UK Elections - Who Will/Would you vote for; Public Poll

Who will/would you vote for


  • Total voters
    48

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
What you're seeing in that vid is an excerpt from the weekly session of Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), a section of which is set aside for the leader of the opposition to pose some questions to the PM directly. It's degenerated into a meaningless public pantomime, in which each man tries to get in the most stinging barbs while each party clamours to contribute the most raucous support.

It's good to have a robust cut and thrust of debate imo, but that vid is a good example of how ineffectual parliament is and how out of touch most of its members are. The more image-fixated that our politics has become, the more commentators have started to go on about each leader's 'performance' during PMQs. Most normal people, however, either see through the pointlessness of it all, don't watch it at all, or are too bored by it to be influenced either way. The most useful part of PMQs is where ministers and backbenchers from all around the House get an opportunity to ask a question, usually in the hopes of raising the profile of a local constituency issue. Sadly this, too, is often pointless, since when faced with an inconvenient question the PM can simply dodge it or say 'I'll check the facts on that and get back to you later'.

He's far more happy to take questions from directly behind him, stuff along the lines of 'Prime Minister, could you please deal with the concerns of my constituents who want to know if you are an incarnation of Adonis, and why the contours of your buttocks can be likened unto the very cleft of God's jaw?' Broon can then take that as a chance to run through the shopping list of reasons of why 13 years of his party's increasingly unpopular govt have actually been the pinnacle of human achievement, about which only a terrorist-loving imbecile would dare complain.

EDIT: Actually I had a second watch of that clip and underneath the slanging match it was quite revealing and informative if you know the context. What's happening is that after over a decade in power without changing the electoral system, Labour have started pretending to be in favour of reform. This is an attempt to win over wavering Liberal Democrat voters, for whom electoral reform has long been an important issue. However the quote that Cameron reads out reveals that Brown has long opposed electoral reform, even while Tony Blair led the party. Brown's smacked-arse face after hearing this is priceless (3:07). The jeering and heckling in this session is probably all the louder due to the bald hypocrisy on display.
Ahhh, thanks for the information bro! I forgot about this thread but recently found out again and was looking for a response. This is exactly what I needed.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Despite furious attacks on the Lib Dems from Murdoch's papers, and last night's debate (complete with Sky bias) the polls have barely shifted in the last week, some fluctuations all within margin of error. Tonight's latest:
CON 34%(nc), LAB 29%(nc), LDEM 29%(+1)
- YouGov

Figures in brackets are changes since yesterday's poll from this company. All still looking like a hung parliament, with both Lab and Con having enough seats that either could form a coalition govt. with LD support.
Interesting times, let's hope they continue.


Image relevant:


Hell yeah, a party leader who admits to not believing in sky fairies!
 

pomegranate

Newbie
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
1
Image relevant:


Hell yeah, a party leader who admits to not believing in sky fairies!

Alright that's it, I'm voting for the Lib Dems.
How can you vote twice? I'm in the mood for electoral fraud.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Correct.

He'd never get anywhere in US politics ;)
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
That's not really a convincing reason to vote for someone.

Unfortunately there's no convincing reason to vote for any of the idiots. The Monster Raving Loony Party have a candidate in Exeter and I shall be very tempted to vote for them!

In seriousness I will be voting for the Conservatives as the least-worst option that isn't the UKIP and therefore has no chance of ever getting into power. David Cameron is just Tony Blair with smaller ears. They should be winning this election by an utter landslide (and the last election too), the fact they've managed to **** it up so catastrophically speaks volumes.

Still, at least if they do win he'll be in good company with Barack Obama. Since Blair it seems being shiny and devoid of substance is a mandatory characteristic for a world leader. Daniel Hannan should be in charge of the Conservative party...
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Lib Dems are worth voting for simply because a hung parliament should help usher in democratic reform. First past the post is a terrible system.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Lib Dems are worth voting for simply because a hung parliament should help usher in democratic reform. First past the post is a terrible system.
Yet any kind of national democratic reform is irrelevant whilst we are controlled by the EU.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Bullshit. The EU institutions are currently more democratic than our own.

Even leaving aside your opinion that the EU "control" us the Lib Dems have promised a referendum on staying in or leaving the EU next time there's any significant change.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Bullshit. The EU institutions are currently more democratic than our own.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/euconstitution.live

Not really. Equally important, The way it's been forced upon us when most people want nothing to do with it (hl2.net's Marxist bubble aside) is not only undemocratic but sinister.

Even leaving aside your opinion that the EU "control" us the Lib Dems have promised a referendum on staying in or leaving the EU next time there's any significant change.
Since 80% of our laws are dictated by the EU, and EU law now supercedes national law, to say that they control us is something of an understatement.

And yet the Lib Dems are as pro-EU as you can get. Plainly hypocritical to try and reconcile that with "democratic values".

Besides which, I've yet to hear any credible argument from anyone as to the benefit of belonging to the EU in its current form. Every argument for it inevitably falls into one of two categories - "we should be all united, and peace and love and flowers and hippy stuff and nation-states are outdated, duuuuuude" or "poorer nations will benefit". Which, by extension, means that richer nations will suffer. Since I happen to belong to one of the richer nations, that's not exactly a convincing argument.
 

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,317
Reaction score
14
Yet any kind of national democratic reform is irrelevant whilst we are controlled by the EU.
Why is that? The policy issues closest to the hearts of most people, education, taxes, health care and welfare, are, and will remain, at the national level. The EU has very little say in these matters. So reform at the national level is far from irrelevant.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Your link is a joke, far from being impartial. I also didn't see anything dealing with how democratic the institutions are (besides blind assertions that it's undemocratic), at least on the page you linked.

As was said in the debate last thursday half of the UKs trade is with the EU and 750,000 businesses and 3 million jobs depend on it. Kinda important.


Anyway I cba debating the benefits vs cost of the EU with you, you made your mind up on that years ago. My point is that electoral reform such as instituting proportional representation also means euroskeptics like yourself can freely vote for UKIP without it being a wasted vote, they'd actually get seats and have some influence in parliament. A vote for Lib Dems now will make it more likely that votes for UKIP later will actually have meaning.

Tories are by far the most morally bankrupt of the main parties and are firmly against any electoral reform, your choice of who to vote for is not in your long-term best interest.
 

Lucid

The Freeman
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
14,882
Reaction score
38
Scottish National Party cuz it sounds cool. :imu:
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Why is that? The policy issues closest to the hearts of most people, education, taxes, health care and welfare, are, and will remain, at the national level. The EU has very little say in these matters. So reform at the national level is far from irrelevant.
Perhaps "irrelevant" was not the best choice of word. The EU is a far more pressing concern than our own electoral system.

Your link is a joke, far from being impartial. I also didn't see anything dealing with how democratic the institutions are (besides blind assertions that it's undemocratic), at least on the page you linked.
Of course it's not impartial, much like anything supporting the EU is not impartial. There's a whole website to explore, go nuts.

As was said in the debate last thursday half of the UKs trade is with the EU and 750,000 businesses and 3 million jobs depend on it. Kinda important.
So it's economic blackmail then. In exchange for trade we have to surrender our freedom and self-determination. That doesn't really make me feel any better.

Anyway I cba debating the benefits vs cost of the EU with you, you made your mind up on that years ago. My point is that electoral reform such as instituting proportional representation also means euroskeptics like yourself can freely vote for UKIP without it being a wasted vote, they'd actually get seats and have some influence in parliament. A vote for Lib Dems now will make it more likely that votes for UKIP later will actually have meaning.
Fair point. It doesn't justify or explain the sudden Madeline McCann-esque obsession with the Lib Dems, however. Which, at the end of the day, are just another high-tax, high-spend left-wing party.

Tories are by far the most morally bankrupt of the main parties and are firmly against any electoral reform, your choice of who to vote for is not in your long-term best interest.
How can they be any more morally bankrupt than the Labour party? The party that in thirteen short years has managed to expand the size and power of the state to unimaginable levels, literally double taxation with no clear return on investment, cause an exodus from the country on a colossal scale, and which has intentionally created a client state of public sector workers, benefit claimants and poor immigrants who will always vote Labour.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Oh Labour are nearly as bad, but Conservatives are trying to pass themselves off as progressive and different when they're the same old nasty dirty old party of privilege.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Oh Labour are nearly as bad, but Conservatives are trying to pass themselves off as progressive and different when they're the same old nasty dirty old party of privilege.
The Conservatives never were a "party of privilege", but a party of opportunity and self-reliance. Why should people be punished for success? And why should failure be rewarded at the expense of the successful?

I grew up in various council estates and my parents have lived off handouts for decades. The reason that most of the people stuck in those places are still there is because of reliance on welfare and a lack of ambition or responsibility. Nothing to do with supposedly evil nasty right-wing governments. It's cultural, ironically made a million times worse by left-wing governments which support that lifestyle and give them no incentive to get off their arse and sort their lives out.

Ten years ago the average person in a place like Exeter struggling to get by on £16k a year (as is the reality outside of the south-east and major cities) would have been able to afford a relatively comfortable lifestyle because they wouldn't have been taxed half to death and the cost of living was far less. So much for the "party of the working man".
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
I was talking about the sleazy dirty privileged party members rather than policies. What would trust fund millionaire Etonian Bullingdon Club members know about public education?
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
I was talking about the sleazy dirty privileged party members rather than policies. What would trust fund millionaire Etonian Bullingdon Club members know about public education?
So they did something wrong by being born into wealth?

I don't see how that's any different than any of the career politicians we have these days, who go straight into a political career after university, and never have any real understanding of what they are doing or the impact of their decisions on the real world. Gordon Brown has never worked a real job in his life, did a degree in history or some shit and spent ten years in charge of the country's finances. How scary is that?
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
No they did nothing wrong, it just means they're rather detached from the kind of life the vast, vast majority of the public live. Gordon Brown (I'm not a fan) may never have worked a real job in his life, but he's from an background which would allow him to relate to his consituents at least.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Double post, way-hey!

Back to the election here are a few sites people may find useful.

Vote Match where you answer questions about your ideals and are told which party's manifesto matches them best

Skeptical Vote which has collected information about MPs and their attitudes to evidence-based policy.

They Work For You contains information about MPs voting history.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
No they did nothing wrong, it just means they're rather detached from the kind of life the vast, vast majority of the public live. Gordon Brown (I'm not a fan) may never have worked a real job in his life, but he's from an background which would allow him to relate to his consituents at least.
I think exactly the same is true of someone who has spent their entire life in politics. It's not just Brown either, it's the majority of politicians nowadays.

Politics used to be something people did as a civic duty, alongside their usual career. What better way to give them a grounding in the real world? It's not a static situation either, that grounding is being removed more and more as time passes - Parliament now sits during working hours, whereas it used to sit in the evenings to allow MPs to look after outside interests. For some reason, it's become a big scandal that MPs should even be allowed to have outside interests - personally, I think it should be mandatory that they do.

Being an MP shouldn't pay well enough to be a career in its own right. And if they weren't so insistent on using the power of government to control every aspect of life in this country, they wouldn't need to treat it as a full time job either. Often the best thing a government can do is nothing at all.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Double post, way-hey!

Back to the election here are a few sites people may find useful.

Vote Match where you answer questions about your ideals and are told which party's manifesto matches them best
UK Independence Party: 62%
British National Party: 49%
Conservative Party: 48%
Liberal Democrats: 27%
Labour Party: 18%
Green Party: 12%

No surprises there, then. :)
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
First Burnley, then Belfast. You seem very drawn to places known for their multi-cultural harmony. :)
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
I think exactly the same is true of someone who has spent their entire life in politics. It's not just Brown either, it's the majority of politicians nowadays.

Politics used to be something people did as a civic duty, alongside their usual career. What better way to give them a grounding in the real world? It's not a static situation either, that grounding is being removed more and more as time passes - Parliament now sits during working hours, whereas it used to sit in the evenings to allow MPs to look after outside interests. For some reason, it's become a big scandal that MPs should even be allowed to have outside interests - personally, I think it should be mandatory that they do.

Being an MP shouldn't pay well enough to be a career in its own right. And if they weren't so insistent on using the power of government to control every aspect of life in this country, they wouldn't need to treat it as a full time job either. Often the best thing a government can do is nothing at all.
I agree politicians should have a grounding in a 'real job' (I'd hesitate to include being in PR here) before entering politics, but being an MP should definitely pay enough to live on. Otherwise you're back to the old days of only those being born into privilege being able to support a career in politics, where someone from a standard background could never (or almost never) be able to afford to.
You're probably right that it's swung a little too far in the other direction from those times but don't be overzealous in trying to correct things.

Also there are still quite a lot of MPs who have had previous careers, but I think they tend to end up as back-benchers, and there should be more.
All the main parties tend to be guilty of this, though I think the extent varies a little.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
I agree politicians should have a grounding in a 'real job' (I'd hesitate to include being in PR here) before entering politics, but being an MP should definitely pay enough to live on. Otherwise you're back to the old days of only those being born into privilege being able to support a career in politics, where someone from a standard background could never (or almost never) be able to afford to.
I'd prefer that to the current situation, as at least if they're already rich they don't have any incentive to screw us over for all we're worth. I'd rather have the country run by successful professionals and company directors than a bunch of unqualified and useless imbeciles such as we have now.

Anyway, as I say, if it's not a full time job, then they could fit it around some other work. Either that, or make it a living wage but not much more. Probably the best solution all round actually, they could earn far more money turning their talents to other things so they can do their bit for public service but they wouldn't want to have it as a long-term career - certainly not for selfish reasons anyway.

You're probably right that it's swung a little too far in the other direction from those times but don't be overzealous in trying to correct things.

Also there are still quite a lot of MPs who have had previous careers, but I think they tend to end up as back-benchers, and there should be more.
All the main parties tend to be guilty of this, though I think the extent varies a little.
It would also be nice if they were required to have some kind of qualification/experience in the area they're supposedly responsible for aswell. Ministerial posts are handed out as favours, not according to any kind of expertise. The chancellor should have an esteemed background in finance. A muppet with a history degree and nothing else about him wouldn't suddenly end up a Finance Director, so why do we allow it in the government?
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Yes, Vince Cable is oddly the only one in a chancellor role for a party who has that kind of experience.
You seem to be contradicting your previous point a little with that last one though. How many teachers would be able to give up teaching and go into a sub minimum-wage career in politics for example? Doctors, businessmen, ok, but some other roles it'd be more difficult money-wise except for those in the highest echelons who are practically politicians anyway. Like policemen, army officers, and as I said, teachers.
 

Shift

Space Core
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
5,018
Reaction score
7
I shall be voting conservative. Labour had their time and failed, Clegg just reminds me of another Tony Blair and look what happened there, and their defense policies are shocking quite frankly, not to mention I'd rather not switch the euro thank you very much. So tories seems the only logical choice to me.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Electoral reform is what's best for the country, regardless of your political position. Supporting the Lib Dems is the most likely way to achieve this. Conservatives are most against it, though have made hints that they might reconsider if it's the only way they can form a government with LD in a hung parliament. We just have to make sure that happens.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Yes, Vince Cable is oddly the only one in a chancellor role for a party who has that kind of experience.
You seem to be contradicting your previous point a little with that last one though. How many teachers would be able to give up teaching and go into a sub minimum-wage career in politics for example? Doctors, businessmen, ok, but some other roles it'd be more difficult money-wise except for those in the highest echelons who are practically politicians anyway. Like policemen, army officers, and as I said, teachers.
I didn't say it had to be sub-minimum wage. 15k would do nicely. Anyway, I don't think it would be such a bad thing if the country was run primarily by doctors and businessmen. It would certainly raise the standard of governance dramatically over what we have now - where they quite literally seem to be able to do nothing right.

I'd like to see minimum standards for potential candidates - achievements they must have had in an unrelated field in order to be able to stand as an MP such as a successful career before entering politics.

Also, I'd like to see ministerial government separated from the duties of being an MP. MPs shouldn't be able to become ministers, it should be a separate branch of the government altogether as they have in the USA. It's a gross lack of checks and balances, and you're quite right, our system of government is extremely undemocratic. I mean, what the hell is the party whip all about? MPs are supposed to be there to keep the government in line, not to bow to its demands.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Yeah doctors and businessmen would be fine as ministers for health, treasury and other related waffley ones. I think someone with teaching experience would be preferable when it comes to education though, and military experience would be nice for defense. For justice minister I suppose successful lawyers or ex-judges would do instead of police and money wouldn't be an issue there.

You have to remember though that 15k still is very little considering MPs have to spend a lot of time in London as well as in their constituency, with traveling in between. Or do you mean 15k in addition to basic expenses?
Currently they're paid at least £64,766 in addition to expenses and a great pension. I think anything up to, say, 24k + tighter expense allowances would be alright and still a big improvement.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Yeah, expenses too.

The thing is, I think MPs are actually quite underpaid for the responsibilities that they have - and I have no problem with them being paid according to what they are worth. £65k isn't actually a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

However, it's become about the money and the free ride being the end goal rather than pursuit of genuine public service and then getting the money as a reward. Therefore that privilege has to be taken away.

There's obviously a link here between career politicians and uselesness. If you compare the governments of the past with recent ones, they just get worse and worse. None more terrible than the latest sorry set.

The ironic thing is, all a party would have to do to guarantee getting elected would be to tell the truth and have our best interests at heart. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept for them to grasp.

As a salesman, everything I do or say is in the best interests of the customer. If something isn't right for them or someone else could help them better, I'll say so, even if it means walking away from a deal. In the long term it means that they trust me implicitly, accept my recommendations, refer me on to others and, in the long-term, I get far more business as a result from far more cooperative clients.

Politicians could learn from said approach. They've made their own bed of distrust and dishonesty and they can lie in it.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
The three main parties are still neck-and-neck in the polls, currently only 5 points separating the highest from lowest polling party - within margins of error it appears that the Tories are still slightly in the lead followed closely by Lib Dems who are slightly ahead of Labour.
 

Shift

Space Core
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
5,018
Reaction score
7
Seems Brown's 'biggot' remark will be the final nail in coffin for his party wouldn't you agree? Who would have thought a pensioner going out for a loaf of bread would topple the Labour government :eek:

Saying that I feel sorry for Brown, its not his fault the country is how it is after all, and he does generally seem to want to try and fix the country, even if a lot of his remarks are most likely lies instigated from his consultants. Seems the tories may claim this one, lets hope they don't screw it up like they did in the Thatcher era.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
I doubt it. He escaped from the Bullying fiasco unscathed after all.

Some polling was done on it in fact, see here.
 

Solaris

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
4
That biggot stuff was so overblown. The woman was a racist biggot, it was plain to see.

"You just can't say anything bad about them immigrants these days"

Bullshit.
 

Blackthorn

Newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
2
I guarantee you if Cameron had said that, the media would have portrayed him as a no-shit-honest-says-it-like-it-is-with-his-furious-little-eyes hero. I'm no fan of Brown, but the media outcry over this has been completely unfair.

Edit: Don't you hate it when he pulls his tough guy faces?



Just look at him. I bet you want to hit him with something metal.
 
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
522
Reaction score
0
I lol'd when Brown shook his head every time Cameron spoke as if to say no no no.
 

Shift

Space Core
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
5,018
Reaction score
7
Think Cameron owned the debate tonight, and he did generally have a point, Brown just didn't have anything positive to say anymore, he looked completely broken, he looked like the leader of the party that has lost the general election.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Cameron got owned last night more like it. He was questioned several times about dodgey policies and was unable to answer.
 
Top