Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[britboy4321]

105 votes for Labour. Lulwut?

I know .. its SO SO LOW compared to every other poll in the country. I think it's because the people here are relatively (to the whole voting population) very young -- so they can't remember what the tories were like .. and seem very susceptable to propaganda (Some reckon withdrawing money FROM the economy is the best way out of recession and that Labour keep lying beyond WMD's (don't ask them WHAT labour has lied about EVER apart from WMDs as they go all flustered and quiet!)! I know -- beggers belief!).

 

[britboy4321]

What facts have I got wrong?

Well for a start you have stated that a deal has not been done between Murdoch and Cameron -- no-one actually knows this for a fact apart from a few senior politicians -- and Murdoch's senior folk.

That, my friend, means you were wrong when you stated that as a fact.

 

[Luseac]

I know .. its SO SO LOW compared to every other poll in the country. I think it's because the people here are relatively (to the whole voting population) very young -- so they can't remember what the tories were like .. and seem very susceptable to propaganda (Some reckon withdrawing money FROM the economy is the best way out of recession! I know -- beggers belief!).

Tbh it's too high.

I can't wait for the Conservatives to get it, do a good job and then hopefully put all this "waaa the tories were horrid in government... Thatcher closed all the Minessss! " nonsense to bed once and for all.

 

[britboy4321]

Backup by man on the street confirming this is the case, did you not watch the video? just think! That's all i'm asking you!

EDIT - anyhow, what do you think of mandelson? Do you think it's right he is there in such power when he's not been elected in anyway?

I think Mandelson has the mannerisms of Darth Vader, which will make him disliked regardless of his actions.

EDIT -- OOpps -- we're not debating. Sorry .. no more ..

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Well for a start you have stated that a deal has not been done between Murdoch and Cameron -- no-one actually knows this for a fact apart from a few senior politicians -- and Murdoch's senior folk.

Until you can prove that a deal has been done, the default position is that one has not been made.

Until you can prove a teapot is orbiting the moon, a teacup is not orbiting the moon, etc.

 

[doodah]

Errrr hasnt Mandelson been suspected of doing a deal with the higher ups in the music industry last summer?

 

[britboy4321]

Until you can prove that a deal has been done, the default position is that one has not been made.

Until you can prove a teapot is orbiting the moon, a teacup is not orbiting the moon, etc.

nope. You stated a fact which you can't possibly, possibly know. It's actually irrelevent whether a deal has been done or not now, it is still a stain on your character as you are prepared to use assumption, presumption and half-truths.

If you're right, it's purely by fluke. It proves the lengths you're prepared to go to to make your point -- as in -- state things that you can't, possibly know.

It's interesting to finally prove that I'm dealing with a guy who is prepared to wholly make stuff up to try and 'win' (although TBH I kind of knew -- its good to see it in actual text here and proved). The trouble is, when you lose your credibility, it means anything you type is a waste of typing as I can just say 'You just made that up like when you said Cameron and Murdoch had definately made no deal'. It makes your work debating much harder when you make stuff up and are caught ..

And as for believing stuff that deep down YOU KNOW YOURSELF you are guessing at .. You're actually going to base your vote on such nonsense eugh.


(HINT -- I said Cameron DID a deal, you, after the event, said he definately DID NOT, when neither of us can possibly know either way. In other words -- after my post -- you were holding all the cards, but somehow still lost the hand!)

 

[britboy4321]

Tbh it's too high.

I can't wait for the Conservatives to get it, do a good job and then hopefully put all this "waaa the tories were horrid in government... Thatcher closed all the Minessss! " nonsense to bed once and for all.

I wouldn't presume any government 'will do a good job'. You're setting yourself up for a fall!

The tories will be good for you personally if you're quite rich or 'doing OK'. People over £30,000 will become quite a lot richer. Just when you need to see a doctor with a horrid skin rash and can't see one for 4 months -- don't say you weren't warned!

 

[izzy eckerslike]

I will be amazed if any one who regularly does fox hunting lives in a semi detached!

That's my point which obviously you didn't spot

 

[Hatter The Mad]

nope. You stated a fact which you can't possibly, possibly know.

No, I just took a very usual and conservative stance of skepticism.

The burden of proof rests with you.

• It is your burden to prove that a teapot is actually orbiting the moon.
• It is your burden to prove that Cameron has, as you said, done a deal with Murdoch.
• It was the Government's burden to prove that Saddam had WMDs.
• It is a Christian's burden to prove that God exists.

Until proven, my position is that:

• A teapot does not orbit the moon.
• Cameron has not done a deal with Murdoch.
• Saddam does not [did not, of now we know] have WMDs.
• God does not exist.

You stated that Cameron had done a deal:

Cameron has jumped in bed with big business, in this case the wonderful 'Murdoch' empire. Will weaken the BBC, as Murdich has commanded him to do.

Wow, this Cameron sounds like an outstanding bloke - let's elect him.

If you're right, it's purely by fluke.

Likewise.

 

[Luseac]

I wouldn't presume any government 'will do a good job'. You're setting yourself up for a fall!

Ok then, lets say for arguments sake: a better job than the current government. Which, in my opinion, they will do. Of course some of the employees in the public sector non-jobs that will hopefully get the axe will think Labour were "better" in government. But for those of us who wish to see a bit of economic responsibility return to government it seems like the Conservatives are the correct choice.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

I know .. its SO SO LOW compared to every other poll in the country. I think it's because the people here are relatively (to the whole voting population) very young -- so they can't remember what the tories were like .. and seem very susceptable to propaganda (Some reckon withdrawing money FROM the economy is the best way out of recession and that Labour keep lying beyond WMD's (don't ask them WHAT labour has lied about EVER apart from WMDs as they go all flustered and quiet!)! I know -- beggers belief!).

Perhaps this thread should also have had a poll on the age of those who initially ticked the boxes, from many of the posts on here I would guess at an average age of 14

 

[britboy4321]

Ok then, lets say for arguments sake: a better job than the current government. Which, in my opinion, they will do. Of course some of the employees in the public sector non-jobs that will hopefully get the axe will think Labour were "better" in government. But for those of us who wish to see a bit of economic responsibility return to government it seems like the Conservatives are the correct choice.

OK well that argument makes pretty good sense to me. We're all really voting for who 'seems the better choice'.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone voting for lower taxes, worse public sector. It's a perfectly reasonable and valid opinion.

 

[britboy4321]

Perhaps this thread should also have had a poll on the age of those who initially ticked the boxes, from many of the posts on here I would guess at an average age of 14

I reckon the average age of forum person is about 19.

I can't blame them for not remembering the tories - but they think we're actually lying when we say how awful it was at the end -- which is frustrating

 

[Luseac]

I have absolutely no problem with anyone voting for lower taxes, worse public sector. It's a perfectly reasonable and valid opinion.

It doesn't even have to mean a worse public sector. Would the front-line public services suffer if we got rid of the diversity managers of the world? No.

Oh and can we pluuuease stop with all this claptrap about how the tories ****** you off when they were last in government 13 years ago. It's relevance today is comical and points to nothing more than irrational fanboyism based largely (I should imagine) from having arm-chair politicians for parents who thought Thatcher "screwed the country over".

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Oh and can we pluuuease stop with all this claptrap about how the tories ****** you off when they were last in government 13 years ago. It's relevance today is comical and points to nothing more than irrational fanboyism based largely (I should imagine) from having arm-chair politicians for parents who thought Thatcher "screwed the country over".

Exactly.

You do not see Tory-supporters here recalling the absolute abomination of Labour as a "party" during the long Major years, pre-New Labour.

So why should they hark back to Thatcher/Major?

 

[britboy4321]

It doesn't even have to mean a worse public sector. Would the front-line public services suffer if we got rid of the diversity managers of the world? No.

Oh and can we pluuuease stop with all this claptrap about how the tories ****** you off when they were last in government 13 years ago. It's relevance today is comical and points to nothing more than irrational fanboyism based largely (I should imagine) from having arm-chair politicians for parents who thought Thatcher "screwed the country over".

Yea ok I'll stop doing that.

I think as a general rule it means worse public sector. I mean even if someone gets paid for a full time public sector job and does literally 10 minutes work a week -- if he is sacked (and the money just put in the government coffers) -- the public sector will be down 10 minutes work.

The eternal argument is of course how much 'excess beaurocracy' there is. Of course Labour say 'virtually none' -- the conservatives say 'it's rampant'. The trouble is, for you and me, it's actually nigh-on impossible to gauge realistically. So people start going off gut-feel. No-one really knows.

By the way when the tories get in, they're not gonna know who is ripping them off benefits etc. any more than labour do -- they're just going to go for 'reduce them for everyone .. deserved or not'.


The tories are also not going to say WHERE this apparent beaurocratic disaster is, just that it kind of exists somewhere!! They're just going to say 'Your last year's budget was £45m? Well this year it's £32m. DEAL WITH IT by making things more efficient'. It's a fair conclusion (hell, the conservatives are kind of agreeing) that public services will HAVE TO suffer.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The eternal argument is of course how much 'excess beaurocracy' there is. Of course Labour say 'virtually none' -- the conservatives say 'it's rampant'. The trouble is, for you and me, it's actually nigh-on impossible to gauge realistically. So people start going off gut-feel. No-one really knows.

Yes they do. You could too - read the Public Accounts Committee reports, Tax Payers Alliance reports. It is all there for your viewing.

If they are too heavy going for your liking, read books like Squandered for well researched and condensed observations of such reports. (Be sure not to get one written by a Tory, and vice-versa, to ensure balance).

 

[Luseac]

Yea ok I'll stop doing that.

I think as a general rule it means worse public sector. I mean even if someone gets paid for a full time public sector job and does literally 10 minutes work a week -- if he is sacked (and the money just put in the government coffers) -- the public sector will be down 10 minutes work.

Surely you're not advocating paying someone a full time salary for doing 10 minutes work a week just because the government will be down on 10 minutes of "productivity"?

The eternal argument is of course how much 'excess beaurocracy' there is. Of course Labour say 'virtually none' -- the conservatives say 'it's rampant'. The trouble is, for you and me, it's actually nigh-on impossible to gauge realistically. So people start going off gut-feel. No-one really knows.

But there are ways to find this out, yes you or I can't really guage where excess fat needs to be trimmed. Personally I would start by looking at all the new positions created under New Labour and go from there.

By the way when the tories get in, they're not gonna know who is ripping them off benefits etc. any more than labour do -- they're just going to go for 'reduce them for everyone .. deserved or not'.

I don't think we will see a flatline reduction of benefits, hopefully more incentives to get people to work and not make it more worthwhile for someone to sit at home watching Sky than to go to work and earn the minimum wage.

 

[britboy4321]

Yes they do. You could too - read the Public Accounts Committee reports, Tax Payers Alliance reports. It is all there for your viewing.

If they are too heavy going for your liking, read books like Squandered for well researched and condensed observations of such reports. (Be sure not to get one written by a Tory, and vice-versa, to ensure balance).

I did as you asked and went straight onto the tax payers alliance website.

'Working to REDUCE TAXES' .. it is VERY clearly and obviously a right-wing organisation -- LOOK AT THEIR LIST OF HAND-SELECTED NEWS PIECES -- look at the newspapers they chose to quote.

You must admit -- this is a farce with regards to political neutrality .. at least admit that .. LOOK AT THE PAPERS they have on their homepage .. can you be intellectually honest enough to admit this is a politically biased, right wing organisation? I certainly hope so ..

Daily Telegraph: MPs’ maths guide `in style of a school text book’
Daily Telegraph: Police rake in £400 million from middle-class fines
Daily Mail: Minor 'crimes' of the middle classes raking in a £400m fortune for cash-hungry councils
Daily Mail Online: 'Barmy' Labour policy is driven by knee-jerk demands just to get through the day
Western Morning News: £6.4m to 'tidy up' Whitehall websites
Plymouth Herald: £6.4m to 'tidy up' Whitehall websites
Security Oracle: CCTV Is Money Well Spent, Says BSIA
SourceSecurity.com: CCTV Is Money Well Spent, Says BSIA

Over the weekend,

Mail on Sunday: FOR MPS STRUGGLING WITH THEIR EXPENSES ...THE MATHS GUIDE THAT'S 100% OBVIOUS
Sunday People: FLAT'S ABSURD
Sunday Times: Lowest-earning civil servants get 10% pay hike
Sunday Sun: COPS PAID £3M TO STAY HOME
Norfolk Advertiser: Anger over cost of police website
Norwich Evening News: Anger over cost of police website
Belfast Telegraph: Northern Ireland hospitals binned 380,000 uneaten meals in a year
ConservativeHome: Local Government: Mark Wallace: Councils spend £20 million translating documents
Farmers Weekly: 2020 Vision: What farming would be like outside the EU
Daily Telegraph: Local councils spend nearly £20m in a year translating documents
Daily Star: £20M TAXPAYERS MONEY SPENT ON TRANSLATING LANGUAGES
Daily Mail: 'Marriage made in hell' as Fred the Shred joins overspending


etc. etc. !!!! Lol?