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.
If you earn even just a little more than minimum wage this Coalition has been good for you.

Isn't that what we should want, and strive for, increasing minimum wage, increasing employment, and making sure workers are better off at the end of 5 years than those who do not.
Those who don't can stagnant, or train or become employed?
 
farage_zpsfcy95cyx.jpg~original

because these two activities provide more funding for the NHS than they cost to treat, so good on you for helping keep all those expensive sporty types healthy.
 
Love that picture. The text is a bit misleading though, since cigarettes and alcohol do actually take a long time to kill you, and are both heavily taxed, so I'm quite sure most smokers / drinkers in the country have paid for their NHS treatment already.

This is false; the extra tax contribution does not pay for the increased health costs.

40% is a huge margin though. It means we are almost halfway there. Compared to other approaches, I think we have done well.

The cost of that 'huge margin' has been sharply lower growth - and, worse, a desperate failure to raise GDP-per-capita - an extraordinary failure to raise living standards, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable and a sharp contraction in investment for the future. None of which was necessary.
 
UKIP polling looking strong again, nice to see, but the number of Labour votes is disappointing, have people forgotten the 2008 crash already? Last time those lefty retards were given the reins they financially ruined the entire country.
 
This is false; the extra tax contribution does not pay for the increased health costs.

yes it does the tax on tobacco brings in about 9 billion a year in tax treatment for smoking related issues is about 2.5-3 billion

so yeah it pays for the health costs then 6 billion extra on top.
 
UKIP polling looking strong again, nice to see, but the number of Labour votes is disappointing, have people forgotten the 2008 crash already? Last time those lefty retards were given the reins they financially ruined the entire country.

The thing is the events of 2008 were entirely down to lack of regulation of the financial sector globally and primarily caused by the crisis in the US? Surely a large proportion of the debt we're trying to pay back is from bailing out the banks ?

Would things have really been any different had the Conservatives been in power at the time?
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of UKIP votes here. The only thing I like about them is that they've given the main parties a kick up the backsides.

This is the beauty of UKIP, the effect they have on mainstream politics, they don't actually have to win many seats at the coming election, just receive a decent percentage of the vote, this will rally people and in turn stiffen the backbones of our weaker politicians.
 
yes it does the tax on tobacco brings in about 9 billion a year in tax treatment for smoking related issues is about 2.5-3 billion

so yeah it pays for the health costs then 6 billion extra on top.

Won't that rather depend on how you're defining smoking related diseases (how widely you cast that particular net) and whether you're talking purely about medical treatments or including the wider costs to society and the economy (e.g. sickness absences for treatment etc)?
 
Won't that rather depend on how you're defining smoking related diseases (how widely you cast that particular net) and whether you're talking purely about medical treatments or including the wider costs to society and the economy (e.g. sickness absences for treatment etc)?

the highest estimates for all smoking related "diseases" is 5 billion.
 
Would things have really been any different had the Conservatives been in power at the time?

The fact is though, they weren't in power and hadn't been since 1997. Labour had plenty of years to sort the financial market out, but chose not to.
One thing for sure, we will never know if it would have been different..............................what we do know though is that the current government has gone a long way in sorting out the mess left by the last. I for one would not be happy with the same lot financial misfits back in to put us back to where we were 5 years ago.
 
The fact is though, they weren't in power and hadn't been since 1997. Labour had plenty of years to sort the financial market out, but chose not to.

While this is true; it's worth noting that the Tories were actively calling for policy changes that would make things worse right up to the eve of the financial crash. They were calling for less regulation, not anything that would have reigned the city in; hell, Cameron and Osborne took at trip to the US where they praised the subprime market and talked about how it could be expanded in the UK mere months before the crunch hit.

In short, while I don't Labour should be absolved for carrying on Thatcherite polices, the Tories wanted to make things considerably worse and Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did extremely well in the immediate aftermath of the crash.
 
The fact is though, they weren't in power and hadn't been since 1997. Labour had plenty of years to sort the financial market out, but chose not to.
One thing for sure, we will never know if it would have been different..............................what we do know though is that the current government has gone a long way in sorting out the mess left by the last. I for one would not be happy with the same lot financial misfits back in to put us back to where we were 5 years ago.

When Labour has not one person who was involved with the 1997-2010 government then they should be reconsidered. That was the worst government the UK ever had and there should be no chance of ever returning to that.
 
The fact is though, they weren't in power and hadn't been since 1997. Labour had plenty of years to sort the financial market out, but chose not to.
One thing for sure, we will never know if it would have been different..............................what we do know though is that the current government has gone a long way in sorting out the mess left by the last. I for one would not be happy with the same lot financial misfits back in to put us back to where we were 5 years ago.

Don't forget to blame Labour for:
Ebola
Mad Cow Disease
Earthquakes

If God had been Prime Minister with Jesus as Chancellor, the initial effects of the financial crisis would have been the same.
 
I'm English so will vote Conservative to try and avoid Labour/SNP.

It may be a closer run thing this time in Crewe / Nantwich which was solid Labour under the excellent Gwyneth Dunwoody up to 7 years ago. Although I disagreed with many of her policies, she was an very good parliamentarian. You cannot say that for many nowadays. She spoke her mind and knew her brief.

Edward Timson who is the Childrens Minister and our current MP has done some good stuff and corresponds regularly with the electorate. We agreed to disagree over the proposed controls on storing internet and email information, but hey ho, not everything can be perfect.

UKIP has an ice cubes chance in hell of being anywhere near a coalition. they may have a couple of MP's who may support the conservatives sometimes but it will not be a coalition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom