear in just about every journalistic piece about the second and third debates.  Overall, based solely on this debate, I'm hoping to see a 1.5 to 2.5 point upswing in the polls for the Lib Dems and, given the nature of politics in the UK, hopefully that will be in marginal seats.  As for the other debates, if they follow the same trends as we see in American debates, we'll probably see just about the same polling results at the end of each, with maybe a slight dip for Nick Clegg.  That assumes, of course, that none of the candidates makes a colossal gaffe (for instance, David Cameron claiming foreign policy experience because when he was in Eton he was once the fag of a future Latverian diplomat).-- 23:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to be a paid up member too and, to fully declare myself to avoid future COI debates, used to be on the Federal Policy Committee as one of the two Scottish party reps. There are many reasons why my membership lapsed, but chief amongst them was the the LDs drifted too far to the right. This time they seem to have moved left again, although the Political Compass site disagrees with me.
 * I watched the debate with a die-hard leftie (eg, he had his collar felt by the plod because he was a flying picket during the miners' strike) and we both had the same reaction to the debate.
 * A 1.5-2.5 swing in the polls would be optimistic. More likely is a smaller national swing but a larger swing in the marginals - and there are several of them. If, if, if, if, if Clegg can perform like that again in the next two debates, he could well hold 5-6 seats for the LDs. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The SJ verdict- I got bored after 20 minutes and went out drinking. Above is tl;dr, Did I miss anything? 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The first poll conducted after the debates has Con: 36 (-3), LD: 35 (+12), Lab: 24 (-3) with Others being slaughtered. That's NOT going to last. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 'kinell, Lib Dems at 35?! Not bad, considering they're my choice. Although none of the polls on BBC show change like that yesterday. 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's only just out. The BBC mentioned it on the news and Guido Fawkes has it on his blog. It's an ITV/ComRes poll of 4000 people who watched the debate. It would be incredible if those results persist, but I don't see it happening, alas. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ComRes have done some tweaking and they now say what the figures really mean is Con: 35 (-4); Lab: 29 (+2); LD: 21 (nc), but the excellent UK Polling Report blog is taking both sets of figures with a large pinch of salt. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg is unmemorable even when on the screen in front of you.

David Cameron can't pronounce 'proply' properly.

No comment necessary on Brown.

Three white men in suits and not one USP between them.

Why not the other parties?

212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirates
A mate of mine lost a bet on the outcome of the Superbowl and as his forfeit, he needs to run for MP of City of London and Westminster as his pirate alter ego, Mad Cap'n Tom (it's like the safest Tory seat in the universe so it's not like he's going to mess up any serious politics). So if you live in London SW1, W1 or W2, please sign his nomination form, if not, just join the Facebook group and watch him make a monumental cock of himself. http://www.madcapntom.co.uk/ 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in SE9 so no joy there. But I just became a Facebook fan - his policies seem to make a lot of sense to me, and I'd love to see him in the next leaders' debate! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when he did it for an student's union election, he turned up the debate and it turned out he was the most competent out of all the people who were running. So when the other two started promising ridiculous things, he pulled out several newspaper headlines from where people were promising them 20-30 years ago with no result, and he was the only one who turned up to a special briefing by the University on closes bridges (we have lots of them to get over the excessively sized lake) that was going on at the time, so was the only person capable of answering questions on it. Not to mention that while the others buried their heads in some flash cards and read their stuff rather meekly, he was jumping on desks and putting on a show. But I am so sold on a Cheryl Cole tax. 14:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He's gonna put up (and presumably forfeit) £500 deposit? 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know actually. I assume it's sorted somehow. 18:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He paid it out of pocket - and may not get it back either. So I'm pretty sure he's not going to be betting on the Superbowl ever again. 14:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One more post-debate observation
This just occurred to me. With Clegg having done so well in the debate (24 hours later it's pretty clear most people agree this was the case), it will let him move out of Vince Cable's shadow. So far the LD campaign has been about Clegg appearing with Cable as if to say "YOu all remember this guy you all like? Well I'm his boss". Now, they don't need to do that, which might mean they can split up at last and cover more territory.

I really can't believe just how much of a game-changer this might have been. All the media are now talking about the election as a three-way race now, even if the LDs are still in a distant 3rd place. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More polls
Latest YouGov is Con: 33%, LD: 30%, Lab: 28%.

Whatever else the debate has done, it has seriously fucked up the poll-of-polls thing that every media organisation does now. In case anybody is wondering: no - those %ages will not be anything close to the final result. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. UK Polling Report says that this result would leave Labour as the largest party despite finishing third! What was that debate about PR again? ;) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Labour Desperation
PM to undergo Paxman grilling

First agreeing to the debate, now agreeing to the toughest gig in political interviewing. Not only has Brown agreed, but the Tories are (basically) saying that they'll do it too. All from one 90 minute debate performance. Looks like I'm gonna have to swallow my pride and admit that it was way, way more influential than I thought it would be. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we'd get far more from putting each of them in front of a BBC attack dog for 10 minutes rather than three of the main ones in front of an audience for 90 minutes together. Either Paxman or the HardTalk interviewers, who don't so much go for the throat like Paxman tends to, but they ask the most interesting questions in my experience. 11:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical Voter
While listening to one of our newly-advertised RationalWiki:Rational podcasts I came across a reference to a new wiki called skeptical voter. Its objective is to see how woo-negative or scepticism-friendly each party, party leader or MP is. Is it my imagination, or does the format of the front page seems to suggest that somebody from RW may already be active?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * their main page history was updated with the comment "(New front page from Arthur)" - could be BlightyNet's Arthur King, perhaps, who also goes under the pseudonym Genghis Khant, whoever he is. Real first name and last initial (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat to my surprise, I find that I'm already a member. I seem to have joined in November of last year.  Now I think some more I seem to remember..... --BobSpring is sprung! 12:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too - been a member for 21 weeks 3 days. ISTR somebody posting a link on here and deciding I may as well sign up. Rfnali's suggestion seems plausible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be rather #sceptical# (ie UK spelling) about the skeptical (US) voter.

82.198.250.3 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Volcano
OK. So which party has the best plan to stop the volcanic eruption in Iceland?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The BNP of course. Send the immigrant ash back where it came from! I bet it doesn't even have a passport, yet here it is, stealing our jobs... this is about their level of realism Totnesmartin (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the Greens are overjoyed at the way it has curtailed all thoae global warming gases by grounding polluting jets. 08:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it is pumping out more pollution than all those jets put together. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's "natural"! 08:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Turns out it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately CO2 emissions are only a part of the story. Imagine if the winds deposited all that dust on an ice sheet. It would actually cause more warming because of the reduced albedo. That's one of the problems of the climate change debate; a major geological event can overwhelm whatever man does. Also something must have triggered both the start and the end of the ice-ages. 04:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And natural is always good! Here, try some of these delicious berries! Totnesmartin (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or some of these nutty beans! Actually, any of these will do. 10:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking to someone today who maintained the eruption was a result of global warming and it was part of the process of evolution by which the Earth punished us - which was certainly an interesting point of view. I politely tried to get some suggestions for what mechanism might be at work with the global warming one and wondered aloud how a biological process like evolution might start eruptions, but I didn't get very far. I think there was some sort of Gaia idea in there somewhere, but I couldn't get at it.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see a possible mechanism where global warming might trigger natural disasters. Say if enough ice melted off the Greenland ice-cap (and ignoring rising sea-level) then there would be an isostatic (I think that's the word) adjustment with the landmass rising, just like the Baltic is doing after the last ice-age. Large movements of crustal rocks could trigger earthquakes and eruptions at plate boundaries. Of course, it would be a matter of centuries (if not millennia) before anything significant happened I suspect. 03:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There could be a casual relationship - that's why I asked about a mechanism.  But the logic was:  the planet is warming, we have earthquakes and volcanoes - therefore one is caused by the other. I somehow found the line of reasoning less than totally convincing without some suggestion about how the links work.  Like you, I could hypothesise something as well - but my student didn't seem to think that this was necessary as the connection was "obvious".--BobSpring is sprung! 05:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Johhny foreigner Nick Clegg
A Guardian blog noted something from the Hate Mail on Sunday:


 * in Britain this weekend, the Mail on Sunday published a surreally xenophobic sneer at "the United Nations of Nick Clegg", implying that his Spanish wife, Dutch mother and half-Russian father meant that he failed to meet some obscure and rather distasteful blood-based definition of Britishness. In an echo of the non-existent Michelle Obama "whitey" tape, we can presumably soon expect a report on Clegg's plans to ban Christmas, or to force Britain's motorists to marry gays.

Does anyone have a link to the Mail piece? I thought it Wigo-World-Worthy. 04:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If he was truly British he'd release his birth certificate. Where's your birth certificate, Euroboy?  No way I'm voting for a sangria-drinking, joint-toking commie.   10:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the Daily Heil link, Lils. 10:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg‎|thumb|300px|right|SuperJosh politely explains his views while pulling his pud]]Damn you DS, you posted the link before me. Personally I'm sickened by bloodline patriotism - it's nothing short of racism. To me, people born and raised in the UK are as much British as people who've been here for 1000 years. It's what's inside your head that counts. 10:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that because I was born outside the UK I'm not British? Damn you too.  Say hello to Mr Griffin at your next meeting then Josh.  11:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrorist! Terrorist! 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately the FBI are too busy investigating CP vandalism to go after me just now... 11:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So the Daily Mail should be arrant republicans - Lizzy is German, Danish, Norman, Spanish, French, Scottish and more beside, and there is a joke to the effect that Prince Philip was made Duke of Edinburgh 'as it is known as the Athens of the North and so would remind him of home.'

And all the Brits who retired to Spain should return home by the DM's logic.

82.198.250.4 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By SuperAdolf's logic you mean!  17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Like I said, it what's inside your head that counts. 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet you're volunteering to scoop open the heads of alleged Brits to see if their brains are British! Damn you, sir! I wonder if the Mail is attempting to point out hypocrisy in Clegg's anti-furriner stance? If so, it's not really applicable, since his main problem seems to be with people being the wrong kind of furriners. My understanding is that Dutch and Spanish are more or less okay, on account of them not being asian, muslims, or black. --[[Image:Concrnedresident logo.png|140px|link=User:Concernedresident|Concernedresident|baseline]]Ask me about our mouth 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And foreigners can stand for MEP and local elections.

Liz and co (including MumLiz) far more interesting than most MPs. 82.198.250.4 (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The truth comes out! (just written and posted) - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Heil are after Clegg again
It's a good job I put that Hitler picture up! 11:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having just read the Daily Mail pieces I've got to say that they are pretty funny. I imagine that some people will take the seriously, but anybody that does is simply beyond hope. Incidentally Clegg is very popular in Spain - but only 'cause of his wife.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Immoral cross-dressing socialists
Can someone with an operational sock please hint to the Assfly that Labour are using Eddie Izzard to promote their campaign? I can see mainpageright already! 17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Debate
My favourite tweet of the evening was "Yougov are claiming that Cameron won the debate. 100 fairies at the bottom of the garden surveyed.".

From my perspective, it was basically a tie with Clegg just shading it. The major problems with this debate were a) crap questions, and b) a crap moderator - Adam Boulton was way out of his league. Kudos to Clegg for admitting that he was "not a man of faith". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cameron - Common People
Brilliant. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Superb. Scarily accurate too.  15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hung parliament party
The Tories have completely given up on (even pretending to) campaign on the ground of their policies or politics, and are now pinning everything on a pathetically desperate "don't vote Lib Dem as that will give a hung parliament which will be bad!" campaign. Nice. 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stand back! I'm going to try SCIENCE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/26/liberal-democrats-science-policy1 A good summary of the science policies of the parties. Starting with the Lib Dems. Definitely worth a read. 16:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conservatives UKIP 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * UKIP have a science policy? I thought they just solved evry problem in the country by waving a flag at it. Can't wait for the long hard look at the BNP's global warming denial. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes me cry. Although I wonder if they actually did interview the BNP. I know they nicked most of their environmental policies from the Greens, but never read their general science stuff. If it's anything like UKIP, I really don't want to... 17:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clegg fucking trounced them again
I'm not a Lib Dem, and I was going to vote for our independent candidate, but once again Nick Clegg made Dave and Gord look like fucking pricks. (Well, Dave made himself look like the true Tory (ie Cunt) he is, and Gordo just showed what a useless politician he his). I don't agree with all of the Lib Dems' manifesto, but at least they've been honest enough to say "this is what we're gonna do, and this is how we're gonna do it". They get my vote. Just don't sign us up the the Euro, Nick. 03:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sun has experts? Kelvin's lovely, isn't he? TerrySmall.png (I am a person not a template) 03:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Internetery
Can someone put in a mention of the BNP's webmaster 'damaging the website' and calling them a load of idiots (I deduce they did not pay him enough); while Yahoo popular searches had Gordon Brown next to face transplants (another example of computer sentience).

82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

BNP Website downtime
There's a temporary website - which is just one page - when typing www.bnp.org.uk, which is an address from Nick Griffin. I laughed at the sentence after the poorly covered up white power policies:

Enough is enough! The BNP is the only genuine alternative to the old parties, that's why the media lies about us all the time.

Jesus Christ. Yeah, the media lies about you all the time. And so much for "the BNP is modern/not racist/now has non-white members," the family at the top look pretty white to me. 17:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HHGTTG and this page
In Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy there is reference to a Grammar for Timetravellers.

Can someone in possession of the book correct the scrambled dates and grammar on this page.

82.198.250.3 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Time-traveller required to unscramble first lines.

The pilot of the craft in which Nick Farrage (who apparantly has a fear of flying) was which crashed has apparently been charged with threatening to murder NF (though not on election day)

82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for rebuild
I don't like this page. In fact, I think it kinda blows and has aged badly. I also note that it hasn't really been 'properly' looked at since 2010.

I propose that I produce a 'new' 2010 page (in the style/content of the 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005 GE pages I've done) and then shift this current page to Funspace or perhaps simply deleted.

I seriously doubt anyone's gonna reply or even read this, but hell, you never know... KarmaPolice (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As per the above and the fact nobody said nay to it, I have done the rebuild and relegated this one to the FunSpace. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)