The 2015 General Election

[Jon]

 

 

yup, me too.

 

tends to be them, or libdems generally.

 

I've voted lib dem, labour & conservative perviously - Green this time.

I'm genuinely beffudled that anyone could vote both Tory and Green in a pretty short lifespan. The Tories and the Greens are so far apart ideologically and practically as to make it a really absurd revelation.

 

Unless of course you didn't know what you were doing previously, and have now had some sort of epiphany?

 

 

I got older and learned about stuff.

 

People change opinions.  Unless you're one of these I AM A CONSERVATIVE/LABOUR/LIB DEM nutters.

 

It's like religion as far as I'm concerned, people blindly backing a party - moronic.

 

Yeah, I'd agree on the last line. There's a lot of that that goes on.

 

I'm 41 now. I've voted for Labour, the Lie Dems and Green in past Local, General and European elections. I've always taken a pretty big interest in this kind of thing. I studied politics at Degree and Masters level. I got taken in by Anthony Blair.

 

I do also think the top line about 'getting older and learning' is maybe crucial to your thinking this time?

 

I'd wager there are not going to be many people that take a decent level of interest in politics and General Elections, that would flip between Tory and Green. Ask Loc for example if he's tempted to 'Go Green'. I commend you for doing so though Sir.

[choffer]

Even though voting for the Tories would probably best suit me financially, I think I would self combust if I did.  I think I will be spoiling my ballot as things stand.

 

That's the thing that concerns me most about modern politics.

 

Politicians seem to think that the way to get votes is to buy them. A major factor of the independence debate was how each individual Scotch would personally benefit financially and lots of people were swayed by this. In this election, all the talk is about making the average hard working man better off. It's almost as if giving each person a fiver guarantees their vote. Unfortunately, for a good proportion of the electorate, it seems that this is enough to get their vote. What ever happened to voting in people on the basis of improving things for everyone?

[lapal_fan]

At the end of the day, I voted for the Tories when I saw Labour spunking every penny we had going (it seemed) and there was a universal "we need to sort this out" attitude.

 

I voted for Labour when everything seemed to be rosy (also, Noel Gallagher told me to).

 

I voted for Lib Dems but I can't remember why off the top of my head.

 

Likewise 97 blair seemed great, my family seemed happy, everyone seemed to be having a good time.  Britain was cool-britannia etc.

 

But there's no way it wasn't going to change in 2010.  That's why I think blind labour supporters are mental.

 

Likewise with blind tory voters, when the going is good, share it out a little, but from what I can see, they're just the guys who get the clean up from the last labour govt.

 

as I said, uninformed.

[Condimentalist]

 

 

I was a rabid Lib Dem supporter last election as they had the best policies and alignment of the visible (to me) parties and it seemed there was a genuine movement towards them so we could get a major political shift.

Then they found themselves in the awkward position of having to form a coalition with the Tories or leave the country with a hung parliament.

Can anyone explain why they're now so hated by their previous supporters other than failing to stop the Tories doing what the Tories do?

 

Because they don't have many hardline supporters like Labour or the Tories. Because people are not used to coalition governments and ludicrously expected them to be able to deliver their entire manifesto. Because it has suited the Tory party and their friends in the media to make the Lib Dems the whipping boys of government to take the heat off their own performance. 

 

That's definitely part of it, but I think there's another part as well. I think a large number of LD supporters 5 years ago were of the view that they were a left leaning, "nice" party, who cared about the environment and the young and were pro europe and kind of open in outlook.

 

Then they got into bed with the Tories and bad things happened. Bad things that LD voters most certainly didn't want to happen. People felt betrayed, basically, and the tuition fees thing has been such a weight on them, because it's like a beacon of that betrayal.

 

 

I'm one of those people, Pete. I still think they care about those things. I'm sure if they were a majority government they would display that character more clearly. As it is, their role in this government has been to curb the worst excesses of the Tory party and bring through as much of their manifesto as they practically could do, whilst supporting an exit from deep recession. For the most part, I think they've done that pretty well. 

 

The tuition fees stuff winds me up. I understand it, of course, but they're hardly the only party that has broken a promise. It was a promise they should never have made. The policy they've enacted now is, broadly speaking, a sensible one.

Edited April 28, 2015 by PatrickCousens

[tonyh29]

 

Even though by and large its now seen that tuition fees were a good thing  ...the  reforms have not just helped universities, but they have done more for the poorest students ...and  the evidence bears it out. 

Now there's a claim that needs substantiating!

 

well I've no doubt there will be a comment or two about accepting the word of a opinion writer in the Torygraph  , but I've seen the similar arguments put forward from other people as well

 

(click the link for the whole article)

 

Across the country, universities are finding that something strange is happening. The predicted effect of the £9,000 annual fees – a permanent slump in applications from discouraged students – has failed to materialise. Now we are seeing more applications than ever, and a record number are from people with disadvantaged backgrounds. There’s more competition, with new universities and sixth-form colleges offering robust, no-frills degrees. The Scottish government, which abolished tuition fees, now has an embarrassing admission to make: if you’re gifted, poor and set on university, then England is the best place to be.

Edited April 28, 2015 by blandy

[choffer]

OK, I'll see your Torygraph and raise you a Grauniad:

 

 

Loans that no one expects to be repaid. No limit to the number of students institutions can recruit. If radical changes over the past two years to financing UK higher education have sometimes appeared risky, that is because they are, according to a report published this week.

The report, compiled by the Higher Education Commission – a cross-party group of MPs and representatives from business and academia – warns that the current system of fees and loans is the worst of all worlds, and is unsustainable for the future: “An experiment is under way, with potential consequences for English HE stretching decades into the future.”

 

 

 

Continues here: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/18/tuition-fees-student-loans-must-change-higher-education-commission

Edited April 28, 2015 by choffer

[snowychap]

Even though by and large its now seen that tuition fees were a good thing  ...the  reforms have not just helped universities, but they have done more for the poorest students ...and  the evidence bears it out.

Even if the testimony of Fraser Nelson were to be taken as incontrovertible, objective truth (I think you know the answer to that one), this is to miss the point massively.

It isn't about whether the policy they decided upon/cobbled together turned out better than the previous position but about pledging to do something, i.e. vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.

It was very clear. They (Lib Dem candidates and lots of Labour PPCs, too) pledged, as individuals, to vote against any increase in fees and 27 (I think) Lib Dem MPs voted in favour of an increase with 8 abstaining.

Those 35 broke a very public promise/pledge that was specifically aimed at garnering support from an area of the electorate that they thought would help them out a lot.

It wasn't 'oppose' any increase or 'fight against' any increase, it was vote against and 35 of them didn't. They lied.

p.s. Without reading through Fraser's opinion piece, I'll take a punt that it's concentrating on the effects as seen at the moment, i.e. between the introduction of the increase and now, rather than even thinking about the effect of huge defaults (or write offs) of loans in twenty years and beyond.

[Xela]

Will I vote? Maybe

 

If I do vote it will probably be Conservative. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[snowychap]

...the obligations of the PM to resign when it is clear someone else is better placed to have the confidence of the House of Commons.

I've been mulling this over and reading other sources and [shapps]I don't think I put this quite right[/shapps] .

The trigger for a resignation is the point at which it is clear that the incumbent PM cannot command the confidence of the house (rather than when someone else can).

[tonyh29]

Saw a clip of ballot monkeys just now

The Tory spin doctor came out with the line of "David is arriving at the shopping centre to meet real people , your job is to make sure our real people stop him from meeting any of the real , real people "

[donnie]

Some of the crazy policies of the looney Green Party:

- It shouldnt be a crime to be part of Al Qaeda or ISIS. Cool its okay to join then!

- In these dangerous times, they want to slash the armed forces and put nature reserves there instead. Peace not war man.

- Cannabis and Heroin decriminalised and Brothels legalised. I repeat Brothels legalised! Yep sounds like the 1750's to me.

- A reduction in immigration controls and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Okayyyy???

- Taxes to be MUCH higher and our already ridiculously high foreign aid contribution to be increased by 50 percent. Sounds fair....NOT.

- Everyone should get a guarenteed income of £71 a week whether they work or not! This increase alone is SEVERAL times our NHS budget.

- Force the BBC to broadcast educational programmes at primetime. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me dictating our propaganda.

- A significant reduction in prisoners. So do the crime and you most likely wont do the time. Yep sounds like it will be a safe environment to live under the greens...

- No new airports built and HIGH tax levies put on flights smaking flying unaffordable for working classes. So my trips to Thailand and Spain will become Skegness and Brighton. WOOOOOO.

- Build more and more windfarms and discourage us from eating meat and instead go Veggie. Yeah love a nice quorn burger more then a hamburger says no one. Again DICTATING what we do.

- Install speed limiters in cars to stop anyone breaking the speed limit.

-Ban the grand national and lads magazines

- All companies must be made up of at least 40 percent at boardroom level regardless of their skills. Discrimation me thinks.

Loonies, mad and dangerous. Seriously would question anyone who would vote for them knowing their polices.

Edited April 28, 2015 by donnie

[Demitri_C]

My brother has decided how he intends to vote.He isn't ticking any of the boxes he is sending it back with a message scribbled "you all lying clearing in.the the woods"

It's sad that this is the state of UK politics these days.

[donnie]

Lolz at those who would even consider voting Green Party. They are totally bonkers. The policies are bordering from the ridiculous to barking mad.

I won't vote for them I don't think.

The spectrum test tends to align me with them, but I don't particularly align myself to anything they say. And Natalie Bennet is probably the least inspiring leader I've ever seen.

If I did vote for them it would be a protest vote really.

Doesn't matter in the end. They'll all do the same shit anyway.

I get that and see why. I did the same protest vote years ago voting 'the pensioner party' for a laugh. However, after felt like a complete waste of a vote.

So always voted Labour until now. The thought of that wet cabbage in power (ED) and a coaltion with the SNP makes me sick inside.

[snowychap]

Some of the crazy policies of the looney Green Party:

- It shouldnt be a crime to be part of Al Qaeda or ISIS

- In these dangerous times they want to slash the armed forces and put nature reserves there instead

- Cannabis and Heroin decriminalised and Brothels legalised

- A reduction in immigration controls and amnesty for illegal immigrants

- Taxes to be MUCH higher and are already ridiculously high foreign aid contribution to be increased by 50 percent

- Everyone should get a guarenteed income of £71 a week whether they work or not!

- Force the BBC to broadcast educational programmes at primetime

- A significant reduction in prisoners. So do the crime and you most likely wont do the time. Yep sounds like it will be a safe environment to live under the greens...not

- No new airports built and HIGH taxes on flights set making flying unaffordable for working classes

- Build more and more windfarms and encourage us from eating meat and instead go Veggie.

- Install speed limiters in cars to stop anyone breaking the speed limit.

-Ban the grand national and lads magazines

- All companies must be made up of at least 40 percent at boardroom level regardless of their skills.

Loonies, mad and dangerous. Seriously would question anyone would vote for them knowing their polices.

First guess - Express; second - Sun; third - Labour party HQ/Mirror.

[darrenm]

Some of the crazy policies of the looney Green Party:

 

<pasted below>

Loonies, mad and dangerous. Seriously would question anyone would vote for them knowing their polices.

 

- It shouldnt be a crime to be part of Al Qaeda or ISIS

  

No, it shouldn't be a crime to be part of an organisation or group. Individuals are accountable for their own actions, or forcing people to do illegal acts. An arbitrary nonsensical name that you associate with yourself isn't and shouldn't be illegal.

- In these dangerous times they want to slash the armed forces and put nature reserves there instead

 

What dangerous times? Are the 3rd Reich on the march across Europe again?

- Cannabis and Heroin decriminalised and Brothels legalised

 

I haven't looked into this but I assume it's decriminalised for personal use, which is a whole different ball game to supplying. Someone shouldn't have their lives ruined for recreational drug use, and evidence shows that criminalising something and pushing it underground only makes it harder to control. Brothels, what's wrong with them being legalised? They've been going on illegally for hundreds of years and always will so why not promote better conditions and health for sex workers rather than lose control and have shady trade of sex slaves underground?

 

- A reduction in immigration controls and amnesty for illegal immigrants

 

Attempt to control something you can't control only makes it worse. There's no reason to restrict people moving through our borders. What's so wrong with foreigners? Do you not like their accents? Or now your ancestors moved in to this land you want to shut the door and not let anyone else in?

- Taxes to be MUCH higher and are already ridiculously high foreign aid contribution to be increased by 50 percent

 

Rebalancing the ridiculous wealth divide. Only very high end taxes to increase.

- Everyone should get a guarenteed income of £71 a week whether they work or not!

 

So a bit like the dole now, but a bit more money? Or do you think people on the dole should have no money whatsoever?

- Force the BBC to broadcast educational programmes at primetime

 

Not seen this one.

- A significant reduction in prisoners. So do the crime and you most likely wont do the time. Yep sounds like it will be a safe environment to live under the greens...not

 

Again not seen this one but I assume it's likely to be favouring better rehabilitation programmes rather than just condemning someone to spend their lives in and out of overcrowded prisons.

- No new airports built and HIGH taxes on flights set making flying unaffordable for working classes

 

Air travel is used too much. Taxing it more will make people holiday a bit closer to home instead and support the British economy a bit more. If the price goes up it certainly won't make it unaffordable for working classes, in the same way cruises aren't unaffordable for anyone now. It will just be less attractive so some people may go to Gran Canaria once a year instead of twice.

- Build more and more windfarms and encourage us from eating meat and instead go Veggie.

 

We eat far too much meat. We have food shortages because animals are being bred, fed and kept on land which could be used for crops. They also take lots and lots of water. It's one of the most wasteful aspects of modern human living. All of that apart from the fact that eating lots of meat is really bad for you. No-one's saying anyone should or shouldn't be a veggie, that's an individual's choice. But we're eating far more meat than the planet can sustain and our bodies need.

- Install speed limiters in cars to stop anyone breaking the speed limit.

 

Not seen this one, but it's happening more and more with young driver insurance policies anyway. A lot of new drivers can't afford to drive unless they have a box fitted. But please let me know why you think breaking the speed limit and causing more road fatalities is a good thing?

-Ban the grand national and lads magazines

 

I find horse racing pretty distasteful but again haven't seen these policies. I assume the 'banning of lads mags' would be removing edgy/porn mags from newsagents' shelves, but allowing them to still be purchased / subscribed to?

- All companies must be made up of at least 40 percent at boardroom level regardless of their skills.

 

Absolutely no idea what this means.

 

I don't have time to translate the 'OMG THE STUPID GREENS' language into actual policies I can fully research so I'm taking your word for it on some of those. Some pretty obvious sensationalising there though.

[tonyh29]

"Eating meat is bad for you "

Go back to Woodstock , Hippy

[darrenm]

"Eating meat is bad for you "

Go back to Woodstock , Hippy

 

Where none of us have bowel cancer

 

I did say eating _lots_ of meat is bad for you, which is universally accepted. Red meat once or twice a week.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

 

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I’m tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words. I’ll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

 

 

[snowychap]

Red meat once or twice a day.

Fixed.

[lapal_fan]

LOL @ Donald