Poll: which party are you going to vote in up coming elections?

Who will you be voting for?

  • Total voters
    1,249
Status
Not open for further replies.
estebanrey said:
The Greens, like UKIP, have some crazy policies when you actually read their manifesto.

* Stop/reverse all airport expansions and ban planes flying at night and well as banning all short-haul flights within the UK

* Reduce speed limits to 20 mph on all but main roads/A Roads and Motorways.

* Reduce motorway speed limit to 55 mph, reduce A Road speed limit to 40 mph.

* Support in principle a new north–south high-speed line, which would reduce the number of short-haul flights within the UK (This isn't crazy but given they've since opposed HS2 it just goes to show they can be Nick Cleggs too).

* Unlimited immigration even if it harms the economy.

* Increase over seas aid by 40%
Click to expand...
I agree some of the speed limit changes are silly/poorly thought out (in that changing the speed limit doesn't actually change drivers behaviour) - the studies suggest little difference in the accident rates but there is some leanings towards a decrease in the fatality rate (if the limits are observed).

What I don't like is the way manifestos make statements with a degree of certainty - what they should say is, "conduct a wide range study on speed limits & act accordingly based upon the data to reduce death rates in the UK".

The aid budget is very small to begin with, so a 40% increase isn't as much as it sounds. I agree some aspects are stupid, like any political party - but they are the only party remotely speaking the right language on say crime & punishment (rehabilitation focused), the decriminalisation of drugs etc.
 
elmarko said:
I agree some of the speed limit changes are silly/poorly thought out (in that changing the speed limit doesn't actually change drivers behaviour) - the studies suggest little difference in the accident rates but there is some leanings towards a decrease in the fatality rate (if the limits are observed).

What I don't like is the way manifestos make statements with a degree of certainty - what they should say is, "conduct a wide range study on speed limits & act accordingly based upon the data to reduce death rates in the UK".

The aid budget is very small to begin with, so a 40% increase isn't as much as it sounds. I agree some aspects are stupid, like any political party - but they are the only party remotely speaking the right language on say crime & punishment (rehabilitation focused), the decriminalisation of drugs etc.
Click to expand...

According to the political party questionnaire on here, we provide the 2nd largest amount of aid and the 6th largest as a % of GDP or something?

I agree with your comments, I've often wondered why there isn't a common sense party? One that looks at statistics/trends/whatever, listens to experts then makes informed decisions?

I guess such a party would never receive funding, plus they might be unpopular as most people only care about what makes their life better.
 
sigma said:
According to the political party questionnaire on here, we provide the 2nd largest amount of aid and the 6th largest as a % of GDP or something?

I agree with your comments, I've often wondered why there isn't a common sense party? One that looks at statistics/trends/whatever, listens to experts then makes informed decisions?

I guess such a party would never receive funding, plus they might be unpopular as most people only care about what makes their life better.
Click to expand...

I think that that sort of party would have to be an elected group of experts in various fields, who make scientific decisions. I'd support that to some extent.
 
JackG4 said:
Not bothered - UK economy is screwed regardless who's in power. Everyone just wants a party in force who won't introduce anything which will impact on them negatively and will give them a boost in life
Click to expand...

Screwed? I'm in France and that is screwed. The uk is absolutely cooking by comparison.
 
elmarko said:
I agree some of the speed limit changes are silly/poorly thought out (in that changing the speed limit doesn't actually change drivers behaviour) - the studies suggest little difference in the accident rates but there is some leanings towards a decrease in the fatality rate (if the limits are observed).

What I don't like is the way manifestos make statements with a degree of certainty - what they should say is, "conduct a wide range study on speed limits & act accordingly based upon the data to reduce death rates in the UK".

The aid budget is very small to begin with, so a 40% increase isn't as much as it sounds. I agree some aspects are stupid, like any political party - but they are the only party remotely speaking the right language on say crime & punishment (rehabilitation focused), the decriminalisation of drugs etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The speed limit stuff is not even that whacky when you actually look into it more detail. For example, in the US the speed limits on local roads are either 15 or 25mph so setting them to be 20MPH is not a big deal, other country like Holland do the same thing. 30MPH is really too fast for many local roads, and looking at the mortality rate for increasing speed it is clear that speeds below 30MPH would save lives. The issue is that people always tend to drive more than the limit or at the limit even when conditions dictate a slower speed. The mortality rate between 28MP and 35MPH is quite startling.

Even on freeways the 55 speed limit makes sense when you consider the reason which go far beyond safety. Fuel consumption and pollution increases exponentially at speeds above around 50MPH which is why in the past the US has made 55MPH a federal limit (e.g. last oil crisis). Really what the greens are proposing is methods to increase safety and reduce pollution from personal driving while simultaneously improving public transport options and making public transport more viable and attractive.
 
sigma said:
According to the political party questionnaire on here, we provide the 2nd largest amount of aid and the 6th largest as a % of GDP or something?.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but a 40% increase is 1.4% of budget to 1.96% of budget (an increase of £4.12 billion per year).

While it sounds a huge amount on paper, in reality it's not that much - the aid would also most likely be used with a much higher degree of scrutiny (not wasted on nations which don't need it).

sigma said:
I agree with your comments, I've often wondered why there isn't a common sense party? One that looks at statistics/trends/whatever, listens to experts then makes informed decisions?

I guess such a party would never receive funding, plus they might be unpopular as most people only care about what makes their life better.
Click to expand...
Well, not a common sense party I'd say - as common sense is usually at odds with the evidence - just a party which follows the evidence & ensures all polices are sense checked with reality before committing to anything.

The Green Party have a wet hippy element I frankly can't stand, but I hate them less than the rest of the political landscape, for me no party exists which represents my views.

D.P. said:
Agreed.

The speed limit stuff is not even that whacky when you actually look into it more detail. For example, in the US the speed limits on local roads are either 15 or 25mph so setting them to be 20MPH is not a big deal, other country like Holland do the same thing. 30MPH is really too fast for many local roads, and looking at the mortality rate for increasing speed it is clear that speeds below 30MPH would save lives. The issue is that people always tend to drive more than the limit or at the limit even when conditions dictate a slower speed. The mortality rate between 28MP and 35MPH is quite startling.

Even on freeways the 55 speed limit makes sense when you consider the reason which go far beyond safety. Fuel consumption and pollution increases exponentially at speeds above around 50MPH which is why in the past the US has made 55MPH a federal limit (e.g. last oil crisis). Really what the greens are proposing is methods to increase safety and reduce pollution from personal driving while simultaneously improving public transport options and making public transport more viable and attractive.
Click to expand...
Yup, it's not a policy you can really look at in isolation.

The 20mph mentioned was regarding built up areas & villages (which implies residential zones, which frankly I agree with if you look at the data regarding 20/30mpg survival rates for pedestrians hit).
 
Last edited:
Please can we stop discussing taking the speed limit down to 20 mph! Most cars are at 20 mph before you've even started accelerating properly!!

Edit: I was intending to vote Green or Lib Dem, but I think that this thread has made my mind up. Even though it's contradictory to my previous post, I definitely do not want to drive around at 20 mph and that puts me off sufficiently.
 
Last edited:
dirtychinchilla said:
Please can we stop discussing taking the speed limit down to 20 mph! Most cars are at 20 mph before you've even started accelerating properly!!
Click to expand...
:D

Personally I'd only advocate it in residential zones, once you get onto a normal road outside of the housing estates the current limit is fine.
 
She said: ‘The direction in which the party is going is terrifying. This week I decided to leave the party and I will abstain from voting in the upcoming European elections. I urge other Ukip supporters to do the same.

‘Ukip is exploiting the stupidity of ignorant anti-immigrant voters for electoral gain. While the party deliberately attracts the racist vote, I refuse to be associated with them.’
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rising-star-quits-terrifying-lurch-right.html

A source UKIP voters can trust.
 
Last edited:
tHGqzHR.png


Apparently this means I'm an absolute hero. Who knew!
 
Nitefly said:
tHGqzHR.png


Apparently this means I'm an absolute hero. Who knew!
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I had always thought of myself as being to the "right" of the spectrum, However, I am actually just as "Left" as you but "Above" the horizon by as much as you are below it (IYSWIM)

However, (As is always the case in these sorts of test) I found myself having difficulties with many of the questions because I was not able to answer them in the way I wanted to!

(EG, I am perhaps more libertarian than my "Official" result might suggest, however I also (Perhaps reluctantly) recognise that a degree of authoritarianism is a necessary evil for organised societies to survive and thrive!)

Ho Humm! :/
 
pcgraphpng.php


I always feel political compass gives an inaccurate view of my position. If it gave a more accurate weighting to certain questions...well, we would be here all day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom