Hung Parliament

According to the latest polls (though who the **** they ask is beyond me) the UK could be seeing a hung parliament in the forthcoming elections.

Whilst the Tories are sure to win the election, experts are uncertain as to by how much.

With Labours horror show the last term the opposition should walk it, however, the Tories are still remembered for their hiking taxes & the like from their last time in office.

Its realistic enough that the Tories could win, but not obtain the majority seats required for them to form the government on their own so would have to form an alliance with another party to make up the cabinet - with possibly the Liberals being number one contenders as they;re keen to take up some role in decision making.

Personally I;d be quite happy with this scenario

Parties who hold a majority like Labour did in the mid to late 90's with their landslide victory have nobody offering real pressure to their policies. The tit for tat debates over stupid points in the House Of Commons would also decrease as two of the main 3 parties would be working together in the interest of the UK & not just to get one over on the other 2 parties which is what we currently have.

I'd also be interested to see how the Liberals would fair should they form a coalition. Its fair to say there's not much difference between Labour & Tory nowadays so the Liberals could cease the extra limelight to ge those fed up with the 2 main parties to vote for them next time.

it will be interesting anyway

 

i'll probably vote lib dem and hope to see them and labour in hung parliament

 

I'd like to hear more about Lib Dem & I think this could be their best shot.

Labour & Tory are **** as we know - are Lib Dem any better? We'll probably never ****ing know as folk decide not to vote rather than vote for Lib Dem!!!

 

I don't see Labour or Tory getting enough votes or do I see them being particularly successfull should they get in.

Can you imagine another term with Gordon Brown

 

the lib dems always seem to be fairly honest (because they dont have to worry about actually getting elected) so with them in a power sharing gov with labour i reckon you'd get a sort of labour lite

 

there all a shower of bastards. £750 million on housin asylum seekers? what about housing homeless people first eh?

 

But do they not get money by the UN or something to cover the cost of Asylum seekers?

 

Naw, our government payed £750m to house them in the last 3 years. £90m of that was in glasgow alone. Disgusts me

 

couldnt give two ****s about asylum seekers. always thought as a rich country you have a moral obligation to help people in need, whether it be through foreign aid or granting asylum, if people exploit that we should tighten controls and not just **** them all off

this country spunks money all over the place, spending £750m on trying to give people a better life isnt that much of a problem to me

 

"It has been estimated that in 2002 the government spent about £1.7bn on the asylum system, including processing claims and direct support for asylum seekers (BBC, 2003). This amounts to well under 0.5% of total managed public expenditure of approximately £400bn. Set against this expenditure, it must be noted that the Home Office has estimated that people born outside the UK, including refugees and asylum seekers, put 10% more into the Treasury coffers than they take out (report by the Refugee Council, 2002)."

Foreign nationals in make more money then they cost.

 

aye but why should they get help before people in this country who have nothin? rich country!?! and we have people sleepin on the ****in streets!

 

see, we need our slaves nev

those cockels wont pick themselves

 

couldnt agree more nev. people shouldnt be living on the streets in a modern society, tbh i dont know enough about it to say anything (what support is available to homeless folk), if you're homeless because whenever you get cash you get smacked up or spend it on white lightening i've not got too much sympathy for you, if its just a **** set of circumstances that has led to it then a welfare state should pick up the slack

 

I see what your saying Nev - but there are laws & agreements signed up by all countries in the UN to accept those seeking asylum.

If you go places like Marseille in France you'll see the same problem & I bet every country has similar problems. But the money they spend on Asylum seekers, refugees is nothing compared to their overall budget - some of which we obtain from foreigners through tax & others we obtain from being a member of the UN.

If we stopped letting in Asylum Seekers & those seeking refuge we'd be booted out the UN & no ****er would trade with us. We make very ****ing little as it is.

 

maybe if we'd let all the jews in our accounts wouldnt be in such a mess now

 

**** off, they dont need ****in protection. they want a cushy life in the 'promise land'

 

Well said

Instead they were rounded up & put in jail whilst Britain pondered whether to join Hitler in his invasion of Europe. It was only because another King thought with his dick & not his brain & abdicated that this was averted.

 

let me tell u a story about the type of people we're lettin in. Was at that ****ty shop Aldi in springburn tryin to get a tent for TITP 1 year. some old granny was in some distress. an asylum seeker had jammed 2 pennies into a trolley and gave it to her for a pound to save her walkin accross the carpark to get a trolley. she thot he was bein a good samaritan but naw he was robbin an old granny out of a ****ing pound! that cuda been ur granny!

 

an entrepreneur?

 

its not just asylum seekers that do that sort of **** though Nev - its all the darkies & I include Jews & Italians in that too.