Who to vote for in the election?? HELP!

FionaMc said:
The lib dems will force it, not the electorate, as they'll be essential to any Government being formed.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why a hung parliament will be disasterous - it is essentially giving the Lib Dems far too much power - much more than they would have had if they actually win as they would lack the confidence to actually go through with any of their policies. they would literally be novices running the country and I think would be much too interested in remaining popular and taking the safe options. No-one wants to be seen as "brave".

It has to be one party or the other - really hoping its Conservative though as we just cannot afford to have another Labour government, and certainly not GB as PM.

Compulsory voting can follow the Australian format - if you dont vote, you pay a fine of £1,000 - easy.
 
IMHO - no, Labour does NOT increases equality and social mobility. What they do is support those on lower income by taking from those in the middle, and hardly touching the upper.

Is it fair that the middle income part of the population has to constantly support all the others? Under Labour, property prices, particularly down South, went through the roof. Yes, if you were lower income you may get a council flat or so, but if you actually earned money (but not large sums), you would have to rent from wealthy landlords who just keep asking for more. You can't even afford to save up a decent deposit - ALL the people I know around my age (late 20s/early30s) have bought their homes with the help of their parents!!!

There is also a disparity in terms of generations. I know many people who are older are inclined to vote Labour, constantly saying how bad the Tories were in the past. But many of these people were simply and seriously lucky with the year they were born in - just bear in mind, the younger generation will not have it as easy as you had it. What we remember about Labour is that they made it nearly impossible for us to buy our own house, we remember how difficult Labour has made the employment market for us by grinding the economy down to a near-halt. Labour doesn't think about our generation, they only think about those who are well over 35 - the age of those who are basically currently in goverment.

All the "growth" that Labour claim was due to their efforts on the back of consumer spending, again financed by the rising property prices. It wasn't because people actually earned more because they were so productive - no, it's because people borrowed against their property - the money basically came from doing no work whatsoever.

I laughed when Gordon Brown announced during the first debate that immigration from outside the EU has gone down in the last 3 years. Well, the financial crisis STARTED 3 years ago... wouldn't that have a big enough impact on immigration, i.e. who would move to a country that was in jeopardy? As always, Mr Brown does a statistics pick'n'mix - and claims that the ones he believes are good are all due to his work, when all it may be is circumstantial and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
tasel said:
IMHO - no, Labour does NOT increases equality and social mobility. What they do is support those on lower income by taking from those in the middle, and hardly touching the upper.

Is it fair that the middle income part of the population has to constantly support all the others? Under Labour, property prices, particularly down South, went through the roof. Yes, if you were lower income you may get a council flat or so, but if you actually earned money (but not large sums), you would have to rent from wealthy landlords who just keep asking for more. You can't even afford to save up a decent deposit - ALL the people I know around my age (late 20s/early30s) have bought their homes with the help of their parents!!!

There is also a disparity in terms of generations. I know many people who are older are inclined to vote Labour, constantly saying how bad the Tories were in the past. But many of these people were simply and seriously lucky with the year they were born in - just bear in mind, the younger generation will not have it as easy as you had it. What we remember about Labour is that they made it nearly impossible for us to buy our own house, we remember how difficult Labour has made the employment market for us by grinding the economy down to a near-halt. Labour doesn't think about our generation, they only think about those who are well over 35 - the age of those who are basically currently in goverment.

All the "growth" that Labour claim was due to their efforts on the back of consumer spending, again financed by the rising property prices. It wasn't because people actually earned more because they were so productive - no, it's because people borrowed against their property - the money basically came from doing no work whatsoever.

I laughed when Gordon Brown announced during the first debate that immigration from outside the EU has gone down in the last 3 years. Well, the financial crisis STARTED 3 years ago... wouldn't that have a big enough impact on immigration, i.e. who would move to a country that was in jeopardy? As always, Mr Brown does a statistics pick'n'mix - and claims that the ones he believes are good are all due to his work, when all it may be is circumstantial and nothing else.
Click to expand...

*claps* BEAUTIFULLY put :D
 
tasel said:
IMHO - no, Labour does NOT increases equality and social mobility. What they do is support those on lower income by taking from those in the middle, and hardly touching the upper.

Is it fair that the middle income part of the population has to constantly support all the others? Under Labour, property prices, particularly down South, went through the roof. Yes, if you were lower income you may get a council flat or so, but if you actually earned money (but not large sums), you would have to rent from wealthy landlords who just keep asking for more. You can't even afford to save up a decent deposit - ALL the people I know around my age (late 20s/early30s) have bought their homes with the help of their parents!!!

There is also a disparity in terms of generations. I know many people who are older are inclined to vote Labour, constantly saying how bad the Tories were in the past. But many of these people were simply and seriously lucky with the year they were born in - just bear in mind, the younger generation will not have it as easy as you had it. What we remember about Labour is that they made it nearly impossible for us to buy our own house, we remember how difficult Labour has made the employment market for us by grinding the economy down to a near-halt. Labour doesn't think about our generation, they only think about those who are well over 35 - the age of those who are basically currently in goverment.

All the "growth" that Labour claim was due to their efforts on the back of consumer spending, again financed by the rising property prices. It wasn't because people actually earned more because they were so productive - no, it's because people borrowed against their property - the money basically came from doing no work whatsoever.

I laughed when Gordon Brown announced during the first debate that immigration from outside the EU has gone down in the last 3 years. Well, the financial crisis STARTED 3 years ago... wouldn't that have a big enough impact on immigration, i.e. who would move to a country that was in jeopardy? As always, Mr Brown does a statistics pick'n'mix - and claims that the ones he believes are good are all due to his work, when all it may be is circumstantial and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Clearly everyone has their own strong views about these things! For the record, I am one of the 'younger generation' and who knows when I'll be able to afford a property - but I wouldn't let that influence my voting because house prices aren't government-controlled. The economy argument is impossible to settle because there's no counterfactual - who knows how the Tories would have dealt with things differently during growth and then in the face of the global mess that kicked off? I think Labour have done a solid job of navigating through the recession to date and I have a bit more faith in them to keep a recovery going than I do in the Tories. But hey ho, it's all a bit guessing game really! Economy's going to be pretty :( for the next term, whoever's in charge!

Certainly agree that Labour have made plenty of mistakes (and I too wish they would go after high earners more aggressively - guess the 50% tax rate is a start!) but personally there's nothing in Tory policy to persuade me to move my vote.

Anyway it's all exciting stuff! Think it's really interesting the different issues that people vote on actually and how they come to their decisions..but that's just me being a politics geek!
 
I don't think that a hung parliament is necessarily a bad thing. Each election to the Scottish Parliament since devolution has resulted in one. The first two saw Labour/Lib Dem coalition governments. The most recent has given us the SNP operating as minority government because they were unable to come to a coalition agreement. Policies go through on the back of real debate and deliberation, not just the one party's three line whip. To me it has enhanced democracy in Scotland, not take away from it.

I don't think it will necessarily cause a sudden collapse of faith in the British economy. There are plenty of successful economies governed by coalition, with Germany probably being the most prominent example.

To the original question - I vote on a mix of what I see as the party's core ideology and how it asserts that through policy. On a purely personal level it won't make much difference to me who is in power. I am instinctively liberal and to the left, but I don't think it is good for any one party to be in power for decades. Ideologically I could never vote Conservative, but at the moment I am swaying between Lib Dem and Labour. The fact is though that my vote is worth little to nothing. Elections are decided by floating voters in key marginals. Bring on PR!
 
Willber said:
Clearly everyone has their own strong views about these things! For the record, I am one of the 'younger generation' and who knows when I'll be able to afford a property - but I wouldn't let that influence my voting because house prices aren't government-controlled.
Click to expand...

Why did Mr Brown say this then???

“I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery.” Gordon Brown, 1997 Budget Statement.

Why say something and then not act upon it?

And no, it's not entirely true. Other countries CAN control house prices - it's not even that difficult.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I agree on higher taxes for those that get off their backsides to work hard and earn decent money - my personal view is that they should readdress the benefits system and stop the 'dossers' who don't want to work and have no inclination to work. That would save this country a fortune! :rolleyes:

Strangely as a high percentage of the country is one of these people who seem to think weveryone else should pay for them the 'salesmen' that are the politicians don't mention this in their pitch!

Edit to add - most definitely will not be voting Labour
 
miller said:
Not sure I agree on higher taxes for those that get off their backsides to work hard and earn decent money - my personal view is that they should readdress the benefits system and stop the 'dossers' who don't want to work and have no inclination to work. That would save this country a fortune! :rolleyes:

Strangely as a high percentage of the country is one of these people who seem to think weveryone else should pay for them the 'salesmen' that are the politicians don't mention this in their pitch!

Edit to add - most definitely will not be voting Labour
Click to expand...

Benefit fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we're losing through tax evasion and white collar crime. Closing tax loop holes should be a much bigger concern and of far greater benefit to society and our economy than all this media hype around benefit fraud. The sort of scale we're talking about is £900million vs. £97billion (around 10% of our GDP, more than our defence budget, nearly enough to fund another NHS...)
 
tasel said:
Why did Mr Brown say this then???

“I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery.” Gordon Brown, 1997 Budget Statement.

Why say something and then not act upon it?

And no, it's not entirely true. Other countries CAN control house prices - it's not even that difficult.
Click to expand...


'Cause he's a tool?!

Heh on a serious note, I'm no economist - I just meant government doesn't literally control housing prices, although of course different things it does throughout the economy have an indirect effect on them. It's partly a knock-on of having a growing economy (in the past, at least!) so suppose there are good and bad sides to it. Guess the stamp duty changes will help a bit, but I don't have a clue how any government would/will actually try and deflate the housing market and regulate prices - can't see the Tories doing anything that would devalue the considerable worth of many of their core voters' properties (and it would surely go against their 'big state bad, small state good' principles). Guess we'll find out soon though!

Should prob get back to work... shame this is much more interesting :)
 
KatB said:
Unfortunately the election has turned into a "popularity contect" because of these debates that have been televised.

People need to take note of who is standing in their area, and look at who they want to elect there, as ultimately they are the ones they have to deal with "directly " as such, and if you agree with their policies, you will be voting in a government you agree with as a whole.

My local MP is excellent anyway, and is (of course ;) ) conservative.

How anyone who actually loves rural britain can consider voting for Labour again when all they are intent on doing is building on green belt, increasing the population even further and turning their back on English business, is beyond me :(
Click to expand...

A fair point well made! A hung parliament would be a disaster and to waste a vote to pursue this option is just going to be like setting fire to a large pile of cash!
 
CBAnglo said:
Compulsory voting can follow the Australian format - if you dont vote, you pay a fine of £1,000 - easy.
Click to expand...

Isn't apathy better, if you impose a fine or just make it compulsory you run the risk of someone voting out of spite or about something they have not reseaarched, surely?

Personally I get really narked about people who can vote but don't bother, many at work openly admit this then spend week after week moaning about Government policies.
 
Tory all the way going to do something about inheritance tax,repeal hunting and stop giving £ to newborns and hopefully look after the older generation better,a n hopefully won't get another two doses of foot and mouth
 
Slightly out on a different limb but I would personally like to follow the american ruling that one individual can ONLY remain in office for a maximum of 2 terms (i.e 8 years) and the good old USA has to go back to a general election again. Both times when the government was weakening (conservative and labour) the country had a leader inflicted on it which we didn't actually vote for. I would hasten to say that is probably the only part of the american electioneering that I approve of but it does make sense.

And as for voting, old enough to have been around through Maggie et al and through labour too. Another one who strongly believes that the only way for rural britain is to vote Tory for all the reasons stated above. However, in terms of other people making their choice - each to their own. Also think that DC is the only option for giving us any sort of credibility on a world wide platform now as well.
 
miller said:
Not sure I agree on higher taxes for those that get off their backsides to work hard and earn decent money - my personal view is that they should readdress the benefits system and stop the 'dossers' who don't want to work and have no inclination to work. That would save this country a fortune! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well said, I totally agree! We are being ripped off by 50% tax this year, and we work hard for every penny we earn and have been badly affected by the recession and had to take a loan out to keep our business and 12 employee's a float last year. A lot of friends are thinking of leaving the country to escape the tax in this country which will have a negitive affect! We are a small dental practice not a multi-million pound bank!

It is interesting to read peoples options and how "age" and what happened in the past affects your vote. For me it is Tory, because Labour has got us in such a mess (yet again) poor Tories having to sort another labour mess and being blammed for having to take action. A Tory vote for me.
 
It is interesting to know how & why people vote, and what they feel their options are. I feel I'm in a minority here, but I can quite happily say I will never vote Tory - Cameron in particular I don't trust as far as I can throw him.

I have also never voted Labour (Apart from Ken for mayor, but that's different). I work for a large humanitarian charity, live in London in one of the most deprived (and unequal) constituencies in the country and have always held fairly liberal/left wing political views.

Generally, I've voted Lib Dem, but don't feel they're proposing anything different enough now, and I'm not particularly fond of Clegg (would much rather see Charles or Paddy or Menzies back in control). Now, I'll be voting Green because I think it's vital to increase their vote share this time to ensure their voice (a bit like a conscience!) continues to grow in the UK. They're not without their problems, but I feel closest to them this time round.

Many of the issues that are seen as the biggies such as immigration, just seem ridiculous to me. Living in an incredibly diverse inner city constituency I just think immigration brings incredible richness to life and having worked on asylum seekers cases, know how badly we treat people who have fled their homes, without choice, due to war, instability and persecution.

I don't mind high taxes (and yes, it does hurt when I look at my payslip) in exchange for excellent public services, a commitment to helping those worse of, and being in a position to avert some of the gravest dangers we'll face in the next 20/50/100 years. Fear my view may be unpopular round here, and at the moment we're far from attaining many of the things I'd like, but I've always been an idealist!

Ultimately, the outcome of my vote doesn't just affect me, it affects people in the UK and around the world who are impacted by our Government's choices and that's probably what motivates me. We all have to vote for what we believe in (or at least the smallest compromise).
 
FionaMc said:
I don't mind high taxes (and yes, it does hurt when I look at my payslip) in exchange for excellent public services, a commitment to helping those worse of, and being in a position to avert some of the gravest dangers we'll face in the next 20/50/100 years.
Click to expand...

The problem is, we pay high taxes which mostly goes to pay for benefits for those who are unwilling to work. Unemployment is high - tax money should go into creating jobs, not encouraging people to sit on the couch. The tax reforms are only encouraging those wealthy enough to leave the country, taking their business elsewhere - that is hardly going to help the economy. The government should be trying to encourage commerce.

The people I would like to see actually benefitting are those living on a state pension, ex-servicemen and families and people in real need. I think we have a lot of British people living in really dire conditions, we have a responsibility to help them first and foremost.

In theory, increase in population (through immigration) etc is supposed to create jobs as more housing etc is needed, but here I think it just puts a further drain on our resources as they require benefits, education, healthcare etc but what exactly are they contributing?
 
I dont know much about policies, etc but i do know that the labour government has affected me (badly) in many ways and many things about the country and the way it is run are imo ridiculous. From housing, the NHS, jobs to crime I can give an example of how the Labour government has affected me or my friends/family and not in a positive way. I would never vote Labour, theyve had their chance and theyve blown it!
 
Serephin said:
It would be a shockingly cold day in hell before I would even consider voting labour.
Click to expand...
Me too and I find it hard understand why anyone decent would especialy after GBs private conversation that was picked up as he was driven away showing the utter contempt he and the rest of the labour lot hold the views and concerns of the majoritie of ordanary folk in this country, the two faced self serving labour scum....
 
Last edited:
Willber said:
Hi, there are quite a few useful things online that summarise the different parties' policies on key issues. Good for making a rational comparison of policies, rather than just personalities! Not sure how you do hyperlinks but if you go on BBC News, click on Election 2010 then on the RHS there's a column called 'Making it Clear' - if you click the 'where they stand' link you can compare key policies really easily.

Personally, I'll be voting Labour because they sit best with my values of trying to improve equality and social mobility. Admittedly they've not done enough, but Tory changes like relying on this so-called 'big society' - i.e. charities and businesses - to pick up government slack on education and welfare services really don't convince me and will lead to more unequal opportunities, in my view. And for all Cameron tries to portray himself as a 'compassionate Conservative' I think he - and the rest of his party - remain socially conservative and the fact he would allow free votes on issues like reducing abortion terms and gay rights scares me q a lot!

That's just my personal rant/essay ;) Good luck deciding!
Click to expand...
I think its funny well maybe sad when people think that labour are about social mobility when for instance they have done their best to destroy the grammar school system, which was a great way for people of modest means to get a first class education for their kids.. and the conservatives helped thousands of people better themselves with the right to buy council houses.. the torys want people to be able better themselves, labour and socialists in general want most of the population ignorant and dependent on the state for their needs and for the rest to be a ruleing class of bossy clipboard whelding state officials and the top layer enjoying wealth and privalege
 
perfect11s said:
I think its funny well maybe sad when people think that labour are about social mobility when for instance they have done their best to destroy the grammar school system, which was a great way for people of modest means to get a first class education for their kids.. and the conservatives helped thousands of people better themselves with the right to buy council houses.. the torys want people to be able better themselves, labour and socialists in general want most of the population ignorant and dependent on the state for their needs and for the rest to be a ruleing class of bossy clipboard whelding state officials and the top layer enjoying wealth and privalege
Click to expand...

Well said!!!
 
FionaMc said:
I.

Many of the issues that are seen as the biggies such as immigration, just seem ridiculous to me. Living in an incredibly diverse inner city constituency I just think immigration brings incredible richness to life and having worked on asylum seekers cases, know how badly we treat people who have fled their homes, without choice, due to war, instability and persecution.Quote

You might think imigration has brought richness to life , I would like to put the wealthy do gooders in the poorest areas of the uk where there is little chance of a reasoble job because nice as they are hardworking pole or other eastern european can afford to work hard for the minimum wage sometimes doing two jobs live in a rented house with 4or 5+ others to save costs do that for 2or3 years then go back to poland with a nice little sum..
I wonder about so called asylum seekers.. how many are realy fleeing persicution, how many are economic migrants and how many are criminals fleeing justice in there homeland???
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top