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

[Slam62]

Where do you think this country would be now, on the world stage, with major industries still entirely or at least part-nationalised?

We'd be flagging and spending ourselves into a hole (well, we did the latter anyway - but that is down to Labour incompetence).

I know of one major uk company that was nationalised to save it going down the pan. As a result, it was subsequently reprivatised and is now matching the best in the world and contributing millions to the economy.

The same should have been done to other industries instead of turing the life support off.

We don't really have anything else left.

As an economy we a bit of a joke tbh we are knowhere near as clever as we think we are. Our only real asset is stability of currency, but labour have done their best to knacker that, along with those excellent city boys.

Oh by the way the company was nationalised by the tories

 

[Dolph]

I know of one major uk company that was nationalised to save it going down the pan. As a result, it was subsequently reprivatised and is now matching the best in the world and contributing millions to the economy.

The same should have been done to other industries instead of turing the life support off.

The problem was the workers weren't prepared to take the medicine needed (see the mining industry for an example). Much of the industry under discussion was nationalised at the time, indeed nationalisation and the subsequent politicisation of the company, along with protection from economic reality, was the biggest problem. People made the mistake of going down the 'our way or the high way' approach then looked shocked when the country as a whole chose the high way.

We don't really have anything else left.

As an economy we a bit of a joke tbh we are knowhere near as clever as we think we are. Our only real asset is stability of currency, but labour have done their best to knacker that, along with those excellent city boys.

Oh by the way the company was nationalised by the tories

We could have been in a much better position with better fiscal policy prior to the recession, and less reliance on the state. Instead we had terrible fiscal policy and increased reliance on state spending funded by Borrowing.

 

[Ricochet J]

I love how Tory and Labour are squabbling over the economy. I'm yet to hear anything from their advertisement campaigns regarding:
- Transport infrastructure (esp railway)
- Housing
- Defence
- Crime and justice

Not that I'm not aware of what the two parties want to achieve on the above. It's interesting to note (which I'm sure you're all already aware off) this election will be won by the party who can convince people that they're good for our economy.

 

[Mr Jack]

No worse than the liberal democrats to be honest, because true liberalism and 'social' democracy tend not to gel that well, as their policies increasingly show. I'd love for the Lib dems to actually be liberal.

They are Liberal; what they're not is libertarian.

 

[Slam62]

The problem was the workers weren't prepared to take the medicine needed (see the mining industry for an example). Much of the industry under discussion was nationalised at the time, indeed nationalisation and the subsequent politicisation of the company, along with protection from economic reality, was the biggest problem. People made the mistake of going down the 'our way or the high way' approach then looked shocked when the country as a whole chose the high way.



We could have been in a much better position with better fiscal policy prior to the recession, and less reliance on the state. Instead we had terrible fiscal policy and increased reliance on state spending funded by Borrowing.

well yes, actually.

I don't think any of the parties are going to do anything sensible, indeed I don't think they have any room for maneuver. But I do think some of the tory ideas are daft and because Cameroon is so useless they miss an oportunity.

This election is the daftest for as long as I can remember.

 

[Dolph]

They are Liberal; what they're not is libertarian.

May I suggest you review the history of the Liberal party in the UK?

 

[PermaBanned]

Does anybody else think that age isn't necessary a good measure of who's mature enough to have the vote? How about everybody with a three figure IQ?

 

[Dolph]

well yes, actually.

I don't think any of the parties are going to do anything sensible, indeed I don't think they have any room for maneuver. But I do think some of the tory ideas are daft and because Cameroon is so useless they miss an oportunity.

This election is the daftest for as long as I can remember.

The election is a nightmare for the parties, no-one wants to hear the truth (that the country is screwed and we're going to have a very difficult few years to sort it out), hence all the lies. The Tories are being the most honest, and indeed I'm pretty sure the reason for the year's delay in Labour's budget reduction plans stems solely from the plan of saying 'I told you so' from opposition, even though the end results are going to be very very similar whichever party takes the reins (because the pressure is now coming externally, we can't afford to take the credit rating decrease and associated interest rate increases in the money markets).

Indeed, if I was Cameron, I'd be hoping to lose, just as Labour lucked out by losing in 1992... If labour get another term, and have to balance the budget, they are in real, real trouble as a party.

 

[Dolph]

Does anybody else think that age isn't necessary a good measure of who's mature enough to have the vote? How about everybody with a three figure IQ?

How about everyone with an IQ of over 150 in a certified test?

 

[PermaBanned]

How about everyone with an IQ of over 150 in a certified test?

Not too steep, i'd think 100 or more would be above average. People who know about politics and don't just put a random cross down.

 

[Dolph]

Not too steep, i'd think 100 or more would be above average. People who know about politics and don't just put a random cross down.

Intelligence is no guarantee of making a good decision, that's part of the problem.

I suppose you could do a Q&A document where you had to explain your reasons for voting in full...

 

[PermaBanned]

Intelligence is no guarantee of making a good decision, that's part of the problem.

I suppose you could do a Q&A document where you had to explain your reasons for voting in full...

But then somebody would have to analyse it, meaning they would have to be completely unbiased and 'good at decision making' themselves.

 

[Naffa]

The Tories are being the most honest,

Just out of interest, are you including the Liberal Democrats in that statement? Or just the Tories and Labour? It's just I've always felt a lot more comfortable taking what the LibDems say (and I don't just mean Cable) with a lot less salt than the likes of Labour and the Tories. I suppose that's one of the advantages of being the third party as well, there's far less pressure on you to actually produce policy if you're not the opposition.

 

[starfighter]

Do you not think that something that adds another layer of responsibility before the state gets involved in the event of unemployment etc is not worth a tax break?

I agree it is better to have someone to look after you than getting the state involved, but at the same time I live with my brother and a very good friend, if I became unemployed they would likely help me out as much as a "wife" would.

Significant other or not most people will probably claim benefit anyway. At least JSA.

If the benefits systems can be abused by people living in massive houses on their own and getting the rent paid or whatever the problem supposedly is then sort that out, don't punish people that for whatever reason aren't married but are potentially just as self reliant as those that are married.

bull ****

And stuff like this annoys me more than anything else, the pandering to irrational tradition. Rightly or wrongly I will probably vote Labour.

 

[Dolph]

Just out of interest, are you including the Liberal Democrats in that statement? Or just the Tories and Labour? It's just I've always felt a lot more comfortable taking what the LibDems say (and I don't just mean Cable) with a lot less salt than the likes of Labour and the Tories. I suppose that's one of the advantages of being the third party as well, there's far less pressure on you to actually produce policy if you're not the opposition.

I don't think the Lib Dems are being honest about the scale of the cuts to come either, and I do like Cable, and do like the lib dems, the problem is they have drifted too far away from the liberal part IMO to consider voting for them again. (I have done in the past). Their view of liberal at the moment is 'liberal about what we support', rather than liberal (see their position on things like the handgun ban, the gay B&B debate and so on). This makes their economic policies (including their constant punish the rich plan) much harder to swallow than the tories economic reform combined with their greater authoritarian tendancies (which are still significantly less than Labour's).

The problem is I should be a Lib dem voter, but they seem to have lost their way to populist authoritarian policies and only being liberal on matters where it is popular to do so. They have also begun leaning much more strongly towards a 'punish the rich' taxation approach, rather than a fair and equal one, which is also not very liberal.

I agree it is better to have someone to look after you than getting the state involved, but at the same time I live with my brother and a very good friend, if I became unemployed they would likely help me out as much as a "wife" would.

If the benefits systems can be abused by people living in massive houses on their own or whatever the problem supposedly is then sort that out, don''t punish people that for whatever reason aren't married but are potentially just as self reliant as those that are married.

bull ****

And stuff like this annoys me more than anything else, the pandering to irrational tradition. Rightly or wrongly I will probably vote Labour.

The difference is your brother isn't legally obliged to. You can't go to court and force your brother to support you, you could do that with your wife.

 

[RDM]

Just out of interest, are you including the Liberal Democrats in that statement? Or just the Tories and Labour? It's just I've always felt a lot more comfortable taking what the LibDems say (and I don't just mean Cable) with a lot less salt than the likes of Labour and the Tories. I suppose that's one of the advantages of being the third party as well, there's far less pressure on you to actually produce policy if you're not the opposition.

After the lying they did with regards to the EU referendum I wouldn't trust a word the Lib Dems say.

 

[Naffa]

After the lying they did with regards to the EU referendum I wouldn't trust a word the Lib Dems say.

It wasn't a lie, so much as an end to a campaign though, wasn't it?

It still doesn't compare to the Conservative and the Labour lies regarding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

 

[RDM]

It wasn't a lie, so much as an end to a campaign though, wasn't it?

It still doesn't compare to the Conservative and the Labour lies regarding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

All three parties promised a referendum on the EU Constitution in their manifestos. When it came to the vote on the Lisbon Treaty (which was almost exactly the same thing as both pro EU and anti EU people agree) the only party that (on the whole) kept to their promise was the Conservatives. There were enough Labour rebels who voted according to their manifesto promise that if the Lib Dems had held to their word there would have been a referendum. Now that Lisbon has been passed, a referendum would be pointless.

It isn't the fact that it was the EU (I am pretty much ambivilant to that issue) it was the fact that a party broke an easily kept manifesto promise. How can I trust what they write in their manifesto if they are unable to keep to their promises?

I am certainly mature enough to know that circumstances change and sometimes you cannot fulfil manifesto promises (for example having a referendum now as the treaty is ratified). However to go back on one which was easily doable is just not acceptable. If you knew you would be ideologically unable to commit to such a promise, then don't make it in the first place.

 

[Gideon Lorr]

I love how Tory and Labour are squabbling over the economy. I'm yet to hear anything from their advertisement campaigns regarding:
- Transport infrastructure (esp railway)
- Housing
- Defence
- Crime and justice

Not that I'm not aware of what the two parties want to achieve on the above. It's interesting to note (which I'm sure you're all already aware off) this election will be won by the party who can convince people that they're good for our economy.

As much as I see their positions on the economy as being very important, I know what you mean here. Just on defence, I'd like to know what are their positions on Trident (Lib Dems aside), and how will any planned spending cuts affect projects such as the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers? Hopefully this should change over the next week as manifestos began to be published, and the media get tired of rehashing the same few scant facts about the planned NI rise.

And I agree with the point here about the Lib Dems 'lets attack the rich tax plans'- whilst it will gain them votes with disgruntled Labour voters, it hardly fits in with the 'fair' tag line. Though saying that, no tax on the first £10,000 in earnings is a good step imo.

 

[starfighter]

The difference is your brother isn't legally obliged to. You can't go to court and force your brother to support you, you could do that with your wife.

That is the problem really, all these weird laws that affect one another. It needs to be simple.

Why should marriage have anything to do with the government or law anyway.

Just scrap the whole damn thing imho and leave it as an agreement between 2 people and perhaps God.

But then problems would occur with divorce settlements etc "If I hadn't been married I would have been working and a multi billionaire so I deserve 3/4 of the stuff".

Just be responsible for yourself and the almost inevitable relationship breakdown as it happens 90% of the time. A successful relationship is the unusual outcome so why is it a shock?


Assuming married couples get the same as unmarried couples benefits wise? So unless as a single person I get more benefits for my increased tax it is purely on the basis that a couple will look after their partner and claim less benefits.

Back in non tory reality married or not, people are going to claim all they can. Because everyone wants money and we all feel we deserve it. (even if it is just a vein attempt at clawing back some of the petrol tax etc)

I can't see someone taking their husband or wife to court really so while in theory it makes sense in reality it is just an unfair tax break for people that probably are better off than those without the break. (just thinking on average people that are married are older and likely more wealthy.)




Most agree tax in general is bad and should be reduced, some agree that taxing the rich more than the poor is bad and this is debatable but taxing the poor more than the rich. what psycho thinks that is a good idea? Cameron.