Poll: General election voting poll round 3

Voting intentions in the General Election?

  • Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

    Votes: 2 0.3%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 286 40.5%

  • Democratic Unionist Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 56 7.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 122 17.3%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 33 4.7%

  • Not voting/will spoil ballot

    Votes: 38 5.4%

  • Other party (not named)

    Votes: 4 0.6%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 5 0.7%

  • Respect Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 29 4.1%

  • Social Democratic and Labour Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 3 0.4%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 129 18.2%
  • Total voters
    707
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
BBC policies thing came out as 40/40/10/10 UKIP/LibDem/Cons/Greens.

Looks like I'm going to be dissapointed politically for the next 5 years.
 
I think now more than ever we need as a country to get away from party politics and have Bureaus for Transport/Health/Welfare etc. Ultimately we're going to have a coalition of two, possibly even three parties after the election. Why not go full hog and decentralise the Government completely? If a country has no Governing direction this makes the most democratic sense.
 
physichull said:
OK, then I pose this question:

"phase out nuclear power" taken from their website.

Why?
Click to expand...

I will be voting Green as, said above, they represent my political view more than any other political party. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they say as I suspect no one would ever totally agree with their party of choice on all issues.

I am against renewing Trident but I'm not against nuclear power, in fact we should have embraced it years ago. As for the argument about Trident being a deterrent, who against? In this day and age unless only one state has nuclear weapons the status quo is maintained. How many countries in Europe don't have nuclear weapons and how many of those countries suffer regular invasions. or threats of nuclear armageddon, from countries that do have such weapons? The main threat is from terrorist organisations getting hold of some material but if a dirty bomb, or fully nuclear weapon, was detonated in the UK who would we retaliate against?
 
I don't especially want to get embroiled in specific issues, but my general feeling towards them from just glancing through their website, is that they have a bunch of great ideas, dreams and ideologies, such as returning the rail system into public hands and reducing rail fares by 10%, building 500000 new social houses, building towards complete reliance on renewable energies....I could go on....but how exactly are all these wonderful plans to be afforded?

All great ideas, but completely unfeasible and it makes them come across as naïve and I won't be the first or the last say that.
 
Last edited:
LateX'Dog said:
Wow a lot of people on here who hate the poor, young and disabled. I shouldn't be shocked by the amount of conservative voters, but for some reason I am.
Click to expand...

This is ocuk GD if you're poor you should have tried harder at school, if you're young your parents should dip into the family trust and if you're disabled you are a liar because anyone can operate a pc by blowing down a straw and Iain ******* smith cured more cripples than jesus.
 
Mr Jack said:
Not this rubbish again. Nothing Ed has done is reasonably described as stabbing David in the back. Even if you bizarrely conclude his brother has more right to run because he's older or something (in which case why don't you apply the same reasoning to the Williams sisters?), facing someone in an election is about as stabbing in the front as you can get.
Click to expand...

Well said the anti labour folk seem to put a lot of time into pushing that meme but it bears no scrutiny.

Which shows a lack of respect for the voters, expecting them to be swayed by such tripe.
 
Last edited:
Question :

Have any parties included in their manifesto any pledges to reduce property prices, heavily tax buy-to-let, introduce rental controls and create real renter protection?
 
ElliorR said:
I will be voting Green as, said above, they represent my political view more than any other political party. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they say as I suspect no one would ever totally agree with their party of choice on all issues.

I am against renewing Trident but I'm not against nuclear power, in fact we should have embraced it years ago. As for the argument about Trident being a deterrent, who against? In this day and age unless only one state has nuclear weapons the status quo is maintained. How many countries in Europe don't have nuclear weapons and how many of those countries suffer regular invasions. or threats of nuclear armageddon, from countries that do have such weapons? The main threat is from terrorist organisations getting hold of some material but if a dirty bomb, or fully nuclear weapon, was detonated in the UK who would we retaliate against?
Click to expand...

It goes far beyond immediate threats - countries and governments come and go, the last 3 decades of relative peace and stability are but a mere dot in comparison with how things have been in that regard historically and while (highly) unlikely for anything to kick off stuff with Russia is far from in a situation where we should be complacent - Germany didn't just start to bolster their capabilities - reversing a long planned trend of reducing their capabilities and NATO hasn't started resuming cold war era exercises for no good reason.

Globally as a civilisation we are far from progressed enough that we should be divesting of our biggest sticks.
 
physichull said:
I don't especially want to get embroiled in specific issues, but my general feeling towards them from just glancing through their website, is that they have a bunch of great ideas, dreams and ideologies, such as returning the rail system into public hands and reducing rail fares by 10%, building 500000 new social houses, building towards complete reliance on renewable energies....I could go on....but how exactly are all these wonderful plans to be afforded?

All great ideas, but completely unfeasible and it makes them come across as naïve and I won't be the first or the last say that.
Click to expand...

I was having a conversation with a friend about the greens the other day and this comment & discussion matched what I was saying.

I agree with this, great ideas but very naive as they're just not achievable, they wouldn't be able to conjure the money up. It would be great if they could but just won't happen.

I don't think they'd make much progress within 5 years at all and I could see them making drastic moves causing more damage than good in the short term.

I don't really know who to vote for though, I think David Cameron has done as good as he could do considering the situation he walked into and think he would continue to be quite good for the country, but I'm not sure.
 
Rroff said:
It goes far beyond immediate threats - countries and governments come and go, the last 3 decades of relative peace and stability are but a mere dot in comparison with how things have been in that regard historically and while (highly) unlikely for anything to kick off stuff with Russia is far from in a situation where we should be complacent - Germany didn't just start to bolster their capabilities - reversing a long planned trend of reducing their capabilities and NATO hasn't started resuming cold war era exercises for no good reason.

Globally as a civilisation we are far from progressed enough that we should be divesting of our biggest sticks.
Click to expand...

Yep, and think about it, we haven't yet found a way to un-invent nuclear weapons.
So lets say we the UK, the USA and all the rest of the nato countries go the same way and give up nuclear. In say 30 years time when North Korea or some other "wack job" state puts together the tech well enough to be able to nuke anywhere on the globe, would you rather :
1) have a nuclear capability so that they know for 100% that should they ever launch they will ensure mutal elimination, or,
2) sit happy with no nukes and hope that they decide the risk of the nuclear winter is greater than the benefit of eliminating their enemies

I knwo which I would rather
 
mid_gen said:
Question :

Have any parties included in their manifesto any pledges to reduce property prices, heavily tax buy-to-let, introduce rental controls and create real renter protection?
Click to expand...

Of course not, too many MP's are landlords them selves for them to put tenants before profit.
 
mid_gen said:
Question :

Have any parties included in their manifesto any pledges to reduce property prices, heavily tax buy-to-let, introduce rental controls and create real renter protection?
Click to expand...

Don't believe so

Reducing property prices is a very double edged sword. Plenty of people have already bought into the market, so a heavy reduction is just as bad as high prices, affects the market by people not being able to move etc. (Probably doesn't look like that if your trying to get in though)
So what we need is enough decent housing being built that demand isn't outstriping supply terribly and aim for some reasonable price stability, with a view to bringing down the effective cost of housing very slowly over a sustained period.

Taxing heavily buy to let will just pass that on to renters, there is very little you can do to stop people doing this other than making the buy market fuction well enough that people dont see the let market as anything other than a short term measure, say such as when relocating. Its supply and demand meaning that where there is a market people will supply the goods, if you reduce the need for medium/long term renting you will by default reduce the supply as it will not return the investment people want to make.
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
I was having a conversation with a friend about the greens the other day and this comment & discussion matched what I was saying.

I agree with this, great ideas but very naive as they're just not achievable, they wouldn't be able to conjure the money up. It would be great if they could but just won't happen.

I don't think they'd make much progress within 5 years at all and I could see them making drastic moves causing more damage than good in the short term.

I don't really know who to vote for though, I think David Cameron has done as good as he could do considering the situation he walked into and think he would continue to be quite good for the country, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

the thing is voting green won't return a government of greens - however it would increase their presence in the chamber - so whilst some of the policies would never be feasible, if the public were to show sufficient support (by voting in greens) then it would slowly affect the policies others are proposing.

This is my issue with using first past the post instead of some form of proportional representation - we will never get a representative chamber when people use their votes tactically to block others, and we are constantly fed the lines that it is a choice between labour/conservative - but really we should be getting told if you weaken their grip by not voting tactically you may eventually end up with more popular policies getting passed by the government of the day.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Yep, and think about it, we haven't yet found a way to un-invent nuclear weapons.
So lets say we the UK, the USA and all the rest of the nato countries go the same way and give up nuclear. In say 30 years time when North Korea or some other "wack job" state puts together the tech well enough to be able to nuke anywhere on the globe, would you rather :
1) have a nuclear capability so that they know for 100% that should they ever launch they will ensure mutal elimination, or,
2) sit happy with no nukes and hope that they decide the risk of the nuclear winter is greater than the benefit of eliminating their enemies

I knwo which I would rather
Click to expand...

But we're always being told we as a nation can't have things we can't afford.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom