Poll: New poll on who you will vote for?

[Haiku]

My vote my choice

Quite so, but like it or not, people will judge you on that choice.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Its a protest vote, they will not get any seats (my area is Tory strong hold)

Immigration needs to be sorted out before the "Thugs" sort it out.

Ok, you're still aligning yourself with racists and supremacists though

Like I said, good to know who these kinds of people are.

 

[Narj]

You know what, I've spent a bit of time reading many of the parties' manifestos over the past few days. As a conservative voter (but quite liberal at heart), I really like a lot of the LibDem policies, however, I can't see myself voting for them unless they change quite a few of them... For example, just a couple I can pick out are the ones on:

- Illegal immigrant amnesty
- Nuclear Power (the power issue has been ignored too long and we need a solution - fast)
- Nuclear deterrent (sorry, we don't live in an ideal world)
- Cutting higher rate tax relief on pension payments

I can't help thinking the LibDems just don't have the experience or expertise to cut the mustard in government, and would also be worried that a vote for them could end up in a potential Lib/Lab coalition, I really want no more of Brown, thanks very much.

Considering that the LibDems are opposed to state intervention and support civil liberties, they seem to be quite at odds with Labour. Not sure if they would ever agree on anything.

 

[Duke]

I still don't know why it isn't a law to vote (Australia). They can always spoil it if they want.

Or at least make it a public holiday so people are more likely to vote.

 

[meghatronic]

Or at least make it a public holiday so people are more likely to vote.

Won't they be more likely to stay at home though? Postal votes aren't exactly hard! The number of people I know that "can't be bothered" is shocking. Although most of them like LibDem (again - they can't be bothered to read the policies), so no bad thing*!


*the fact they'd vote uninformed

 

[eatcustard]

Ok, you're still aligning yourself with racists and supremacists though

Like I said, good to know who these kinds of people are.

Whatever

 

[Narj]

Whatever

If the mainstream parties actually had the balls to tackle the immigration issue then there would be no need for the BNP. I wouldn't feel guilty about using it as a protest vote, although I'd prefer to vote UKIP in this case if it were me.

 

[Berserker]

£2500 Bonus cap - See above. But also, 2.5k isnt an unreasonable amount for someone even on an average wage to accumulate.

£1000 Capital gains tax - Will take a big cut from a lot of people. Certainly in my work sector a lot of companies give stocks/shares over cash bonuses etc. so this could really hit me.

Two more reasons why I've had the turn-off from LD. Never had a bonus that big, but I've certainly breached £1,000 capital gains several times. I participate in SAYE - as do a lot of people where I work. Just regular workers. Why should we get clobbered for our employer's success (which is, of course, our success).

 

[eatcustard]

If the mainstream parties actually had the balls to tackle the immigration issue then there would be no need for the BNP. I wouldn't feel guilty about using it as a protest vote, although I'd prefer to vote UKIP in this case if it were me.

So very true.

 

[Strife212]

Problem with protest votes in this country is that it literally means **** all, there is no hope in hell of them winning the seat so it's a totally wasted vote.

 

[joeyjojo]

I had a huge reply but hit back by mistake DAMN. Briefly:

Nuclear is not as clean as you might think. It takes a lot of energy to mine/process/recycle/transport the ore and to build the plant. Also uranium reserves are finite, timescales might be 100-1000 years, but this still puts us in a peak-oil situation as we are having now with fossil fuels. And finally nuclear waste is still a problem. This link puts nuclear at 2-14 times more CO2 compared to renewable.

And being 100% powered by renewable energy is perfectly feasible, and only a little more expensive than replacing existing/building new fossil fuel/nuclear plants. There are loads of studies on this, eg. first link in google Europe Could Go 100% Renewable By 2050.

I would be voting Green if we had proportional representation. Until then Lib Dem, as they propose PR.

 

[Tombstone]

Until then Lib Dem, as they propose PR.

I suppose though that the trouble there is that as its almost cosmically unlikely that Lib Dem will get in, whether they propose PR or not is somewhat irrelevant as they wont get the chance to actually instate it.

 

[snowdog]

I had a huge reply but hit back by mistake DAMN. Briefly:

Nuclear is not as clean as you might think. It takes a lot of energy to mine/process/recycle/transport the ore and to build the plant. Also uranium reserves are finite, timescales might be 100-1000 years, but this still puts us in a peak-oil situation as we are having now with fossil fuels. And finally nuclear waste is still a problem. This link puts nuclear at 2-14 times more CO2 compared to renewable.

So ?

I don't think CO2 is a problem.

And being 100% powered by renewable energy is perfectly feasible, and only a little more expensive than replacing existing/building new fossil fuel/nuclear plants. There are loads of studies on this, eg. first link in google Europe Could Go 100% Renewable By 2050.

I would be voting Green if we had proportional representation. Until then Lib Dem, as they propose PR.

Only a little more expensive? I doubt that... But it's still more expensive, cheaper= better in my eyes...

 

[krooton]

Does anyone happen to know which party wants to cut/get rid of Connexions Key Workers and other youth worker organisations?

 

[Glaucus]

I had a huge reply but hit back by mistake DAMN. Briefly:

Nuclear is not as clean as you might think. It takes a lot of energy to mine/process/recycle/transport the ore and to build the plant. Also uranium reserves are finite, timescales might be 100-1000 years, but this still puts us in a peak-oil situation as we are having now with fossil fuels. And finally nuclear waste is still a problem. This link puts nuclear at 2-14 times more CO2 compared to renewable.

And being 100% powered by renewable energy is perfectly feasible, and only a little more expensive than replacing existing/building new fossil fuel/nuclear plants. There are loads of studies on this, eg. first link in google Europe Could Go 100% Renewable By 2050.

I would be voting Green if we had proportional representation. Until then Lib Dem, as they propose PR.

Yes it is possible to go renewable, but not cost effective in teh immediate future. It's not jsut building renewable sources. It would need a complete re-working of the national grid and a intercontinental, it also means the whole of europe and parts of Africa to work together on a scale never seen before.
Nuclear is good for millennia and not thousands of years, Fast breeder reactors produce minuscule amounts of waste and use current waste as fuel. They are an ideal solution for the immediate future.

That is also only taking into account current electrical usage and not oil usage as well. The amount of electricity we will use will go up hundreads of times as we replace oil with electrical.

 

[Lunatic Dreyfus]

Still going to vote Lib Dem. Though with our resident Tory's majority, it'll be utterly pointless.

Maybe the PR brigade do have a point after all.

 

[joeyjojo]

I don't think CO2 is a problem.

CO2 is a problem. Graph. Graph. Link. Link. Blah blah blah

But it's still more expensive, cheaper= better in my eyes...

Brilliantly illustrative quote! I believe that this attitude is the biggest cause of human problems.

By only looking at the price tag you miss the "actual" cost of the thing.

You might be aware of how palm oil can be very cheaply acquired for things like chocolate bars, but usually results in destruction of huge areas of rainforest. Since it is the "cheapest=best" way, Nestlé (real example) do it like that, and are under huge fire from Greenpeace.

Or an example you might not have seen - the Passenger Pigeon. It was one of the most abundant birds in the world in the 19th century at 3-5 BILLION. They also were easily caught and were a very "cheap=good" source of meat. Within 100 years they were totally extinct, eaten to extinction by humans. The world's last passenger pigeon died in 1914.

The "cheapest=best" clothes were probably made by the most repressed people in the world.

The "cheapest=best" food probably has the most chemicals/pesticides/GM in it. The "cheapest=best" meat was the most cruely grown.

There are probably thousands of examples.

Just remember there are as many ways to perceive worth as you can think of yourself. Maybe choose one which isn't just the price tag in GBP.

/Rant

 

[joeyjojo]

Yes it is possible to go renewable, but not cost effective in teh immediate future. It's not jsut building renewable sources. It would need a complete re-working of the national grid and a intercontinental, it also means the whole of europe and parts of Africa to work together on a scale never seen before.

Reworking the national grid is on the way anyway, I think all the major parties mention it somewhere. And intercontinental cooperation - what a magnificent idea! So, we have a worldwide problem of energy consumption, affecting all of us humans together (not just the Brits, French, Americans, Chinese any more, humans!) and all the other species too (much more so in fact!), then global cooperation is surely the best solution to a global problem.

Nuclear is good for millennia and not thousands of years, Fast breeder reactors produce minuscule amounts of waste and use current waste as fuel. They are an ideal solution for the immediate future.

I've read up on breeder reactors. Brilliant idea. Very much for.

That is also only taking into account current electrical usage and not oil usage as well. The amount of electricity we will use will go up hundreads of times as we replace oil with electrical.

The electricity usage will go up, but the total power usage will go down. Such a system is much more efficient.

 

[Luseac]

Still Conservative, the "tax the rich" mentality of the Lib dems puts me off. Not to mention the fact that they wouldn't buy any more Eurofighters or replace trident. The 'Cheap and effective' alternative to trident is free-fall bombs, such devices are no longer credible delivery vehicles. It therefore seems the Lib Dems need to have professional advice before they get involved in the nuances of nuclear strategy and delivery options.

 

[Mr Jack]

I suppose though that the trouble there is that as its almost cosmically unlikely that Lib Dem will get in, whether they propose PR or not is somewhat irrelevant as they wont get the chance to actually instate it.

This is wrong on two counts: firstly, it's no longer "comically unlikely" that the Lib Dems will get in - in fact, some polls put them in the lead - for the first time in my lifetime there is a choice other than the rock of Labour and Hard Place of the Tories. Secondly, even if the Libs don't win a hung parliament is much more likely than a win for either Labour or Conservatives and you can bet than PR will be among the price of getting Lib Dem support.

We will have some kind of PR system at the next general election one way or the other.