Poll: General election voting intentions poll

Voting intentions in the General Election?

  • Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

    Votes: 2 0.3%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 254 41.6%

  • Democratic Unionist Party

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 40 6.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 83 13.6%

  • Liberal Democrat

    Votes: 31 5.1%

  • Not voting/will spoil ballot

    Votes: 38 6.2%

  • Other party (not named)

    Votes: 4 0.7%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • Respect Party

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 25 4.1%

  • Social Democratic and Labour Party

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 129 21.1%
  • Total voters
    611
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
chef-borjan said:
Right, so I admit I'm not overly political, but after the recent scandal over the child sex/murder ring that appears to have been going on in the past, I noticed the results of a vote that proposed to alter the law to ensure that those who wanted to give evidence would not fear prosecution.

Long story short is, The vast majority of conservatives and Lib Dems voted against this, everyone else for it.

Since I feel jaded by policies, I almost feel making up my voting decisions based on not voting for those who appear to be blocking the process of justice/covering their own interests.
Click to expand...

It was voted down because the changes in the current proposed form would have meant that a whistleblower could offer to give evidence against somebody, then in court admit to having taken part in the crime and gain immunity from prosecution for it. Basically it was an incentive for peados to make themselves bulletproof by ratting out other peados. Does that really sound like "the process of justice" to you?



mid_gen said:
It would be fantastically short-sighted to get rid of our nuclear capability. It's not something you can just whip up again in an emergency.

It's easy to say "we don't need it" in these (relatively) peaceful times....being reliant on the US for protection is not a desirable situation long term.
Click to expand...

But Ukraine were once the worlds third biggest nuclear power and they gave them all up in exchange for implied US/NATO protection, and that worked out great for them in the long run, oh.....


elmarko said:
I don't even see how they are a deterrent.
Click to expand...

How many nuclear armed states have ever been invaded?
 
Is it usual for the party manifesto's to be released so close to the election? It is almost like they don't want people and the media to look too closely into them...
 
sammo62 said:
What about the demographics of OCUK makes it so right wing?

Are tech people more to the right? Do we think it's a reflection of above average incomes (I assume poorer folk aren't spending a ton on nice computers)?

Not a dig at all, just interested.
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess the general tech savvy type is a bit more clued up on the ins and outs of the real world and economics and can appreciate there is no such thing as a free lunch, it's safe to say based upon past records in office, the Conservative party is far more in tune with this view than the Labour Party.

Completely ignoring the fact Labour is ham strung by a "leader" who comes across as somebody who is imo wholly unsuitable for the highest office in the land!
 
ubersonic said:
It was voted down because the changes in the current proposed form would have meant that a whistleblower could offer to give evidence against somebody, then in court admit to having taken part in the crime and gain immunity from prosecution for it. Basically it was an incentive for peados to make themselves bulletproof by ratting out other peados. Does that really sound like "the process of justice" to ypu?
Click to expand...

The exact wording of the proposed amendment was:

(1) The Official Secrets Act 1989 is amended as follows—
(2) After section 8, insert—
“(8A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any provision of this Act to prove that he knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article disclosed was—
(a) germane to an official investigation of, or inquiry into, historic child abuse, and
(b) provided only to an officer of such an investigation or inquiry.

The last bit is important. This was put forward to specifically protect the police officers who wanted to give evidence but feared repercussions, there have been whispers that they have been threatened into silence.

So don't feel that this ammendment would have let the guilty just walk free.

Plus if that were the case.. Why did everyone else vote for it?
 
Delvis said:
I don't see why that's even a story
Click to expand...
Because it is funny!

Working in the pr0n industry isn't just like having a normal day job. The public sees it as being seedy and dirty, so hence why it is a news item.

Whilst the younger generation are more open to these things, the oldies aren't so much, and hence why it might be a big thing for them.
 
elmarko said:
I don't even see how they are a deterrent.

If a person invades you with a conventional army you are not going to retaliate with a nuclear strike, this will result in self-annihilation - which is worse than occupation.

Neither would it act as a deterrent for another nation nuking you, as the dust created from detonating nukes on a large industrial nation such as ours would result in global starvation, crop death & global instability. That's ignoring the very high prospect of nuclear escalation which would yield the same impact. You don't really need to nuke somebody back to cause escalation or global annihilation.

I don't get what it's preventing, as it's a bluff you can't use if you want any of your own people to live.
Click to expand...

Tactical nuclear weapons can be used against conventional forces and there is no reason to assume that would result in self-annihilation. That said, nuclear weapons are primarily intended to deter other countries using nuclear, chemical and biological weapons against you. They do deter conventional attack however, which is why the severely weakened Russia didn't end up fighting the US over Georgia or Ukraine.

Also, I think if you research the topic in some depth, you'll find there is a great deal of criticism of the studies which suggest we'd experience nuclear winter. The global impact of a limited (<50) nuclear exchange is going to be pretty much negligible. Above that, there may be a global environmental impact, but that dependant on a lot of variables falling into place. A nuclear winter is extremely unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Scania said:
I would hazard a guess the general tech savvy type is a bit more clued up on the ins and outs of the real world and economics and can appreciate there is no such thing as a free lunch, it's safe to say based upon past records in office, the Conservative party is far more in tune with this view than the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

Let's stop pretending Osborne is an economic authority - the conservatives are far more ideological than the Labour party in their savage reduction in the size of the state and spending on public services. Most economists agree that their economic policy this parliament has been bad for the country, reducing GDP by 5-14% without reducing the budget deficit. That's probably the biggest loss of wealth by any chancellor ever.
 
Moses said:
It's not like no one voted last time! There was a normal turnout and he got enough votes to win under normal circumstances... maybe people are happy with how their constituency issues were dealt with..? Why else was he so popular?
Click to expand...

Indeed. My point is, I know loads of people who voted for MRLP or Greens purely because they couldn't actually vote for their preferred party due to this stupid system.
 
neil3k said:
ubersonic said:
How many nuclear armed states have ever been invaded?
Click to expand...

Israel
Click to expand...

Lol, when?

If your referring to the six day war, that was started by Israel (as a pre-emptive measure in response to what they saw as a military buildup, which itself was ironically caused by dodgy USSR intel about a planned Israeli pre-emptive strike).

If you're referring to the Yom Kippur War then that was started by Egypt/Syria yes, however they invaded their own land (as internationally recognised) which was being occupied by Israel as a result of the six day war, not sovereign Israeli territory.

Bare in mind also that both of those happened before Israel was widely known to have a nuclear program anyway.
 
ElliorR said:
The UK when Argentina invaded the Falklands?
Click to expand...

Again, not an invasion of the country itself (the Falklands aren't even part of the UK).

The entire reason they invaded in the first place was because they were sure that the UK wouldn't fight a conventional war over them as they were just an overseas territory.
 
Last edited:
ElliorR said:
You never differentiated.
Click to expand...

I did, I said "How many nuclear armed states have ever been invaded?", neither the Falklands or the territory Syria/Egypt invaded in the YKW were part of a nuclear armed state. The Falklands were an overseas territory of one, and the territory invaded in the YKW belonged to the invaders.


ElliorR said:
The Falklands are part of the UK
Click to expand...

Nope.


ElliorR said:
so a nuclear state was invaded by the Argentinians.
Click to expand...

No because even if they were part of the UK, it wasn't the state itself that was invaded, just one of it's international interests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom