Poll: The Last Leaders Debate – Live tonight at 2030 BST on BBC One

Who will you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 67 11.8%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 231 40.7%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 227 40.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 42 7.4%
  • Total voters
    567
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hatter The Mad said:
The Guardian advocating a Lib Dem vote will help get the Tories in, surely?

Also, The Guardian is a very, exceptionally good paper. Are you going to cut your nose of to spite your face because of one article that says... "If the Guardian was voting, we'd vote Lib Dem"?

Do you never read anything that does not fully pertain to your existing views and prejudices? Is that healthy?
Click to expand...
I have several reasons, ultimately this is GD and it's my opinion.

However, I dislike passionately the effect the mass media is having on my age group - almost all of my peers are voting LibDem and can't tell me why. Newspaper support will only make that worse. LibDem's will make Little Britain littler.

And no it isn't healthy, but it's my money, and I'll choose to spend it elsewhere now.

Rich_L said:
Lol

If the Tories don't get a majority are you going to poke out your eyes :p
Click to expand...
It depends. But poking out everyone elses' eyes would be my first choice :D

Oh I'm not that bad (blue). Just humor me.
 
Interesting poll of 'economists' and assorted financial institutions and experts - make of that what you will, I suppose their opinions used to be respected, back in the day :p

Perhaps no surprise in seeing Osborne as the least preferred candidate for Treasury minister either (well, except Ed Balls but that's so unlikely it seems hardly worth mentioning :p )

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLNE63S03L20100429
 
Rich_L said:
Interesting poll of 'economists' and assorted financial institutions and experts - make of that what you will, I suppose their opinions used to be respected, back in the day :p
Click to expand...
“Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.”

(although Clarke will be/should be it)
 
naffa said:
Nick was hollow and awful last night, David was beyond pathetic (as I believe their respective parties) and Gordon easily put forward the best argument(s).

I'm pretty much decided, I'll be voting for the Labour party on Thursday.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you watched?
 
Efour2 said:
BS its time for "a" party to reform the system, take us out of the constant boom & bust cycle of this economic nightmare
Click to expand...

As long as there is capital markets, there will be boom and busts. The cycle will never cease. However, how bad the bust is in the future, can be addressed.

Bubbles always burst.
 
Haven't really read much of this thread, however I've just watched last nights news night and something is really getting on my ****. The issue of inheritance tax, specifically the Labour parties twisted interpretation of the facts.

The Labour party apparently believe the richest 3,000 people in this country are the only beneficiaries of the Tory plan to change the inheritance tax threshold. People like my father who has spent his whole life working his fingers to the bone, working 10 hour days, then 2 hours travel each way for 35 years. Providing for his own family and paying huge amounts of tax providing for others.

At 59 he is now fighting leukemia, and his days are numbered. He's not one of the 3,000 richest people in the country, far from it. However he will still face a substantial IHT bill under the current rules. He worked hard for his money, and it's unlikely he'll draw a pension which makes up a substantial portion of his estate. Is it really fair that people in that situation should loose their life savings to subsidies working tax credits?

The rules around IHT are well past their sell by date, and there are many people outside the richest 3,000 who are unfairly penalized. Why are the Tories wrong for suggesting this. Is it just another example of where the “rich” (people with any kind of provisions) are expected to pay for the countries mistakes?
 
Last edited:
meghatronic said:
However, I dislike passionately the effect the mass media is having on my age group - almost all of my peers are voting LibDem and can't tell me why. Newspaper support will only make that worse. LibDem's will make Little Britain littler.
Click to expand...
It's funny, my peer group is mostly highly educated professionals 25-40, most clustering around 30. Amongst those I know there is a massive swing towards the LibDems, and it's not because of the media presentation (many had decided before the debates started), it's because they've read the policies of the parties and broadly agree with the LibDems.
It's easier to categorise those you don't agree with as deluded or hoodwinked than consider the fact they may have taken as much time as you to inform themselves and come to a different conclusion.
 
bam0 said:
It's funny, my peer group is mostly highly educated professionals 25-40, most clustering around 30. Amongst those I know there is a massive swing towards the LibDems, and it's not because of the media presentation (many had decided before the debates started), it's because they've read the policies of the parties and broadly agree with the LibDems.
It's easier to categorise those you don't agree with as deluded or hoodwinked than consider the fact they may have taken as much time as you to inform themselves and come to a different conclusion.
Click to expand...


My peer group is made up of those 25-45, almost all highly educated professionals and Scientists. The Conservatives are the party of choice, mainly due to their policies, and disagreement with the LibDems on some of the anti-nuclear power and refusal to rule out a lowering of the 40% tax bracket to accommodate their £10000 pledge, along with their pledge of aggressive road pricing and local income taxes.

My point is that just because your group of friends and collegues broadly agree doesn't mean that anothers peer group is the same as yours. Meghatronic's peer group may very well have been influenced by the media furore rather than the actual manifesto pledges of the respective parties.
 
Gaidin109 said:
Funny how his statement was "80% of immigrants into the UK are from the EU".

Migrationwatch disagree with him, going so far as to say his claim is false. As you have not given any source information to back up your claim or the veracity of it, your statement has no credibilty. I would like to see that report before I believe what Clegg states as truth, especially as various other sources which I included disagree.

http://fullfact.org/articles/?catid=&id=56&sel=articlelist
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html

Have a look, Clegg poorly presented his statistics, but the BBC agree that a very tiny number of immigrants would be affected by Tory proposals.
 
Gaidin109 said:
My peer group is made up of those 25-45, almost all highly educated professionals and Scientists. The Conservatives are the party of choice, mainly due to their policies, and disagreement with the LibDems on some of the anti-nuclear power and refusal to rule out a lowering of the 40% tax bracket to accommodate their £10000 pledge, along with their pledge of aggressive road pricing and local income taxes.

My point is that just because your group of friends and collegues broadly agree doesn't mean that anothers peer group is the same as yours. Meghatronic's peer group may very well have been influenced by the media furore rather than the actual manifesto pledges of the respective parties.
Click to expand...

It wasn't about them agreeing, it was the point that people do read and consider these things before making a decision, the actual party chosen in my area is immaterial and maybe I shouldn't have bothered to mention it. To assume that his peer group is being swayed by the media towards the LibDems (a pretty risible proposition considering they don't have much outright media support) and expand that to other groups as he has implied in previous posts is arrogance.
 
Not to mention that no doubt a considerable number of 'well-educated professionals' see that a hung Parliament is the best (conceivably, only?) chance of getting meaningful voting reform for the future, as the only other party in the race, the Tories, have ruled out any change from FPP completely - so a hung Parliament and a deal with the LDs is the only feasible way that reform will arrive.

Added to the fact that economically, the LDs and the Tories aren't a million miles apart, you don't have to be a misinformed miscreant to vote LibDem, if anything voting for the Tories is a vote for the outdated FPP system which this election in particular, has shown to be pretty retarded in reflecting in government the views of the populace.
 
Last edited:
I think the reality of the situation is that if a hung parliament occurs, none of the Parties will be able to agree on a budget and that will kick off another election where a winner (probably the Tories) will gain an overall majority.

Our political parties are too divisive to create the sort of coalition Government we see in Europe, it didn't work in the 1970s and it won't now.
 
I don't know, I get the idea that the MPs and parties are far more co-operative and less divided than your average supporter of the respective parties - I'm sure if they decided to ignore their voters and get on with it, they could get plenty done :p
 
Rich_L said:
I don't know, I get the idea that the MPs and parties are far more co-operative and less divided than your average supporter of the respective parties - I'm sure if they decided to ignore their voters and get on with it, they could get plenty done :p
Click to expand...

You don't watch The Parliament Channel much then. There is little or no cooperation among the different parties, I wish there was, I would like to see a real coalition enshrining the best policies of each party. It won't happen though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom