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

[britboy4321]

I thought about responding for the benefit of anyone just tuning in. However, my signature serves to discredit all of your inane rambling.

Indeed probably best for you to leave it at this stage .. the not knowing what a public service is was a killer to be honest. Ok, nice debating .. next thread.

 

[Rich_L]

Interesting article from the head of the IMF

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8464774.stm

Seems to endorse continuing government spending until the economy looks more robust and then focusing on paying back the debt. The question being, the Tories have set out their store to cut spending regardless of the economic conditions it seems - would that be such a good idea?

 

[RDM]

I just said this to my 5 year old neice ..



'There are 2 men -- one get as a service a biscuit every year. The other one does not. Do they end up with the same number of biscuits?'

She actually disagreed with your answer of 'They end up with the same'.


Kids eh?

Please don't have children yourself, for their sake.

 

[Naffa]

Interesting article from the head of the IMF

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8464774.stm

Seems to endorse continuing government spending until the economy looks more robust and then focusing on paying back the debt. The question being, the Tories have set out their store to cut spending regardless of the economic conditions it seems - would that be such a good idea?

I've always been of the opinion that the fiscal stimulus should remain, and the deficit should not be reduced until the economy is a healthy state of growth, ideally a boom. I think cutting spending now would be an absolute disaster and endanger our recover, I can also name several esteemed economists that agree with that view point.

 

[rodo]

Why the **** are 44% of you voting for David Cameron.....Please READ BOOKS. DONT WATCH TV YOU MASSIVE F-ING FOOLS.

At least be constructive and elaborate. I don't know which books you want me to read

 

[dirtydog]

Interesting article from the head of the IMF

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8464774.stm

Seems to endorse continuing government spending until the economy looks more robust and then focusing on paying back the debt. The question being, the Tories have set out their store to cut spending regardless of the economic conditions it seems - would that be such a good idea?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...le-our-MPs-are-still-pussyfooting-around.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...telling-us-the-truth-about-spending-cuts.html

 

[seldNofSparta]

At least be constructive and elaborate. I don't know which books you want me to read

The Tory Party: defending the rich and attacking the poor since 1678.

 

[robgmun]

I just said this to my 5 year old neice ..



'There are 2 men -- one get as a service a biscuit every year. The other one does not. Do they end up with the same number of biscuits?'

She actually disagreed with your answer of 'They end up with the same'.


Kids eh?

Jesus H Christ, now you resorted to obtaining goverment policy from a 5 year old

, still, she probably do a better job than GB

Read this, read the comments too http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/01/middleclass_war.html

 

[Raumarik]

Still not sure who I'll vote for, but frankly I have a feeling we'll be replacing Gordon Brown with the next PM anyway, it's just the same old garbage. I'd love for us to have a PM to run the country based on long term goals and investment rather than headlines.

 

[Will Lucky]

Why the **** are 44% of you voting for David Cameron.....Please READ BOOKS. DONT WATCH TV YOU MASSIVE F-ING FOOLS.

Could be worse, could be 44% voting for Brown .

 

[anything I don't mind]

you know about common purpose or fabian society ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594#

also check out john harris on freeman and the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k



maybe you think the political elections is like american idol or x idol or whatever it is called. you think you are voting in a tv show

edit: also learn about austrian economics, mises.org and peter schiff, ron paul from america

 

[SlugForAButt]

The Tory Party: defending the rich and attacking the poor since 1678.

Oh dear... You want to swap adverts. That's sweet. Although I think mine has been proved true, don't you?

I'd rather that than Labours record of attack the workers to subsidise the shirkers. I thought Labour was a working man's party?

Unfortunately, we need a Tory government to sort out the mess left by Labour Government again.

The country was bankrupt, run by the unions and behind the rest of Europe when Callaghan left office in 79. You can Wiki it as much as you want, but if you can't remember it then it will mean nothing to you. Britain going cap in hand to the IMF to borrow money because we were so broke.

The Tories put this country back on it's feet again. dragged it kicking and screaming into the back end of the 20th century and made us profitable by kicking the unions into touch (self serving spongers). I don't care if this isn't your politics, this is FACT.

Skip on 30 years. The country is bankrupt, run by the unions and last out of recession and under Labour again (sound familiar?)

Maybe I'll actually go for UKIP instead, as the Tories are shuffling to the centre ground when this country needs a complete cleanout again.

But anyways seldNofSparta, enjoy your few years of freedom. When you are paying big tax and you have kids to worry about then you'll change.
Like most of us did.

 

[Naffa]

People tend to forget that it's thanks to Fabianism and social democracy (socialism) that our NHS exists. A product of the left wing which even Lady Thatcher dared to touch.

Even with all of the blunder and incompetence, there's always one thing that will keep me voting for Labour (as far as I can see), and that thing is David Cameron. How anybody could want him as our leader is beyond me....

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Naffa

You are yet to give any credible reasoning as to why you think Cameron is a worse choice than Brown/Labour

 

[Prof. Cheese]

Greens.

 

[Naffa]

Naffa

You are yet to give any credible reasoning as to why you think Cameron is a worse choice than Brown/Labour

Are you serious? I've listed several arguments, from the economy to his class.

You remind me of the lady Richard Dawkins debates about evolution vs creationism, she kept saying "There's no evidence for evolution" and Dawkins replied "Yes there is, it's ******" then ten minutes later she'd say "There's no evidence."

I'm always mindful of substance and try to back up what I say and feel with fact and evidence, I believe I've done so in this thread, thus far.

EDIT: I haven't even gone into foreign policy, which I think is Cameron's biggest shortcoming. That and other issues he's essentially policyless on such as energy.

EDIT: I just re-read your question, are you referring specifically to leadership, ie Cameron vs Brown? Or the parties as a whole, ie Labour vs Conservatives?

 

[drunkenmaster]

No it's not. The debt is owned by the government/treasury, not the public. Honestly!

If you reduce the money going into the public sector to do whatever -- the public sector will inevitably become worse until you start re-investing.

We're 29 pages in .. and you don't get that yet? The thing is -- if you refuse to budge an inch -- then I just say blatently obvious stuff knowing you'll disagree and look silly.

It makes my life very easy in discrediting you when I know you won't even accept that a lower budget into public services will affect the public services!!

You're wrong, you can both CUT spending and IMPROVE services if you put the money you have to more effective use. Knowing a tonne of people in various area's in the NHS every single one of them could name a different dozen people who do absolutely nothing at work, aren't required, could be fired without the need to replace, give those people working hard a pay increase AND cut spending in one go all while increasing the effectiveness of the departments(all departments) because every single one of them ends up waiting on files these people simply aren't processing, which slows everyone up and causes those who are working hard to spend precious time and effort running around tracking down files in inboxes that should have long since been processed.

This is maybe the worst effected in accounting departments where payments go missing for weeks, people overpay and don't chase up the extra payments to get them back and money quite literally goes missing for long periods of time. THe best employee's make mistakes, those barely paying attention in a job thats not required that they can't be fired from without an incredibly lengthy tribunal(due to the difficultly of firing useless staff in the public sector) means their mistakes cost a LOT of money.

Yes, you most certainly and without question can improve services and cut spending, anyone who thinks thats wrong, doesn't understand why this country is going down the tube. The answer is Labour hiding unemployment levels by creating quite literally 100k's of pointless jobs in the public sector. They've been doing it for years, the NHS is the single biggest employer in the UK, and it could cut 1/4 of its staff, all being paper pushers, redirect the funds with a decent cut and improve services and increase number of doctors and nurses and required staff.

 

[drunkenmaster]

The Tory Party: defending the rich and attacking the poor since 1678.

Just so you can maybe understand how the economy works. The rich pay more tax AND have MORE OPTIONS than the poor. If you attack the rich, they have the option to go and make more elsewhere, they leave, and in doing so take a disproportionate amount of tax with them. With no one to replace them the poor are FAR FAR worse off. Because the rich pay for the majority of the tax in this country, harming them harms the poor MORE THAN protecting the rich.

Protect the rich by offering them a 1% cut in tax, and say thats on someone who makes 1million a year and used to pay £500k in tax, which is what, 60times the average? With a tax cut for them, of 1%, they'd be paying, £495k tax a year, so 59 times the national average.

Scare that rich person off with a 1% tax increase, and lose the entire 500k in tax when they leave the country.

Now honestly which sounds better to you, 60 peoples tax contributions completely evapourating, or losing 1 persons tax contribution?

The situation only gets worse the more the rich people make.

Protecting the RICH PROTECTS THE DAMN POOR, and the quicker Labour loving people recognise that without the rich paying a ludicrous level more tax than the poor, this entire country would fail, within days.

Other countries around the world fight to KEEP jobs and industry by offering tax breaks and incentives, because a tiny tax cut, to keep 98% of their tax income, is far better than losing the entire 100%.

Protect the rich and the poor are better off, a tax on the rich is a ten fold tax on the poor long term.

If that original person who was paying 60 peoples tax contribution left, then 60 POOR people would need to pay DOUBLE their level of tax to make up the shortfall. So one rich person leaves because of a stupid tax hike, and 60 poor people make up the difference.

How people don't know this and think attacking the rich is a great idea, is beyond me.

 

[Fiocca]

Probably won't vote. I know that means i shouldn't moan in future but tbh they all seem the same to me. Only way there could be change is if everyone came together but most of the population are morons so i can't see that happening.

Infact i'm probably one of those morons lol.

 

[Dolph]

I am utterly amazed at the complete failure of some to understand basic economics and efficiency shown in this thread, it is truly terrifying. At least is shows Labour are not alone though...