Because Gordon Brown is a horrible cnt and the song "Gordon is a Moron" could so easily be about him.

The team, Chip?

the poll was done outside of the fishburn workingmens club

28 in dog years

Simply because a 3% swing to the Tories does not give them enough seats to over throw the current majority in the House of Commons.

For example a 3% swing in Hartlepool, may well see Wright's majority cut but he may well still win the seat. He had a majority of 7,478 at the last election but that was over the Liberal Democrat candidate (Jody Dunn). He received 51% of the vote while the Tory candidate received 11.5%. So a 3% swing to the Tories in Hartlepool wouldn't get a Tory MP. Meaning Wright as a Labour candidate may have a vastly reduced number of votes, his seat is described as "safe". The Tories need to "target" seats where a 3% swing can make a difference, even if Labour lose Hartlepool the chances are it would be lost to the Liberals meaning one seat less for Labour but not an extra one for the Tories to form a government.

The swing needed to the Tories to form a government is approx 7%

In 1997 when Labour had their landslide they only got 43% of the vote.

In 1951 / 55 /59 elections Labour got between 43% and almost 50% of the votes cast , yet still lost.

We use first past the post (FPTP) for elections. Under FPTP , one Member of Parliament is elected from each of the country’s electorates.

In other words, a candidate who has 62% of the votes cast in an electorate will be elected (because no other candidate could have more votes). But at the same time, a candidate in another electorate could be elected with only 30+% of the total votes.

If 5 people stand the chances are all 5 will receive votes, so if 100 people vote
the winner could end up with 23 votes, 2nd 22 3rd 21, 4th 20,5th 14, so he wins but has less than 25% of the vote.

Now if you want proportional representation (PR) you would get a more balanced government.

For example in 2001 the Liberal Democrats got approx 50 seats and 20% of the vote under PR that gets them about 120 seats.

PR is better than FPTP

Minority parties and independent candidates have more of a chance
Fewer votes are 'wasted', as more people's preferences are taken into account
Greater choice for voters. By reducing the dominance of the large parties, PR may encourage turn-out.
By rarely producing an absolute majority for one party, PR ensures greater continuity of government and requires greater consensus in policy-making. So the union bashing policies of Thatcher would probably have been defeated.

Voters may have more of a choice of candidates using PR and it is possible that those candidates may be of better quality and represent their constituents more.

The two-party system is usually eliminated using PR and the possibility of single-party 'elective dictatorship' is greatly diminished.

But other's will argue against PR on the following

PR provides a route for extremists into the political mainstream,( BNP Islam4UK, if hadn't been banned) who would find it hard to win by FPTP
PR produces 'weak' coalition governments rather than 'strong' majority governments, which can lead to indecision, compromise and even legislative paralysis. It can also reduce accountability to voters, as an ousted party of government can reinstall itself by finding new coalition partners after an election
The adoption of list systems breaks the link between the elected representative and his or her constituency
The greater complexity and choice that PR allows can put voters off voting, by requiring them to have a greater knowledge of individual and party positions.

Any party that comes to power under FPTP is likely to appreciate the advantages that it gives to the government: a strong mandate, a lack of coalition partners, and considerable freedom of action.

Therefore, arrival in government under FPTP is likely to see a change of mind from that party towards PR and it to be less enthusiastic for PR. Labour in 1997 promised a referendum on PR , we're still waiting for it 13 years on.

Why's that, simple they're in power so a change in the electoral system is not in their interests. Now if they had still been in opposition you can bet your bottom dollar they would have been going on about it for those 13 years.

so you're arguing for proportional representation Dibbs?
The Liberals would get a hell of a lot more power if that were the case

I agree its mad, surely everyone vote should be equal and in the present scheme of things its not, I mean i am registered to vote in Hartlepool, if i was wanting to vote Tory, Liberal, UKIP or monster raving looney party my vote would be wasted and not count as a monkey running for Labour can get in our town (and indeed does with our current MP).

However this could open a can of worms, ie with the BNP etc getting a lot of votes.

The current set up suits the Labour and Tory parties, no doubt about it
And if I'm not mistaken, then it's them who have to vote to rescind the present constituition
Turkeys voting for Chrimbo and all that
So much for democracy - but that's a whole new argument that's been discussed at length before!! One person's perception on how far things should be allowed to go - before perceived non democratic methods are used to bring everything back to a certain point etc etc

Similarly but differently, it's always irked me that you can score far fewer points than your opponent and yet still win a tennis match. E.g 7-5 7-5 0-6 0-6 7-5.

I don't now. I noticed that in the Jimmy Connors days.

No party has won a General Election with more than 50% of the vote since the 1930's.

Take two seats in constituency A and B, they have 3 candidates Labour,Conservative and Liberals. Both have the same number of voters.We'll say 50,000

In constituency A Labour gets 21,000, Conservatives get 20,000 Liberals get 9,000. Labour win. Labours % of vote is 42% the other 2 parties therefore have 58% but labour still win seat.

In constituency B Liberals get 21,000, Conservatives get 20,000 and Labour gets 9,000, this time Liberals win, once more with 42% others get the 58%

Now if we add votes together for the 2 seats Labour got 30,000, (30%) Liberals got 30,000 (30%) and the Conservatives got 40,000 (40%). yet Labour and Liberals got one seat each Conservatives more votes but no seats. Under PR that would get Conservatives a seat and Liberal/Labour seat would be decided by 2nd votes.

Your PR system works well until you add for example the BNP, so using same number of voters and results as follows

Constituency A Labour gets 16,500(33%) Liberals get 14,000(28%) Conservatives get 9,000 (18%) and BNP 10,500(21%)
Labour win seat

Constituency B Conservatives get 17,000(34%) BNP get 16,000(32%) Labour get 12,000(25%) Liberals get 5,000(10%)
Conservatives win seat

So labour has 1 seat Conservatives have 1 seat.

Under PR Labour has 28,500 votes(28.5%), Conservatives have 26,000(26%) , Liberals have 19,000(19%) BNP has 26,500 (26.5%)

Conservative loses seat to the BNP, as I said in earlier post, PR is a back door for minority parties, if those parties are centre parties no problem but if BNP/ Islam4uk or any other extreme party, PR can get them elected.

Some points of PR are good that one to me , of giving them a back door into mainstream politics is not to good.

That's trying to be simplistic, as different constituencies don't decide a winning seat, it's 2nd and 3rd votes that decide but hopefully it shows the principal.

Some of the problem is caused by the Tory seats being in big countryside areas (like Richmond) whilst alot of Labour seats are in areas like Boro/Stockton/Redcar where a similar voting pattern (or more doley scroungers to put it bluntly) has more seats up for grabs. If the system was changed so each MP had a similar number of constituants then we would see a truer outcome. Either that or PR!!

Either way, work hard & you'll probably do well under the Tories, sit at home & do fuck all & you'll do well under Labour. No doubt alot of you wont agree with that though!

That seems to sum it up quite nicely.

Usual old horsh1te as usual

Scroungers existed and did well under the Tories as they have under Labour, its a generation thing, these families don't give a feck who gets in, they know the ropes regardless

I wholeheartedly agree with that assertion!!!!
There are always those who work who have socialist tendencies, but a lot of labour voters only have tendencies for an easy life without having to put too much effort in

To be brutally honest. It doen't really matter which of the lying, scheming arses get in. This country is in a mess, thanks to politicians and there's no way any politicians are going to turn it around. They're in it for personal gain not for the good of the country.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Only problem with that statement is neither the party that wins the next election, have SOCIALIST tendencies,

You have the choice of voting Conservative or Conservative in cheap suits (previously known as Labour Party)

Workers have socialist tendencies political parties don't.

The public sector, overpaid, underworked and overstaffed. I'd sooner see the Corus staff kept in work, contributing more to the prosperity of the country than see council workers kept in none jobs with nice pensions.

By the way, I've never voted Tory in my life but this time I think I might.

Of all the misrepresentations and utter garbage in this thread nothing had provoked me to post.

Now I can't resist. It isn't to counter the usual truism 'work hard and you prosper under the tories'- though 5 million of you won't have the opportunity because we look after business interests and like to keep wages and unions down by keeping 10% of the workforce unemployed.

The thing that really irked me was the assertation that doctors are not paid too much. The lousy, tory, greedy bastards blackmailed this government into the pay deal of all time some 4 years ago by threatening to quit the NHS of the country that paid for the miserable turds to train. No labour government wants to fall out with health workers so they rolled over. The result is that a perfectly ordinary GP earns £110k and won't offer a single hour outside of office hours.

When I was growing up Dr Murphy was a sainted figure in our family. He was held in total awe and respect. He also cared enormously and would come out on call at any hour of the day or night. Most GPs were similar and earned roughly the same as a headteacher or police inspector. The modern GP is an utter greedy disgrace - earning double what a headteacher or a top cop gets and working much lower hours. Even when you can see one you get a lecture about lifestyle instead of compassion or help.

Sorry, I should be more specific! I meant council workers!

Oi welcome to the board.
I'm a council worker.
Ok, I have 32 days paid holiday, flexi hours, company pension scheme and health benefits.
But I work hard for it:):)

How the fook can you qualify the maxim 'work hard under the Tories and you will do well?'

That has to be, without doubt, the biggest pile of pap i've seen written on this place. (With the possible exception of Mutters' weekend tirade. )

I'm sure you'll get what you want over in Darlo, loany. Nationally, I can think of nothing worse for our part of the world than letting the bankers (sic) who have their snouts in the trough, and continue to bring the country to its knees at the taxpayers' expense, tighten their grip on power, and bollock s to the rest. Recipe for disaster.

I neither doff my cap, nor tug my forelock for any focker. I refuse to 'know my place', and resent the fact that this 'downturn' appears to have been engineered by the privileged few to have done very nicely out of it.

Hopefully, the nation is seeing through the Eton old-boy's plans, and he can welcome to the board right back where he came from.

Here endeth the rant.

Public sector cuts....it'll be the ones who actually work who'll get the bullet, not those nice people with their swipe cards around their neck wandering the corridors of power with a piece of A4 paper.
Like I said before, councils are preparing the ground already, but they always threaten to get rid of things like libraries, nurseries and community cemtres to tug at your consience... if they said they were gonna get rid of a load of keyboard tappers in the paper clip dept, no one would give a toss.

They must have used the same system for the player of the century debacle.

All of that happened on Labours watch. The party of the working man?? Yeh right!!! Over here we probably have to vote Tory to get Labour out, in Hartlepool you'd probably have to vote LibDem. My point is this country cant afford another 5 years of this lot, just like in 97 when another 5 years of Major would have been a disaster.

I simply cannot believe that the response of the British public to the collapse of the economy brought about by inbred, public-school educated buffoons will be to elect inbred, public-school buffoons to sort the mess out by slaughtering the public sector.

The banks and building societies were deregulated/demutualised by Thatcher/Major governments. This meant that they stopped doing silly things like only lending what they had on deposit, The greed/easy credit fest that followed for 15 years was built on sand. The miracle is that it took so long to fall.

If people choose to vote Tory they will be voting for utterly unrepresentative people who don't share any life experience with 90% of the populace. The richest 7% of british people use public schools. 18 of the 31 MPs that will make up the tory cabinet went to public school. 19 of them are millionaires. How can you expect people who know that they or their families will never need to use public services like state education or health provision to care about whether it works or not?

This has been a bloody awful government that has shamed the name of Labour. But its still a million times better than the alternative.

Yeah it is a disgrace and are you suggesting we re-elect it because their shiit smells less offensive than the Tory shiit, ... a curse on both their houses.
i couldn't make a case for either party and wouldn't bother.

I think that teachers and coppers are overpaid. Nurses are probably underpaid to be honest. People working for local councils are generally overpaid, underworked and out of touch with reality. Get their salaries, holidays and pensions back in line with the real world and we'll save a fortune. Under this Labour Government the public sector and most especially council workers have increased their salaries to be in line with or higher than the equivalent private sector workers whilst giving up none of the holidays, pensions etc that used to be provided in place of the higher salaries. And most of them wouldn't have the brains to survive in the private sector either.

The problem with this country is we are no longer a manufacturing state and cant compete with this against the rest of the world, thats fact, I work in the biologicals industry and have to say 99.9% of all our materials we sell are made in China or India. Acids, reagents, molecular kits, instruments etc can be made at the same price effectively for production but the larger price over here is due to the employment costs, thats just a FACT.

What we need to do in order to drive this price down and be competitive is to get rid of the pen pushers and employ more people to nock the product out. Oh and the scare mongering about a hung parliment doesnt help by making the pound crash 15c against the Dollar either, idiots!

Got it in one there, Compo.

The UK was stripped of its manufacturing base under Thatcher. We were told the 'service sector' would replace it more than adequately. Did it b ollocks, Mrs T! ps - when ARE you going to die? I have a few good bottles reserved just for the occasion. The Tories are welcome to Darlo. It's a Tory town. Over to you, loany.

Work hard and prosper!

Thatcher did more good for the country than bad yet still the narrow minded and intellectually challenged still attack her.

She's getting on a bit now though, so as a trade-off for her dying date I'd settle for 6 months after Gordon Brown.

Power stations are the future Mr Dibble. Decomissioning and new builds. Personally I hope that Iris Ryder's arms drop off and her tongue falls out and Hartlepool gets the go ahead for a big new nuclear power station sooner rather than later.

So do I as the decommissioning of the station the company that generally does this, my company sells Alumina too.

do you work for Merck, Compo?

No I work for a company called NBS Biologicals but we sell all kind of stuff like activated alumina and alumina for removing heavy metal affulent from ground/waste water or soils, to the companies that work at these sites.

Basically we sell all chemicals and reagents, Nucleic Acid, Proteomic and Pharmacology materials.

Honestly, it's like the trenches with two lots flinging crap at each other and defending their entrenched belief they are right. They are both a load of tvvats Tory or Labour....I expect to be screwed off the Tories, but this so called labour government are the ones invading countries, the same government who could have renationalised the utilities and railways but didn't, who embraced PFI's mortgagaing the kids future for jam today ..... there is NO difference, just Tory v Torylite ..... Middle class meddlers playing student politics with our fooking money.