Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #4 - Leaders Debate one

[TrentVilla]

As do most people. It's quite amazing how Labour and Tory supporters keep banging on about 'Lib Dem policies won't stand up to scrutiny' to make it sound like people are only supporting Lib Dem due to the TV debate. That's a bit insulting TBH and it seems that once most people look at each manifesto and compare then it's quite apparently that Labour and Tory policies are either media-reactionary and are trying to play to what they think will be popular or misguided. Lib Dem policies seem (at least to me) to be actually considered and made with common sense, even if they may not be popular.

To be fair a lot of people currently backing the Libs are doing so because of the TV debate you only need to look at the boost in the polls to know that.

[AVFCLaura]

Is there anything that people who are new to politics can read which gives an idea of the policies of all three?

I'd like to make an informed decision but I get the feeling if I read the parties manifestos I wouldn't understand them.

Tone posted this link a few pages ago Laura.

Quite good, and quite quick to do!

Policies

I took this, apparently I favour the policies of the Liberal Democrats.

a girl with her head screwed on, and with a good moral compass. :nod:

good stuff. Join the club

Oh, yay!

[snowychap]

A major issue? Really?

Above the economy? Above lack of affordable housing? Above tax avoidance by big business and the extremely wealthy? Above wars? Above income and wealth inequality?

For a great many, yes Snowy.

it's a hugely emotive issue, which is why it is very important to "a lot" of voters.

In which case, Jon, the country deserves to be ****.

I assume a great many will 'read' this as me being a supporter of hunting. I'm not (I don't care for it at all - and I have directly known people on both sides of the fight and not just the argument, i.e. sabs and members of hunts) but that won't satisfy those 'readers' (such as Ricardomeister) because 'people like me' (whatever that may mean - the person who used it won't do me the courtesy of explaining), if we don't see it as such an important issue that ought to be debated for hundreds of hours in parliament and then a law put in place which doesn't actually prevent the hunting of foxes (nor especially the lamping of foxes, I believe), we must be pathetic, condescending and, now, patronizing.

I'm not asking anyone to ignore fox hunting (or not to mention it) - I wonder about people's priorities, though, when they are more concerned about that than the poor, wealth distribution, people without life prospects, &c.

It's a great example of Blairite (and New Labour) politics, though, concentrate on something showy that gives one the feeling of having done something big and forget about actually trying to improve the lives of pensioners, the poor, the disaffected, the disenfrachised et al.

And, yes, I do believe that it will be no different under the Tories, should they get in.

[Jon]

If numbers are still controlled in a humane way then so be it, it has to be better than them being ripped to pieces in the name of entertainment or sport.

In a nutshell there Ash

[LondonLax]

pro fox/deer murdering

Is there no other issue in 'politics' that is important to you? :?

It is a major issue though. The Tory party and their blood thirsty hunt supporters want to change the law back to the barbaric one of allowing the Hooray's to smear blood on faces and the like.

A major issue? Really?

Above the economy? Above lack of affordable housing? Above tax avoidance by big business and the extremely wealthy? Above wars? Above income and wealth inequality?

For a great many, yes Snowy.

it's a hugely emotive issue, which is why it is very important to "a lot" of voters.

I'd say it is almost a deal breaker for me voting Tory as well.

I'd agree with most of their economic policies but will probably vote Lib Dem, solely on the basis of pushing through parliamentary reform...

[darrenm]

As do most people. It's quite amazing how Labour and Tory supporters keep banging on about 'Lib Dem policies won't stand up to scrutiny' to make it sound like people are only supporting Lib Dem due to the TV debate. That's a bit insulting TBH and it seems that once most people look at each manifesto and compare then it's quite apparently that Labour and Tory policies are either media-reactionary and are trying to play to what they think will be popular or misguided. Lib Dem policies seem (at least to me) to be actually considered and made with common sense, even if they may not be popular.

To be fair a lot of people currently backing the Libs are doing so because of the TV debate you only need to look at the boost in the polls to know that.

Yes, which is a bad thing in itself. However if it gets more people actually interested and comparing policy then it will be a means to an end.

[Jon]

As do most people. It's quite amazing how Labour and Tory supporters keep banging on about 'Lib Dem policies won't stand up to scrutiny' to make it sound like people are only supporting Lib Dem due to the TV debate. That's a bit insulting TBH and it seems that once most people look at each manifesto and compare then it's quite apparently that Labour and Tory policies are either media-reactionary and are trying to play to what they think will be popular or misguided. Lib Dem policies seem (at least to me) to be actually considered and made with common sense, even if they may not be popular.

To be fair a lot of people currently backing the Libs are doing so because of the TV debate you only need to look at the boost in the polls to know that.

Or even just take a look at the VT poll. :winkold:

still, at least these leader debates seem to have "switched people on" to politics and the Election.

Maybe we will get a turnout boost at this elction now?

[blandy]

Election Posters

[tonyh29]

'Lib Dem policies won't stand up to scrutiny' to make it sound like people are only supporting Lib Dem due to the TV debate

Their share of vote in the polls has risen by over 10% since the TV debate so you can see why that conclusion could be reached though ..though for it's sins VT has always had a lib dem slant to it

until recently I couldn't really have told you what the lib dems policies were but since the debate it's caused me to look closer

Localised immigration policy in my opinion wouldn't work and i'm not sure about the libs VAT on new houses either ...

as my sky poll results showed I'm not adverse to one or two of their policies ..but there are some that really do need to be questioned

[Guest Ricardomeister]

Is he trying to change your view or has he just asked if there are other issues important to you and followed up by suggesting you say what they are? . As to patronising suggest you check that definition (lot of definition doing today) and read it in conjunction with your last two posts

No, he quite obviously was not asking if there are other issues that are important to me otherwise the question would have been "what other issues are important to you?". The way the question was worded plus the stupid smiley was clearly a sarcastic comment intimating that no other issues are important to me. I was commenting on one particular issue and I didn't realise that I had to comment on every single issue every time I post, especially as I have previously commented on who I agree with on all the major issues.

As I said before I do not need the approval of anyone, especially people who make thinly veiled insults, to decide what is important to me.

And thanks for your kind offer of checking the meaning of patronising. There is certainly nothing patronising about me stating my opinion and my refusal to be swayed by personal digs.

[TrentVilla]

Totally agree with you dirk1978 and Jon, it will be interesting to see if the impact of the next two debates is as big as after the 1st or if people have will have already lost interest. These days it seems only the new and shinny that attracts interest.

I wouldn't be surprised if the debates boost the electorial turnout but sadly it is a further sign of the dumbing down of our political process. As I first said on here a couple of years back, we now have X-Factor politics in this country.

I suppose we should be glad there aren't the big buzzers like on Britains got talent.

[thetrees]

pro fox/deer murdering

Is there no other issue in 'politics' that is important to you? :?

It is a major issue though. The Tory party and their blood thirsty hunt supporters want to change the law back to the barbaric one of allowing the Hooray's to smear blood on faces and the like.

On that basis should we be looking to ban boxing and Quentin Tarantino films? :winkold:

Please note that I don't give a damn either way about hunting, particularly foxes. I would favour keeping the ban in place purely because such a huge amount of government time and money was spent on banning it in the first place.

I am partial to a bit of venison though, so the powder must be kept dry to bump off the odd Bambi or two :winkold:

[tonyh29]

url=http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php]Election Posters

blandy in technology fail shock :-)

[kidlewis]

All it has done is stopped the barbarism with controlling foxes. Just as many are getting killed by snares or guns. It's not actually increasing the number of foxes about. If anything it's doing the opposite.

I don't think the ban was ever about increasing numbers it was about reducing animal suffering and stopping them being ripped to pieces by dogs.

If numbers are still controlled in a humane way then so be it, it has to be better than them being ripped to pieces in the name of entertainment or sport.

whilst I don't advocate hunting you do know the dogs actually go for the throat and don't just rip parts off randomly. That generally happens, but more often than not after the fox is already dead.

also whilst we consider shooting animals humane for pest control, many foxes do still die a slow painful death.

I play cricket with a farmer and he says shooting a fox sprinting away from the land rover search lights at night on farm land and trying to ensure a headshot to ensure the fox dies instantly is incredibly difficult. Also the fox is dismembered anyway by the gunshot in some form or another.

I do agree they need to be dealt with though, a neigbour when I was a kid had their 6 chickens all killed by a fox, and the fox didn't even eat them.

[TrentVilla]

pro fox/deer murdering

Is there no other issue in 'politics' that is important to you? :?

It is a major issue though. The Tory party and their blood thirsty hunt supporters want to change the law back to the barbaric one of allowing the Hooray's to smear blood on faces and the like.

On that basis should we be looking to ban boxing and Quentin Tarantino films? :winkold:

Please note that I don't give a damn either way about hunting, particularly foxes. I would favour keeping the ban in place purely because such a huge amount of government time and money was spent on banning it in the first place.

I am partial to a bit of venison though, so the powder must be kept dry to bump off the odd Bambi or two :winkold:

There is little or no comparison which can be drawn between those who take part in hunting and those who partake in boxing. Sorry that is a poor parallel to draw.

[kidlewis]

pro fox/deer murdering

Is there no other issue in 'politics' that is important to you? :?

It is a major issue though. The Tory party and their blood thirsty hunt supporters want to change the law back to the barbaric one of allowing the Hooray's to smear blood on faces and the like.

On that basis should we be looking to ban boxing and Quentin Tarantino films? :winkold:

Please note that I don't give a damn either way about hunting, particularly foxes. I would favour keeping the ban in place purely because such a huge amount of government time and money was spent on banning it in the first place.

I am partial to a bit of venison though, so the powder must be kept dry to bump off the odd Bambi or two :winkold:

foxes do need to be owned, they are little shits, but it's the pomp and ceremony about hunting them that people didn't like.

people seemed to think it was an upper class thing though, which is clearly completely wrong.

[TheDon]

All it has done is stopped the barbarism with controlling foxes. Just as many are getting killed by snares or guns. It's not actually increasing the number of foxes about. If anything it's doing the opposite.

I don't think the ban was ever about increasing numbers it was about reducing animal suffering and stopping them being ripped to pieces by dogs.

If numbers are still controlled in a humane way then so be it, it has to be better than them being ripped to pieces in the name of entertainment or sport.

Quite funny that foxes actually suffer more through the alternative methods of killing them then. Shooting a fox is highly ineffective, as the report into the hunting ban pointed out.

Gets ignored though because people still think guns come with insta kill magic bullets.

[TrentVilla]

All it has done is stopped the barbarism with controlling foxes. Just as many are getting killed by snares or guns. It's not actually increasing the number of foxes about. If anything it's doing the opposite.

I don't think the ban was ever about increasing numbers it was about reducing animal suffering and stopping them being ripped to pieces by dogs.

If numbers are still controlled in a humane way then so be it, it has to be better than them being ripped to pieces in the name of entertainment or sport.

whilst I don't advocate hunting you do know the dogs actually go for the throat and don't just rip parts off randomly. That generally happens, but more often than not after the fox is already dead.

also whilst we consider shooting animals humane for pest control, many foxes do still die a slow painful death.

I play cricket with a farmer and he says shooting a fox sprinting away from the land rover search lights at night on farm land and trying to ensure a headshot to ensure the fox dies instantly is incredibly difficult. Also the fox is dismembered anyway by the gunshot in some form or another.

I do agree they need to be dealt with though, a neigbour when I was a kid had their 6 chickens all killed by a fox, and the fox didn't even eat them.

Not avoiding this post but I don't really want to get into this one as its a thread all of its own and will only derail this one. With this not really being an election issue I'd rather try and keep this on topic but I don't dispute much of what you say but thats for another day mate.

[snowychap]

The way the question was worded plus the stupid smiley was clearly a sarcastic comment intimating that no other issues are important to me.

The smiley was to indicate puzzlement at what appeared to be a theme in your posts concentrating on one specific issue (probably more as a means to throw 'thinly-veiled' insults at groups of people and, perhaps, Tony specifically).

My question was about whether there was no other issue important to you and, as I said, it may well have been a challenge to you to explain why it has got the prominence in your posts (if that reason was not the one which I have suggested above).

Still no explanation of the 'people like you' comment, though.

[Jon]

people seemed to think it was an upper class thing though, which is clearly completely wrong.

How so?

generally, it was the "upper classes", land owners, farmers and the bloodthirsty that partook in this activity, was it not?