Not exact matches
After Bercow intervenes, Cameron says the choice at the next election is
simple: if you want to join the single currency or give power away,
vote Labour!
This can not be done in the same way as it is for the Conservative,
Labour, or Liberal Democrat
vote for the
simple reason that the data does not exist — UKIP was not a real feature of local elections until very recently.
It means next year when the stout folk of London waddle into half - timbered village halls to mark their
simple crosses with quill pens or whatever, they will not think «hey, let's
vote Labour, they got Pussy Balloon Guy».
For the
Labour leadership, the choice is
simple - take a principled view that they support an elected House of Lords and so ask their MPs to
vote with the Government, saving it from possible defeat; or take a more pragmatic view that their job is to break up the Coalition and so ask their MPs to
vote against the Bill.
His campaign attracted criticism when he joked that the election was «a
simple choice between good and evil», [302] and when he was accused of anti-semitism by Jewish
Labour supporters for suggesting that being largely wealthy, the Jewish community would not
vote for him.
For all the complexity of our current politics, the truth is actually quite
simple: the only way to be sure of getting a
Labour government is to
vote Labour.
When he left his last ship just before the 1945 election, his commanding officer's last words were
simple: «Goodbye Miliband, don't
vote Labour».
«And don't forget the
simple maths: a Tory
vote converted to
Labour is worth twice that of a non-voter converted to
Labour, towards a win in a particular seat.»
On the doorstep, candidates facing Lib Dem MPs are making the
simple point that if people want real change, they should
vote Conservative, not mess about with a third party itching to jump into bed with
Labour.
Is it really so
simple that those with money
vote Tory and those without
vote Labour?