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.
Robot Dog said:
Should i be alarmed by the amount Labour have gained. Can you imagine Ed Miliband leading the country
Click to expand...

Everytime labour have got in since the 1970s they have wrecked the economy. I shudder to think what they would do this time. it genuinely worries me.
 
[TW]Fox;26358571 said:
I addressed this point earlier:

One important thing to bear in mind is that those who have made a decision that they agree with and support UKIP are far more likely to vote in the first place - they've got an opinion on Europe and Politics. Whereas those who didn't bother to vote are likely not UKIP supporters for the same reason.

I suspect we'll never be able to get such figures but if you looked out at the turnout as a percentage of people who support each party, UKIP would have a huge percentage turnout.

Which means its fairly accurate to say that support in the UK for UKIP is probably pretty close to the 30% of the 30% who voted..
Click to expand...

Yup, my other half despaired at the outcome of these elections and that pro UKIP people are claiming that "the British public have spoken and this is what they want", much like some of the people in this thread are doing too(I'd dare call them fanboys by the way they are acting!). I explained to my GF exactly how you put it, UKIP supporters were simply motivated to go vote, most people were not. If we had 100% turnout, the results would be different. I also think a lot of people just don't actually care unfortunately, they have no interest in politics, or having a say and voting. However, I would bet that if we were to ask those people on their views on matters, we would find that they fall in line with those that are Conservative, Liberal or Labour.

UKIP supporters cannot deny the point that the party has had success in the election because their supporters actually turned up to vote. It does not mean that the views of the entire nation have been represented correctly. Any one wishing to argue that matter is deluded.
 
Mr Jack said:
But we know from polling that they had the support of around 30% of the population too. It's not just vote data we have to go on.
Click to expand...

Um, no. No vote, no say. 30% of 30% is a whopping 9%. The bigger problem is voter apathy. We live in a republic not a democracy, and sleazy politicians started serving their own interests years ago.

I am fairly politically engaged, and I since moving to the area a year ago, I still have no idea who my mp is. That's how ****** up things have become.
 
Last edited:
Westyfield2 said:
Homophobia, noun: An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality.​
Click to expand...

I would say having a major problem with homosexual couples using the same word for their union as straight couple is pretty irrational, and switching your voting allegiance to a party who've made a policy to stop/reverse it is quite extreme.

Westyfield2 said:
Not supporting the redefinition of marriage does not make someone homophobic. Especially when we've already got legislation for Civil Partnerships. (But a policy of "all gays should be stoned to death" would have course be homophobic). To be homophobic someone must have in their heart a true hate of gays, but if they accept them for who they are and only disagree with the 'issue' of marriage, that makes them either a traditionalist or very religious.
Click to expand...

Utter B.S.

Being homophobic isn't as binary as you make out, you can be strongly homophobic, weakly homophobic or even selectively homophobic.

By your logic someone who has no intrinsic hatred of black people and doesn't want them all killed can support slavery and not be a racist (they are a 'traditionalist' and the Bible condones it after all).

It's cop out, there are no rational reasons to oppose gay people being able to call their union a 'marriage', only homophobic ones veiled under the cloak of religion or tradition.

The religious argument doesn't hold water given most religious people, especially Christians, are more than happy to ignore the majority of their holy texts. I'll take the argument "I'm against gay marriage because of what it says in the Bible" seriously when that same person stops shopping on Sundays. Corinthians forbids women speaking church, so it's ironic seeing a female congregation member using holy texts in one to denounce gay marriage.

One's personal morals are just that, personal. Built from a lifetime of experiences and have little to do with scripture. People just fit the text to match what they already believe and opposing gay marriage has far more to do with their personal feelings on gay relationship than their respect for the wisdom of the Bible.

Saying you're against it because you're a traditionalist doesn't work either. I don't like change because I'm a person who doesn't like change doesn't really rationally explore the issue and isn't a valid reason to deny someone else equal rights.

Westyfield2 said:
IIRC anyways wasn't Farage's comments more along the lines of "Its not the job of government to define marriage"
Click to expand...

Which shows his historical and legal ignorance then. The ruling monarchs and governments of yesteryear have 'redefined' marriage on numerous occasions. It wasn't that long ago that only Christian marriages were recognised.

Marriage is a legal term, it does not belong to the Church (it predates Christianity for a start) or traditionalists. It's an institution which affects the tax system, adoption, benefits and inheritance law. If it's not the government's job to address something as influential on their monetary systems as marriage is I don't know whose it is.
 
Last edited:
MrMoonX said:
How do you know who I voted for? How do u know I didn't spoil by writing ukip are racist on my ballot, or Cameron, clegg, milliband etc. is a ****
Click to expand...

1401209186.gif
 
Robot Dog said:
Should i be alarmed by the amount Labour have gained. Can you imagine Ed Miliband leading the country
Click to expand...

You tend to find the main opposition gain seats against the incumbent in any election preceding a general election. Not always but a large amount of the time so an upswing in itself is not a huge concern.

Hades said:
Everytime labour have got in since the 1970s they have wrecked the economy. I shudder to think what they would do this time. it genuinely worries me.
Click to expand...

It's almost cyclical, people hate reality (conservatives) vote fantasy and the mystical excess for all Labour always promise and then when they've screwed is people realise their error. Sadly it happens again and again.
 
[TW]Fox;26359041 said:
surely you agree there is some merit in the idea that those who have engaged with UKIP enough to decide to support them are probably more likely to then make the effort to go out and effect the change they want by actually voting?
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, a lot of stereotypical benefit claimants are unlikely to get off their arses and vote. We're in 2014 where a lot of the "social underclass" actually think that clicking the "like" button on facebook actually achieves something. As for their political persuasions, well, it's going to be split according to whatever newspapers they read or whatever their mates down the pub think. A lot of people who were very politically vocal in my local never actually bothered to go to the polling station and that was a pretty even split between parties.

V F said:
Imagine the thought. Everything undone and back to where we started. Never getting out of the recession. 4/5 years getting on track ever so slowly and another 4/5 undone.

Imagine the thought of Ed Balls as well in power.
Click to expand...

I'm a Tory voter and don't like the current government, however I'd like to see their plans brought to their conclusion to see if they actually work. Short term pain is necessary IMO because Labour sold us down the river and didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining. I still strongly disapprove with the implementation of some of the Conservative policies so can't say I'm upset to see them get a kick in the nuts. :p

I'd really like to see a change in the political system following the next election, though. Many of us are fed up with the same old continuous cycle time after time. Watching the interviews that are peddling the same old platitudes that we've heard for decades makes me angry. It's about time they learned that they work for us, not the other way around.

I'm actually starting to think that not voting for some form of PR to get rid of FPTP was a massive mistake.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
We were never given the option to vote for PR. AV wasn't PR.
Click to expand...

My mistake... you're right, AV was a cop-out. PR would make things much more interesting, although it's quite possible it'd slow things down massively. Not sure how it works in other countries where they have the system.

FPTP system is the reason why Cameron or Miliband can quite comfortably sit on TV saying "lessons will be learned, voting for us is the only way" etc etc... They know their traditional voters are scared of voting for someone else in case the other lot gets in...
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
Everytime labour have got in since the 1970s they have wrecked the economy. I shudder to think what they would do this time. it genuinely worries me.
Click to expand...

Same here, I swear they're actually mentally retarded. Not trying to be insulting here, I genuinely think that the two Ed's (and Gordon Brown) have some form of mental handicap.
 
robgmun said:
Same here, I swear they're actually mentally retarded. Not trying to be insulting here, I genuinely think that the two Ed's (and Gordon Brown) have some form of mental handicap.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows you can spend your way out of debt! :D
 
Last edited:
Narj said:
My mistake... you're right, AV was a cop-out. PR would make things much more interesting, although it's quite possible it'd slow things down massively. Not sure how it works in other countries where they have the system.
Click to expand...

More coalitions, like most European nations.
 
Captain Planet said:
Yup, my other half despaired at the outcome of these elections and that pro UKIP people are claiming that "the British public have spoken and this is what they want", much like some of the people in this thread are doing too(I'd dare call them fanboys by the way they are acting!). I explained to my GF exactly how you put it, UKIP supporters were simply motivated to go vote, most people were not. If we had 100% turnout, the results would be different. I also think a lot of people just don't actually care unfortunately, they have no interest in politics, or having a say and voting. However, I would bet that if we were to ask those people on their views on matters, we would find that they fall in line with those that are Conservative, Liberal or Labour.

UKIP supporters cannot deny the point that the party has had success in the election because their supporters actually turned up to vote. It does not mean that the views of the entire nation have been represented correctly. Any one wishing to argue that matter is deluded.
Click to expand...

You sir are crackers. At least Fox had the sense to admit that you couldn't say either way. These votes have shown that 30% of the UK want UKIP. That's the bottom line, there's no 9% this or that about it.

Check back at the general election and then we can discuss further. But at the moment, you're an idiot if you think it's all the Tories and labour folk that didn't turn up to vote.
 
I must say I love some of these comments. It must be nice living a comforting delusion where everything is so simple and a world wide financial meltdown (2008) happens due to the British Labour party, of all things.

The myth probably originates from one of Thatcher's comments:

In a TV interview for Thames TV This Week on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom