Poll: 2nd Leaders debate - Live tonight at 8pm on BBC news and SKY news

Who will you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 50 9.0%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 245 43.9%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 227 40.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 36 6.5%
  • Total voters
    558
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
But there is no real thought to the actual consequences of the policies they have.

'We wont waste money on nuclear power, and we'll block coal power'

So what do they intend to do to ensure our energy security then? They don't mention anything credible, I doubt they even know - they dont NEED to know. All they need is the headline and the first paragraph.
 
I haven't read this particular election thread so apologies if this has been said before.

The way I see it is that Labour have had 13 years in government already, and there is little evidence to make me believe that they will tackle the issues that they have, themselves, compounded during their tenure. Labour is definitely not an option for me...

...which leaves either the Conservatives or the Lib Dems as having a real chance at being elected.

Having read the big three's policies, most of the Lib Dem's I don't agree with, and some of theirs are just downright bonkers - opposing Trident and Nuclear Power, and granting amnesty to illegal immigrants being their worst :confused:

That just leaves the Conservatives and to be fair, I think a good lot of their policies will be beneficial to our future than the other two parties combined.

It strikes me as odd that the first poll OcUK had on the elections put the Conservatives convincingly in the lead and, since the first debate, the Lid Dems have snatched the lead in the second OcUK poll. It just proves that people vote on the performances of a party leader by what they see on tv, than actually reading up on their policies and voting for what they believe in.

I won't deny that Conservatives will get my vote this election. I believe that the only way out of this Labour hole is a radical change for the good, which the Conservatives look to be in the best position to achieve.

Any vote other than Conservative will be a wasted vote imho, and a hung parliament will inevitably follow, causing a drawn out process further increasing the debt and delaying the onset of positive change to our country.
 
None of the policies have changed since the TV debate so the mass swing in voter intentions since the debate just highlights how bad democracy can be. Thousands of people voting on the strength of... what? Carisma? Who had the best haircut? Who sounded nicest on the day?

The policies, the real things that matter, have not changed!
 
That's what I said Fox. People just vote on how good the leader was on the 'magic box with moving pictures' than on their policies
 
It would be quite amusing if it wasn't such a serious issue.

As Sir Winston Churchill once said, 'The best arguement against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter' :(

People should sit down and spend some time familiarising themselves with the basic policies of the main parties. If they cannot be bothered to this, dont vote..
 
[TW]Fox;16430076 said:
But there is no real thought to the actual consequences of the policies they have.

'We wont waste money on nuclear power, and we'll block coal power'

So what do they intend to do to ensure our energy security then? They don't mention anything credible, I doubt they even know - they dont NEED to know. All they need is the headline and the first paragraph.
Click to expand...

We've been through this before Fox, do you really want me to go through it agian?

Energy for Dummies:
Power shortages in the UK are estimated to start as early as 2017, any new nuclear reactors starting construction now will not come online until at least 2020. The Lib Dems plan to fund renewable energy sources properly, with the wealth of wind and wave (and even solar) energy at our disposal it's stupid to think that all we're doing with it is putting a few tiny generators here and there. There are some real practical ideas that just aren't being considered.

I'd also like to remind you that it's likely that a large percentage of our electricity would now be coming from waves if the last Tory government hadn't ruined the whole project by making up some obscene figures.
 
Do you have a source that the UK's power can be sustainable without nuclear? And if it is, how much of can be done with renwable sources, or can all of it?
 
Superewza said:
We've been through this before Fox, do you really want me to go through it agian?

Energy for Dummies:
Power shortages in the UK are estimated to start as early as 2017, any new nuclear reactors starting construction now will not come online until at least 2020. The Lib Dems plan to fund renewable energy sources properly, with the wealth of wind and wave (and even solar) energy at our disposal it's stupid to think that all we're doing with it is putting a few tiny generators here and there. There are some real practical ideas that just aren't being considered.

I'd also like to remind you that it's likely that a large percentage of our electricity would now be coming from waves if the last Tory government hadn't ruined the whole project by making up some obscene figures.
Click to expand...


How do they suggest they are going to do this? Their manifesto states that we would be completely supplied by renewable sources by 2050, yet without Nuclear they do not specify how.

What are these practical ideas exactly?

Where is the evidence that we would be getting a significant proportion of our energy from waves, and what did the last Conservative Government do prior to 1997 to stop it?
 
stockhausen said:
What? You mean that a replacement for Trident should be included in the strategic defence review?
Click to expand...

The issue of the deterent has already been reviewed independently from a defence review. It would be pointless to do it again.

As has been stated before, Trident is actually the best and most cost efficent way of maintaining a deterent in some form.

The question is do we need a deterent or not?, this is something the Conservatives and Labour are clear about. The Liberals are not clear at all, they attempt to hide their opposition to a nuclear deterent by saying cheaper alternatives need to be considered. Well, they have been considered so it its not neccessary to do it again.
 
Gaidin109 said:
As has been stated before, Trident is actually the best and most cost efficent way of maintaining a deterent in some form.
.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of the top brass in the armed forces who don't agree with that statement. Personally I'd say they were probably more clued up on it than the politicians and would like to hear their ideas before blindly supporting whatever Brown or Cameron says.
 
stockhausen said:
What? You mean that a replacement for Trident should be included in the strategic defence review?
Click to expand...

No, i didnt say that, in fact i said the opposite that it is not necessary to include it as there is no alternative to trident. My above arguement which you quoted is about how i don't like the way nick clegg is so obsessed with saving a few pence from something that has such a key role in our defence and security. This has been discussed many times over the last few pages. What are you trying to achieve from your post it was rather pointless. :confused:
 
You don't need much military experience to understand that an 'always at sea' submarine based Nuclear missile system is far superior to any of the other options.

Everything else can be countered in one way or another, isn't as accurate and almost always has a far shorter range.

As for people supporting the Lib Dems due to the TV debates, this is almost surprising given that not that many people watched them. I guess most of the knowledge and support for Clegg comes not from the debates themselves, but from the media coverage of the debates afterwards.
 
Halfmad said:
There's a lot of the top brass in the armed forces who don't agree with that statement. Personally I'd say they were probably more clued up on it than the politicians and would like to hear their ideas before blindly supporting whatever Brown or Cameron says.
Click to expand...

Thats because the top brass who made those statements are Army/RAF and would rather have the money to spend on their service. Unfortunately this is what it has come to, in that the three services have to fight against each other for funding on their contracts.
 
Halfmad said:
There's a lot of the top brass in the armed forces who don't agree with that statement. Personally I'd say they were probably more clued up on it than the politicians and would like to hear their ideas before blindly supporting whatever Brown or Cameron says.
Click to expand...

There are also a significant amount of the Top Brass who agree with that statement also. Considering that the review was made with extensive consultation with the military.

In fact the ones who expressed concern like Gen Dannatt also stated that the decision to renew was the right one for now. What they were actually saying was that the review system needs to be held every 4-5 years instead of the current 10 and that the process should be military rather than political. The context of the usefullness of trident needs fo be seen within this framework.

The LibDems took the statement out of it's original context and used it to attack rival policy, when in fact the statement was about a range of military procurement projects and how the changing nature of operations needs a shorter review period much like the US system and not about the effectiveness of Trident in isolation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom