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

[Nzyme]

At the moment i can't make my mind up who to vote for as i truley believe not a single one of the options is right for this country.

My vote is going to be decided by the best economic policy and all the parties have some way of going on that before im convinced

 

[Tefal]

It's always interesting that if the "not voting" group ever got together and just picked any random party they would immediately propel them from the fringe to actually being a major party

 

[britboy4321]

oops

 

[britboy4321]

On here the conservatives have much more than 350% the votes of labour.

In 'real' polls the conservatives have 2% more votes than labour.

That's a bit wierd .. it ALSO seems the ultra-right/fascists always do particularly well on this board compared to other polls - again not really sure why .. my best guess is the age group and number of 'voters' who can't actually remember what the torys were like last time.

 

[dante6491]

OcUK is representative of those people capable of higher thought?

 

[britboy4321]

OcUK is representative of those people capable of higher thought?

Doubtful. 'Higher thought' than the third of the country that would vote labour? The people on here average - what - 22 years of age maybe? I think it's a 'young' thing, mainly from people that can't remember what happened the last time we let the tories in, and are generally well enough off to be building their own computers so are also well enough off (and healthy enough) not to have needed much state help ... and think inflation 15%, interest on your mortgage 15%, is some kind of urban myth!

 

[Naffa]

OcUK has had a very Conservative membership since I've been here.

 

[Dolph]

Doubtful. 'Higher thought' than the third of the country that would vote labour? The people on here average - what - 22 years of age maybe? I think it's a 'young' thing, mainly from people that can't remember what happened the last time we let the tories in, and are generally well enough off to be building their own computers so are also well enough off not to have needed much state help ... and think inflation 15%, interest on your mortgage 15%, is some kind of urban myth!

You appear to be forgetting the 25% inflation that the last Labour government left when it was kicked out... Not to mention the mass strikes, massive debts etc etc.

 

[Naffa]

You appear to be forgetting the 25% inflation that the last Labour government left when it was kicked out... Not to mention the mass strikes, massive debts etc etc.

I reiterate, we're no longer dealing with the Socialist Labour party, we're dealing with the New Labour party.

 

[britboy4321]

You appear to be forgetting the 25% inflation that the last Labour government left when it was kicked out... Not to mention the mass strikes, massive debts etc etc.

Indeed, I thought the last full year labour was in before Maggie, it was 8.3% inflation (then the conservatives came in and it straight away went up to 13.4% - wow they're great!)

But I guess this absolute proof of the fact on page 14 is, er, magically wrong

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf

Here are the years the elections happened, in case you forget ..

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm


(hint -- now you traditionally say something like 'Britboy that argument is 'ad marmite michigan momentus' therefore you are wrong. Which would be awesomely better than just saying 'yup Britboy you have just proven me entirely wrong. Again. I'm man enough to admit it faced with the total and complete proof you have provided. :\ )

 

[Dolph]

I reiterate, we're no longer dealing with the Socialist Labour party, we're dealing with the New Labour party.

And yet they have managed to make most of the same economic mistakes old Labour used to. Unmanageable debt, massively bloated state employment with little productivity, industrial relations up the spout, massive overspending...

And that's without mentioning the same authoritarian big government social tendencies that characterised both groups.

 

[Naffa]

And that's without mentioning the same authoritarian big government social tendencies that characterised both groups.

I'm assuming you're not familiar with the Old Labour constitution? State owned industry, redistribution, and bar the intervention with the banks, and the temporary suspension of the free market (which I put it to you, any party would have done), no particular examples of socialism come to mind.

 

[robgmun]

that is what i was trying to get at, New Labour just seems to much like old Labour to be called NuLabour anymore

 

[Naffa]

that is what i was trying to get at, New Labour just seems to much like old Labour to be called NuLabour anymore

Well, you sure have an interesting way of getting 'at it'.

Would you care to tell me how you've come to the conclusion that we're currently living under a socialist government?

 

[Dolph]

Indeed, I thought the last full year labour was in before Maggie, it was 8.3% inflation (then the conservatives came in and it straight away went up to 13.4% - wow they're great!)

But I guess this absolute proof of the fact on page 14 is, er, magically wrong

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf

Here are the years the elections happened, in case you forget ..

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm


(hint -- now you traditionally say something like 'Britboy that argument is 'ad marmite michigan momentus' therefore you are wrong. Which would be awesomely better than just saying 'yup Britboy you have just proven me entirely wrong. Again. I'm man enough to admit it faced with the total and complete proof you have provided. :\ )

Which party was in power in 1974-1979, just out of interest

 

[Dolph]

I'm assuming you're not familiar with the Old Labour constitution? State owned industry, redistribution, and bar the intervention with the banks, and the temporary suspension of the free market (which I put it to you, any party would have done), no particular examples of socialism come to mind.

I'd regard the perpetual increase in trapping the low paid in government dependency (via failure to raise tax bands in line with predecessors and the introduction of tax credits, and the continuing expansion of the opportunity gap that is bigger now than it ever was) as classic socialist policy...

The only thing really missing is that they didn't involve everyone in the race to the bottom, only their supporters.

 

[Naffa]

I'd regard the perpetual increase in trapping the low paid in government dependency (via failure to raise tax bands in line with predecessors and the introduction of tax credits, and the continuing expansion of the opportunity gap that is bigger now than it ever was) as classic socialist policy...

I must define socialism differently to yourself, because I certainly wouldn't categorise the widening of the class gap (via whatever means, and for whatever reason) as a 'classic socialist policy'. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Dolph]

I must define socialism differently to yourself, because I certainly wouldn't categorise the widening of the class gap (via whatever means, and for whatever reason) as a 'classic socialist policy'. Quite the opposite in fact.

The race to the bottom and into dependency is classic socialist policy. The only difference this time (as I said) is that Labour didn't inflict it quite on everyone...

State dependency is classic socialist policy, whether you like it or not. Plans and ideas to encourage and promote state dependency are classic socialist policy. Of course, it's normally presented with positive spin, but the end result is the same.

 

[Rich_L]

*drumroll*

Lord Ashcroft finally comes clean in 'non-dom' shocker...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8542744.stm

Conservative donor and deputy party chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he is "non-domiciled" for tax in the UK.

He said he agreed with David Cameron that anyone sitting in the Lords must be domiciled for tax purposes.

He said he expected "to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years to come", suggesting his status would change if the Tories win the election.

So, I can't really be bothered to trawl through the numerous times the Tories have confirmed that they were 'sure' he was meeting his obligations - does this mean he was lying all the time, or the Tories were engaging in a cover-up?

And why should we believe that 'his position will change' when he has supposedly been promising that for the last 10 years?

Equally, what does this mean for the millions he has been providing and his role in targeting the marginal seats, when he doesn't even pay tax in the UK? Whatever your position, blue or red, it can't be good when you have, to all intents and purposes, foreign entities influencing the election - representation without taxation?

Interesting to see how this plays out..

 

[sygitius]

Conservative