The UK General Election
Posted by Covfan
My cousin has joined a Facebook page called "National Not Voting Conservative Day". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Is she actually happy with the way the country is being run? :s Is this page advocating preserving the current state of affairs? (which, ironically, is a Conservative strategy) ...
This group is one of the most pointless, uninformed pages produced on Facebook in recent times. And my cousin is actually a smart woman. God knows why she's championing it.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
This group is one of the most pointless, uninformed pages produced on Facebook in recent times. And my cousin is actually a smart woman. God knows why she's championing it.
Some of us that have been round long enough to know from the past what the Tories can be like. Lib Dems are a no go on quite a few of their policies, so its called "better the devil you know".
Your comments are quite suprising though, I was under the impression you were a teacher therefore would be old enough to understand where she is coming from.
Your comments are quite suprising though, I was under the impression you were a teacher therefore would be old enough to understand where she is coming from.
No but looking at where you are stood at Dave, from previous threads and comments from a holey memory, forgive me if I am incorrect, but I thought you were also currently in a job that you apparantly don't really enjoy too much; have not too much money and resent your situation.
I know that was true in the case of being unemployed, but I am sure you said similar way back about your current status. Again, I take that back if I am wrong.
But on that basis, of course, in your case the Tories are no good for you.
I couldn't ever vote Labour because they are a party that steal from the rich and give to the poor. They, in essence, seem to favour promoting this everyone deserves the same, no matter who works the hardest. It's like diluted aspects of communism.
Lib Dems, in my case, are also a no go. They make promises that just are unacceptable in how my life is desired to run.
Can you tell me, please, what policies you fully endorse by the Lib Dems, and those that you disagree?
I will admit, some Lib Dem policies are truly great. And I would vote for them on that.
But then there are some big ones which I wholeheartedly disagree; and it is those ones that I cannot vote for them.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
I know that was true in the case of being unemployed, but I am sure you said similar way back about your current status. Again, I take that back if I am wrong.
But on that basis, of course, in your case the Tories are no good for you.
I couldn't ever vote Labour because they are a party that steal from the rich and give to the poor. They, in essence, seem to favour promoting this everyone deserves the same, no matter who works the hardest. It's like diluted aspects of communism.
Lib Dems, in my case, are also a no go. They make promises that just are unacceptable in how my life is desired to run.
Can you tell me, please, what policies you fully endorse by the Lib Dems, and those that you disagree?
I will admit, some Lib Dem policies are truly great. And I would vote for them on that.
But then there are some big ones which I wholeheartedly disagree; and it is those ones that I cannot vote for them.
danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldn't ever vote Labour because they are a
> party that steal from the rich and give to the
> poor.
woah, woah, woah, hold it right there. You think this about *Labour?* Are the Tories you know from opposite land then?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldn't ever vote Labour because they are a
> party that steal from the rich and give to the
> poor.
woah, woah, woah, hold it right there. You think this about *Labour?* Are the Tories you know from opposite land then?
Yes. The Tories are EXACTLY the opposite in that respect.
The side of the fence I am sitting on, Labour is making it worse. I'll actually be GIVING more than I am GETTING with them. And why should I have to put up with that? My taxes would be partially blown on chavvy scumbags and lowlife families. I don't think they deserve half of what they are given. They get far too much in this day and age. I have a friend, a girl who is one of my closest friends.
But she is a token case for why. Pregnant. Halfway through uni. Single mother. What did she get? Oh, let's see. Extensions on her entire uni course. All her fee's paid for. Extra maintenance money. Extra support costs to put the kid in a carers whilst she studied. Had her uni hours cut to 1 day a week. Had a brand new flat and government benefits for single mothers on the canalside which is now worth lord knows how much if someone like I wanted a first time property.
And why? She does't even work, and the government have opted to give her EXTRA money to do a bloody masters. A masters in friggen child development. So what, she's getting paid to be a NANNY. A glorified NANNY.
WHAT THE HELL? I have worked my ar$e off just to get to the point I am with uni. Why the hell should someone else who made an error of getting pregnant, because it was, who is now suddenly financially sound and secure, debt free, has her first property and a child fully backed without her lifting a finger.
And there's myself. Architecture student. Riddled in student debt fee's and not being able to go ahead with a masters because my family can't support me, and the loans aren't enough to see me an extra two years at uni. I won't get any extra support. I can't afford to do the full training, and thus I can't become a fully qualified architect. So now I have to resort and do a PGCE. Becuase frankly, it is my only option left at the moment.
Maybe after a few years I can afford to go back and finish what I worked for.
If only I had the ability to get pregnant eh, I'd be way better off.
Luck has it. My girlfriend spoke about her options. You know the most funny thing ever? If she decided to have a baby after the following year, after her placement, we worked it out, to abuse the current system together we would be way better off, we'd both be able to graduate as architects and only one of us would have a debt. What a joke.
So really, we are better off doing less, and doing all the mistakes in life. Because like the tarmac runoffs, there is always a better option in running wide than it is to even bother staying on track target.
I am fortunate to have been brought into a life where haven't been disadvanaged.
Now I know I am going to get penalised for saying this, but it bugs me a lot.
I think it is wholeheartedly unfair to be forced to support masses and masses of people for the sake of fairness and equality.
I call full bull$hit on that one. Sure, I don't mind helping out a few people here and there, because you know, there are some who genuinely are appreciative of the support they get that the likes of the wealthier and middle classes.
HOWEVER
Out of all the experiences and interactions, be it at school, after school, the streets growing up, neighbours, the council estate I grew up in, locals at University, people in the shops, people in town... the list is endless.
How often are those examples of everyday life tainted with scummy people that pretty much are rotten to the core. They are vile to approach, and even when you are kind, they throw it back in your face.
I hold the door open. The don't say thankyou. They barge past me in tight shops. They jump queues. They swear and curse in front of little kids. Their own kids are f*ings and blinding to their parents. They spit on the floor. Cough in your face. Smoke in public buildings. Let their dogs @#$%& in the middle of the path.
I am not saying they are the only ones. But of the people doing that, it is mostly this type of people. The common dominant proportion of the lower class British chav scummy population.
Screw them. Screw them all.
They shouldn't be allowed to keep reproducing. In the old days, you didn't have kids if you could help it. If you couldn't support them, then the family suffered, and would not grow. Social Darwinism. The lesser stronger families did not survive, they dwindled.
And so what if 1 in every 1,000,000 of these is a superstar with a cure for diseases. That's a shitload of crap for the sake of one person. And how long is it we have to deal with this. They keep reproducing.
How long until the entire country is festering off of free support, to the point it is better for us all financially to sit on our arses and 'let someone else do it'?
It is a joke.
My family worked their arses off during my upbringing. My dad went bankrupt in 1991 after and during the recession. The same time I was taken to hospital with a Kidney disease and almost died. The same time my little brother was born and diagnosed with Brittle Bones and wheelchair bound. All in the same space of 18 months.
My parents bought a house for 400k, only to find the next day it was valued at 160k after the house price crash. Then came mad cow disease. My dad was in the meat industry in London. He got screwed BIGTIME.
So technically, he went from hero, to zero. And all under a Tory Government he got his feet back up. He didn't get any special free money from Labour. He didn't get given a brand new flat or extra maintenance cash. MY parents worked their ar$es off.
And to see people these days complaining that their benefits don't get them enough? Hah, don't make me laugh.
My dad retrained himself up as a fridge and air conditioning engineer. Heck, he even took night college courses to top up his schoolday bricklaying skills just so he could be employable.
I don't see the chav scum doing that. They'd rather sit back and relax.
Difference is, if my parents did that, there is no way in hell my brother or I would be here today.
The lower class families of today are mostly parasites who have nothing to offer; and won't change.
If we stopped their benefits; they'd perish. They are blooded by the government umbilical cord which is fed by the likes of people like my dad, working away.
What if he didn't work, and say he sat back like the rest of the lower classes? What if everyone else did the same?
Where exactly is the free money going to come from them I wonder? If all the middle and upper classes decided to follow suit.
The answer? It won't.
So get rid of it. Stop them from having this luxury. If we take that money away, they have NOTHING to offer society. They are takers.
But give them a chance, I hear you scream. Sorry, they have had that chance for too long. And the kids today at school are even worse than their parents. Lord knows what the working population will be like in 10 years time. If it exists, at this rate.
We now live in a 550k house. Goes to show that you can come back. It is will power and hard work.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
The side of the fence I am sitting on, Labour is making it worse. I'll actually be GIVING more than I am GETTING with them. And why should I have to put up with that? My taxes would be partially blown on chavvy scumbags and lowlife families. I don't think they deserve half of what they are given. They get far too much in this day and age. I have a friend, a girl who is one of my closest friends.
But she is a token case for why. Pregnant. Halfway through uni. Single mother. What did she get? Oh, let's see. Extensions on her entire uni course. All her fee's paid for. Extra maintenance money. Extra support costs to put the kid in a carers whilst she studied. Had her uni hours cut to 1 day a week. Had a brand new flat and government benefits for single mothers on the canalside which is now worth lord knows how much if someone like I wanted a first time property.
And why? She does't even work, and the government have opted to give her EXTRA money to do a bloody masters. A masters in friggen child development. So what, she's getting paid to be a NANNY. A glorified NANNY.
WHAT THE HELL? I have worked my ar$e off just to get to the point I am with uni. Why the hell should someone else who made an error of getting pregnant, because it was, who is now suddenly financially sound and secure, debt free, has her first property and a child fully backed without her lifting a finger.
And there's myself. Architecture student. Riddled in student debt fee's and not being able to go ahead with a masters because my family can't support me, and the loans aren't enough to see me an extra two years at uni. I won't get any extra support. I can't afford to do the full training, and thus I can't become a fully qualified architect. So now I have to resort and do a PGCE. Becuase frankly, it is my only option left at the moment.
Maybe after a few years I can afford to go back and finish what I worked for.
If only I had the ability to get pregnant eh, I'd be way better off.
Luck has it. My girlfriend spoke about her options. You know the most funny thing ever? If she decided to have a baby after the following year, after her placement, we worked it out, to abuse the current system together we would be way better off, we'd both be able to graduate as architects and only one of us would have a debt. What a joke.
So really, we are better off doing less, and doing all the mistakes in life. Because like the tarmac runoffs, there is always a better option in running wide than it is to even bother staying on track target.
I am fortunate to have been brought into a life where haven't been disadvanaged.
Now I know I am going to get penalised for saying this, but it bugs me a lot.
I think it is wholeheartedly unfair to be forced to support masses and masses of people for the sake of fairness and equality.
I call full bull$hit on that one. Sure, I don't mind helping out a few people here and there, because you know, there are some who genuinely are appreciative of the support they get that the likes of the wealthier and middle classes.
HOWEVER
Out of all the experiences and interactions, be it at school, after school, the streets growing up, neighbours, the council estate I grew up in, locals at University, people in the shops, people in town... the list is endless.
How often are those examples of everyday life tainted with scummy people that pretty much are rotten to the core. They are vile to approach, and even when you are kind, they throw it back in your face.
I hold the door open. The don't say thankyou. They barge past me in tight shops. They jump queues. They swear and curse in front of little kids. Their own kids are f*ings and blinding to their parents. They spit on the floor. Cough in your face. Smoke in public buildings. Let their dogs @#$%& in the middle of the path.
I am not saying they are the only ones. But of the people doing that, it is mostly this type of people. The common dominant proportion of the lower class British chav scummy population.
Screw them. Screw them all.
They shouldn't be allowed to keep reproducing. In the old days, you didn't have kids if you could help it. If you couldn't support them, then the family suffered, and would not grow. Social Darwinism. The lesser stronger families did not survive, they dwindled.
And so what if 1 in every 1,000,000 of these is a superstar with a cure for diseases. That's a shitload of crap for the sake of one person. And how long is it we have to deal with this. They keep reproducing.
How long until the entire country is festering off of free support, to the point it is better for us all financially to sit on our arses and 'let someone else do it'?
It is a joke.
My family worked their arses off during my upbringing. My dad went bankrupt in 1991 after and during the recession. The same time I was taken to hospital with a Kidney disease and almost died. The same time my little brother was born and diagnosed with Brittle Bones and wheelchair bound. All in the same space of 18 months.
My parents bought a house for 400k, only to find the next day it was valued at 160k after the house price crash. Then came mad cow disease. My dad was in the meat industry in London. He got screwed BIGTIME.
So technically, he went from hero, to zero. And all under a Tory Government he got his feet back up. He didn't get any special free money from Labour. He didn't get given a brand new flat or extra maintenance cash. MY parents worked their ar$es off.
And to see people these days complaining that their benefits don't get them enough? Hah, don't make me laugh.
My dad retrained himself up as a fridge and air conditioning engineer. Heck, he even took night college courses to top up his schoolday bricklaying skills just so he could be employable.
I don't see the chav scum doing that. They'd rather sit back and relax.
Difference is, if my parents did that, there is no way in hell my brother or I would be here today.
The lower class families of today are mostly parasites who have nothing to offer; and won't change.
If we stopped their benefits; they'd perish. They are blooded by the government umbilical cord which is fed by the likes of people like my dad, working away.
What if he didn't work, and say he sat back like the rest of the lower classes? What if everyone else did the same?
Where exactly is the free money going to come from them I wonder? If all the middle and upper classes decided to follow suit.
The answer? It won't.
So get rid of it. Stop them from having this luxury. If we take that money away, they have NOTHING to offer society. They are takers.
But give them a chance, I hear you scream. Sorry, they have had that chance for too long. And the kids today at school are even worse than their parents. Lord knows what the working population will be like in 10 years time. If it exists, at this rate.
We now live in a 550k house. Goes to show that you can come back. It is will power and hard work.
And don't get me started with comparing uni students and equality in education for all that Labour promotes.
What they really mean is steal from the rich, and give it all to the poor. For nothing in return.
I have friends who get given free maintenance loans and extra support finance that they don't have to repay back at all.
We are talking 4k a year. A YEAR! FOR FREE!!!!
So there I am, tired from slaving myself over the summer to earn a little bit of money for the coming uni year.
My parents, just because they earn over this high income household financial bracket, means I get the minimal amount of loan.
That system basically assumes, ah, your parents are wealth, so you must be loaded yourself.
To hell is it.
That system assumes anyone like that has parents who $hit 50 dollar bills. They don't.
In truth, every one of my friends with the lower loan is STRUGGLING financially. Our parents don't throw cash at us!
Every one of those in lower support families have brand new trainers, the latest ipods, macbook pros, always out every other night drinking and buying rounds. They are loaded. And it is all free money.
I don't get money to blow like that. But apparantly, they are from a low income family, so they get it.
That is messed up.
Once again, proving that if you worked your ar$e off, you'll be worse off.
If my mum decided not to work, we'd be in a different bracket. We'd probably get some free support, and my brother and I would get, between us, 2/3 of my mums annual part time salary FOR FREE. For nothing.
So if my mum didn't work, not only would my brother and I get 4k EACH to do as we please, my mum would also get some money.
Now stand up and tell me that everything is fine about that?
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
What they really mean is steal from the rich, and give it all to the poor. For nothing in return.
I have friends who get given free maintenance loans and extra support finance that they don't have to repay back at all.
We are talking 4k a year. A YEAR! FOR FREE!!!!
So there I am, tired from slaving myself over the summer to earn a little bit of money for the coming uni year.
My parents, just because they earn over this high income household financial bracket, means I get the minimal amount of loan.
That system basically assumes, ah, your parents are wealth, so you must be loaded yourself.
To hell is it.
That system assumes anyone like that has parents who $hit 50 dollar bills. They don't.
In truth, every one of my friends with the lower loan is STRUGGLING financially. Our parents don't throw cash at us!
Every one of those in lower support families have brand new trainers, the latest ipods, macbook pros, always out every other night drinking and buying rounds. They are loaded. And it is all free money.
I don't get money to blow like that. But apparantly, they are from a low income family, so they get it.
That is messed up.
Once again, proving that if you worked your ar$e off, you'll be worse off.
If my mum decided not to work, we'd be in a different bracket. We'd probably get some free support, and my brother and I would get, between us, 2/3 of my mums annual part time salary FOR FREE. For nothing.
So if my mum didn't work, not only would my brother and I get 4k EACH to do as we please, my mum would also get some money.
Now stand up and tell me that everything is fine about that?
What I want to know is why you love the Lib Dems so much?
What are the pro's that make them that much better the option out there?
As an entire country moving forward. Why Lib Dem? Specifically, at this moment in time?
I think right now only the Tory strictness and bullet point actions are what are going to save this country the quickest and most efficient way. It isn't going to be pretty, and a lot of people are going to get very upset. Like the 70's and 80's all over again - but far, far more extreme, and probably in a slightly quicker fashion given the speed the world works at these days.
I am all for some of the Lib Dem policies, but they realistically won't work in this specific moment in time. The Tories steered us through the last recession like a fish swimming backwards, but it happened, and we came out strong. Look at what Labour capitalised on. Sacrifices at the end of the day grew us a good backbone. But now our country is paralysed again.
For sure, the Lib Dems have some excellent points. The Trident Scrapping is a thing of magic - a true waste of money, because as discussed, if ever it was used, that'd be it. So many nations are looking out for eachother, it only takes one, and that is it. Whoever throws first, loses. And it isn't like we randomly are going to fire out at someone for no reason - only in retal - but by then, it'll already be some sort of end of the world scenario, so we are all screwed.
So scrapping Trident is great - but it just won't happen and won't work. A real shame. It's like playing hide and seek, but only one person hides and nobody counts. Not fun. Doesn't work unless everyone plays.
If we were not in such a recession as we are now; the Lib Dems would certainly attract me more. But out of all of them, they stand no better than Labour due to inexperience in this situation.
In one of the worst financial situations, do we really want to be all experimental and take a gamble? Everything is a gamble, true, but Lib Dems are a big unknown.
Back to Dave's point though about why people are voting, very true. It is a bit like 00's football. Are you blue or red. Man U or Chelsea. It doesn't matter if you are Liverpool or Arsenal. It just seems you are one big one or the other.
But you will get that for every election. People will do something opposite just to spite the other subject in question. It is just today's ease of media making it more readily available and known.
And it might be worth noting, despite Locke's sister, I have noticed a lot of these groups are made up of immature kids trying to be all grown up and pick a side as an excuse to abuse their friends' views. Let's not forget most of these are years away from voting anyway, so it doesn't matter so much. The ones actually voting seem to be members of specific parties' said facebook pages etc discussing the actual policies as opposed to the 'david cameron has an annoying face / cyclops brown, flush him down' comments that litter my homepage.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2010 08:31AM by danm.
What are the pro's that make them that much better the option out there?
As an entire country moving forward. Why Lib Dem? Specifically, at this moment in time?
I think right now only the Tory strictness and bullet point actions are what are going to save this country the quickest and most efficient way. It isn't going to be pretty, and a lot of people are going to get very upset. Like the 70's and 80's all over again - but far, far more extreme, and probably in a slightly quicker fashion given the speed the world works at these days.
I am all for some of the Lib Dem policies, but they realistically won't work in this specific moment in time. The Tories steered us through the last recession like a fish swimming backwards, but it happened, and we came out strong. Look at what Labour capitalised on. Sacrifices at the end of the day grew us a good backbone. But now our country is paralysed again.
For sure, the Lib Dems have some excellent points. The Trident Scrapping is a thing of magic - a true waste of money, because as discussed, if ever it was used, that'd be it. So many nations are looking out for eachother, it only takes one, and that is it. Whoever throws first, loses. And it isn't like we randomly are going to fire out at someone for no reason - only in retal - but by then, it'll already be some sort of end of the world scenario, so we are all screwed.
So scrapping Trident is great - but it just won't happen and won't work. A real shame. It's like playing hide and seek, but only one person hides and nobody counts. Not fun. Doesn't work unless everyone plays.
If we were not in such a recession as we are now; the Lib Dems would certainly attract me more. But out of all of them, they stand no better than Labour due to inexperience in this situation.
In one of the worst financial situations, do we really want to be all experimental and take a gamble? Everything is a gamble, true, but Lib Dems are a big unknown.
Back to Dave's point though about why people are voting, very true. It is a bit like 00's football. Are you blue or red. Man U or Chelsea. It doesn't matter if you are Liverpool or Arsenal. It just seems you are one big one or the other.
But you will get that for every election. People will do something opposite just to spite the other subject in question. It is just today's ease of media making it more readily available and known.
And it might be worth noting, despite Locke's sister, I have noticed a lot of these groups are made up of immature kids trying to be all grown up and pick a side as an excuse to abuse their friends' views. Let's not forget most of these are years away from voting anyway, so it doesn't matter so much. The ones actually voting seem to be members of specific parties' said facebook pages etc discussing the actual policies as opposed to the 'david cameron has an annoying face / cyclops brown, flush him down' comments that litter my homepage.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2010 08:31AM by danm.
Woah woah, I have been misunderstood big-time. 97kirkc and DaveEllis, you've picked up on lines in my post (fair enough) but have not got what I was trying to communicate.
My cousin has joined a page which basically tells people "Don't vote for the Conservative party, because they are the Conservative party." The page doesn't list any policies, doesn't offer a persuasive preamble or anything - it's very simply anti-Conservative for no reason at all.
Are you actually suggesting that such a page has any political worth whatsoever? Because both of you seem to be belittling my comments and sticking up for its existence. I am of the belief that people should be voting based on policies, not party allegience. Maybe it's different in Scotland, but in England I would hope that we're not all sheep.
@ 97kirkc - "Better the deveil you know" ? Great, the laissez-faire approach. That's only a half-step better than total apathy. It's the reason why the Major government was re-elected in 1992, which took us into economic meltdown on 'Black Wednesday'. If that's how YOU vote, I'm sure you can justify it, but like I said - I thought my cousin wa brighter than that.
@ DaveEllis - "He is against the "Not Voting Tory Day" because he is obviously not happy with the way the country is being run." Erm... not quite. I am against the "Not Voting Tory Day" because I think the whole country needs a proper careful evaluation of who they're putting in charge for the next 4 years, and I am infuriated to think that a large number of people are simply ignoring a possible option due to nothing more than their party allegience.
If the message was "Don't vote Conservative because they discriminate against lower-income families" then I would have nothing to say. But the fact that it's "Don't vote Conservative because they're the Conservative party, and we hate them, wah wah wah" ... is the basis of my objection to it.
Over to you. Go on, defend it.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
My cousin has joined a page which basically tells people "Don't vote for the Conservative party, because they are the Conservative party." The page doesn't list any policies, doesn't offer a persuasive preamble or anything - it's very simply anti-Conservative for no reason at all.
Are you actually suggesting that such a page has any political worth whatsoever? Because both of you seem to be belittling my comments and sticking up for its existence. I am of the belief that people should be voting based on policies, not party allegience. Maybe it's different in Scotland, but in England I would hope that we're not all sheep.
@ 97kirkc - "Better the deveil you know" ? Great, the laissez-faire approach. That's only a half-step better than total apathy. It's the reason why the Major government was re-elected in 1992, which took us into economic meltdown on 'Black Wednesday'. If that's how YOU vote, I'm sure you can justify it, but like I said - I thought my cousin wa brighter than that.
@ DaveEllis - "He is against the "Not Voting Tory Day" because he is obviously not happy with the way the country is being run." Erm... not quite. I am against the "Not Voting Tory Day" because I think the whole country needs a proper careful evaluation of who they're putting in charge for the next 4 years, and I am infuriated to think that a large number of people are simply ignoring a possible option due to nothing more than their party allegience.
If the message was "Don't vote Conservative because they discriminate against lower-income families" then I would have nothing to say. But the fact that it's "Don't vote Conservative because they're the Conservative party, and we hate them, wah wah wah" ... is the basis of my objection to it.
Over to you. Go on, defend it.
ROFLMFAO! Guys this is actually becoming a brilliant thread. Not in an LOL moronic way, but just genuinely interesting to talk about. Sorry if I am boring it my end!
There is a unanimous agreement in Brown. He is screwed, and the worst of the lot. Period.
But out of Cameron and Clegg, I think the media hard-on on the Conservative part has been good.
Sure, the ads and whatnot are annoying. But it has sparked an incredible interest in debate. I have never remotely been bothered, but this is now exciting. Almost patriotic on beliefs. So on media interest alone, Cameron scores well. Simply for raising awareness.
There is also the unanimous agreement ALL parties are corrupt to an extent. They all backstab, they all preach.
HOWEVER...
Do you not smell a rat at the flirting between Brown and Clegg? Brown knows he has not a chance in hell of winning. His only ticket is a hung parliament. And a vote for Lib Dems will get him just that. Heck, there is even media with Clegg announcing that he'd support Brown in a hung parliament. And what about this crap on coalitions? I mean, in all fairness, how much more corrupt do we need to get?
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
There is a unanimous agreement in Brown. He is screwed, and the worst of the lot. Period.
But out of Cameron and Clegg, I think the media hard-on on the Conservative part has been good.
Sure, the ads and whatnot are annoying. But it has sparked an incredible interest in debate. I have never remotely been bothered, but this is now exciting. Almost patriotic on beliefs. So on media interest alone, Cameron scores well. Simply for raising awareness.
There is also the unanimous agreement ALL parties are corrupt to an extent. They all backstab, they all preach.
HOWEVER...
Do you not smell a rat at the flirting between Brown and Clegg? Brown knows he has not a chance in hell of winning. His only ticket is a hung parliament. And a vote for Lib Dems will get him just that. Heck, there is even media with Clegg announcing that he'd support Brown in a hung parliament. And what about this crap on coalitions? I mean, in all fairness, how much more corrupt do we need to get?
Totally agree on the revamping the seating system, that is one of the big things I like about Lib Dems. Much fairer and representative as a nation.
However, what about the 2.5 million Lib Dems received from the convicted fraudster in 2005? They didn't exactly give it back, did they? Kinda hushed up on that one. Especially after the hype about Labour's 1 million donation.
I have stolen other peoples words which sum it up better than me, and provide interesting main points people are citing:
''If the people were allowed to vote on all legislation in a reformed parliamentary system the will of the people would rule the day and policies set out by political parties would rise or fall depending on what the people want. all these statistics would be irrelevent''
''The key LibDem policy is fairer taxes - which is very popular''
''The Liberal Democrats policy of electoral reform appeals to many but it's open door immigration policy with it's proposal to give citizenship to all illegal immigrants, in effect rewarding law breakers doesn't''
''Whatever else they are, the LibDems are committed to joining the Euro and to raising taxes on everyone making more than about £50k. Their rhetoric talks of "when circumstances allow" but at heart they believe Britain has a moral obligation to help bail out Southern Europe so the Euro experiment can survive. That willingness to help bail out countries like Greece is what scares the markets''
''As to taxes, given their spending plans, they (and you) will discover that they have to tax where the money is and that is the middle class. Again this scares the markets because the markets know that wealth is mobile''
''Furthermore, you ask for a 'fairer voting system', but surely you can't be fooled by the Lib Dems' support for PR? Under proportional representation, the Liberals will be almost guaranteed a place in government. They'd always hold the balance of power, and thus always be IN power. The Lib Dems paint PR as 'true democracy', but what could be less democratic than permanently giving one party the kingmaker's sword? How is that fair? Seems like selfish power-grabbing dressed up as progressivism to me.'' <-- this is an interesting outlook I never thought about!
*Sources from various users reading The Times (which I frankly find nice and varying, even if more swung to my views)
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
However, what about the 2.5 million Lib Dems received from the convicted fraudster in 2005? They didn't exactly give it back, did they? Kinda hushed up on that one. Especially after the hype about Labour's 1 million donation.
I have stolen other peoples words which sum it up better than me, and provide interesting main points people are citing:
''If the people were allowed to vote on all legislation in a reformed parliamentary system the will of the people would rule the day and policies set out by political parties would rise or fall depending on what the people want. all these statistics would be irrelevent''
''The key LibDem policy is fairer taxes - which is very popular''
''The Liberal Democrats policy of electoral reform appeals to many but it's open door immigration policy with it's proposal to give citizenship to all illegal immigrants, in effect rewarding law breakers doesn't''
''Whatever else they are, the LibDems are committed to joining the Euro and to raising taxes on everyone making more than about £50k. Their rhetoric talks of "when circumstances allow" but at heart they believe Britain has a moral obligation to help bail out Southern Europe so the Euro experiment can survive. That willingness to help bail out countries like Greece is what scares the markets''
''As to taxes, given their spending plans, they (and you) will discover that they have to tax where the money is and that is the middle class. Again this scares the markets because the markets know that wealth is mobile''
''Furthermore, you ask for a 'fairer voting system', but surely you can't be fooled by the Lib Dems' support for PR? Under proportional representation, the Liberals will be almost guaranteed a place in government. They'd always hold the balance of power, and thus always be IN power. The Lib Dems paint PR as 'true democracy', but what could be less democratic than permanently giving one party the kingmaker's sword? How is that fair? Seems like selfish power-grabbing dressed up as progressivism to me.'' <-- this is an interesting outlook I never thought about!
*Sources from various users reading The Times (which I frankly find nice and varying, even if more swung to my views)
danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Totally agree on the revamping the seating system,
> that is one of the big things I like about Lib
> Dems. Much fairer and representative as a nation.
>
> However, what about the 2.5 million Lib Dems
> received from the convicted fraudster in 2005?
> They didn't exactly give it back, did they? Kinda
> hushed up on that one. Especially after the hype
> about Labour's 1 million donation.
>
> I have stolen other peoples words which sum it up
> better than me, and provide interesting main
> points people are citing:
Unfortunately, some of this is quite biased-sounding...
> ''If the people were allowed to vote on all
> legislation in a reformed parliamentary system the
> will of the people would rule the day and policies
> set out by political parties would rise or fall
> depending on what the people want. all these
> statistics would be irrelevent''
This is only a bad thing if the apathy towards voting remains, and the only people doing the voting are Daily Mail readers
> ''The key LibDem policy is fairer taxes - which is
> very popular''
>
> ''The Liberal Democrats policy of electoral reform
> appeals to many but it's open door immigration
> policy with it's proposal to give citizenship to
> all illegal immigrants, in effect rewarding law
> breakers doesn't''
I didn't read it (on the manifesto) as being open door at all. This really sounds like the OP's inner David talking, and was David's bugbear during the debate on immigration. Lord Cameron, 'amnesty on some immigrants' does not equal 'open door'. Labour and the Conservatives seem to believe they can hunt down and expel every illegal immigrant. The evidence up to now suggests that even keeping tabs on them is pretty much impossible.
> ''Whatever else they are, the LibDems are
> committed to joining the Euro and to raising taxes
> on everyone making more than about £50k. Their
> rhetoric talks of "when circumstances allow" but
> at heart they believe Britain has a moral
> obligation to help bail out Southern Europe so the
> Euro experiment can survive. That willingness to
> help bail out countries like Greece is what scares
> the markets''
Another one of Cameron's point-scorers in the debates, and one that made me LOL. The Lib Dems do seem to want to join the Euro, but the manifesto says this will only happen after a public referendum, and even then only if the public want it. Clegg underlined this in the debate more than once.
> ''As to taxes, given their spending plans, they
> (and you) will discover that they have to tax
> where the money is and that is the middle class.
> Again this scares the markets because the markets
> know that wealth is mobile''
I don't really understand the aim of this statement, so i won't argue
> ''Furthermore, you ask for a 'fairer voting
> system', but surely you can't be fooled by the Lib
> Dems' support for PR? Under proportional
> representation, the Liberals will be almost
> guaranteed a place in government. They'd always
> hold the balance of power, and thus always be IN
> power. The Lib Dems paint PR as 'true democracy',
> but what could be less democratic than permanently
> giving one party the kingmaker's sword? How is
> that fair? Seems like selfish power-grabbing
> dressed up as progressivism to me.'' <-- this is
> an interesting outlook I never thought about!
Even if that situation happens, is that less of a 'true democracy' than a system where the same two parties perpetually swap back and forth because the tabloid media tells the voters that only one or the other is capable of leading the country. I single out the tabloids because they are terrible for this - the Sun was an avowedly Tory paper, than a Labour one in '97, then back to blue this time round. Also, as Dave mentioned, what's fair about a system where Labour can receive the least votes overall and still remain in power?
> *Sources from various users reading The Times
> (which I frankly find nice and varying, even if
> more swung to my views)
The Times is pleasantly neutral most of the time, so fair play
To sum up, i'm voting Lib Dem because i agree with a higher proportion of their manifesto than either of the other two main parties. I thought Dave's post about why he supported them would save me the typing, but apparently i've typed more
-------------------------------------------------------
> Totally agree on the revamping the seating system,
> that is one of the big things I like about Lib
> Dems. Much fairer and representative as a nation.
>
> However, what about the 2.5 million Lib Dems
> received from the convicted fraudster in 2005?
> They didn't exactly give it back, did they? Kinda
> hushed up on that one. Especially after the hype
> about Labour's 1 million donation.
>
> I have stolen other peoples words which sum it up
> better than me, and provide interesting main
> points people are citing:
Unfortunately, some of this is quite biased-sounding...
> ''If the people were allowed to vote on all
> legislation in a reformed parliamentary system the
> will of the people would rule the day and policies
> set out by political parties would rise or fall
> depending on what the people want. all these
> statistics would be irrelevent''
This is only a bad thing if the apathy towards voting remains, and the only people doing the voting are Daily Mail readers
> ''The key LibDem policy is fairer taxes - which is
> very popular''
>
> ''The Liberal Democrats policy of electoral reform
> appeals to many but it's open door immigration
> policy with it's proposal to give citizenship to
> all illegal immigrants, in effect rewarding law
> breakers doesn't''
I didn't read it (on the manifesto) as being open door at all. This really sounds like the OP's inner David talking, and was David's bugbear during the debate on immigration. Lord Cameron, 'amnesty on some immigrants' does not equal 'open door'. Labour and the Conservatives seem to believe they can hunt down and expel every illegal immigrant. The evidence up to now suggests that even keeping tabs on them is pretty much impossible.
> ''Whatever else they are, the LibDems are
> committed to joining the Euro and to raising taxes
> on everyone making more than about £50k. Their
> rhetoric talks of "when circumstances allow" but
> at heart they believe Britain has a moral
> obligation to help bail out Southern Europe so the
> Euro experiment can survive. That willingness to
> help bail out countries like Greece is what scares
> the markets''
Another one of Cameron's point-scorers in the debates, and one that made me LOL. The Lib Dems do seem to want to join the Euro, but the manifesto says this will only happen after a public referendum, and even then only if the public want it. Clegg underlined this in the debate more than once.
> ''As to taxes, given their spending plans, they
> (and you) will discover that they have to tax
> where the money is and that is the middle class.
> Again this scares the markets because the markets
> know that wealth is mobile''
I don't really understand the aim of this statement, so i won't argue
> ''Furthermore, you ask for a 'fairer voting
> system', but surely you can't be fooled by the Lib
> Dems' support for PR? Under proportional
> representation, the Liberals will be almost
> guaranteed a place in government. They'd always
> hold the balance of power, and thus always be IN
> power. The Lib Dems paint PR as 'true democracy',
> but what could be less democratic than permanently
> giving one party the kingmaker's sword? How is
> that fair? Seems like selfish power-grabbing
> dressed up as progressivism to me.'' <-- this is
> an interesting outlook I never thought about!
Even if that situation happens, is that less of a 'true democracy' than a system where the same two parties perpetually swap back and forth because the tabloid media tells the voters that only one or the other is capable of leading the country. I single out the tabloids because they are terrible for this - the Sun was an avowedly Tory paper, than a Labour one in '97, then back to blue this time round. Also, as Dave mentioned, what's fair about a system where Labour can receive the least votes overall and still remain in power?
> *Sources from various users reading The Times
> (which I frankly find nice and varying, even if
> more swung to my views)
The Times is pleasantly neutral most of the time, so fair play
To sum up, i'm voting Lib Dem because i agree with a higher proportion of their manifesto than either of the other two main parties. I thought Dave's post about why he supported them would save me the typing, but apparently i've typed more
That'll be a hung parliament then!
The Lib Dems won't win it based on the way the current system is. Does nobody realise this?
A vote for Lib Dems is just going to allow Labour to win it much easier than we need.
If you are die hard for the Lib Dems, you have to think ahead and if you MUST get your support for them in, you really need a Conservative government first.
If Labour win it, by basis of Lib Dems throwing support at a party that isn't going to win, we will have another 4 or 5 years of Labour, and people will be so peed that Conservatives will have a walkover the next election. Just to spite Labour. And then that will be it.
You Lib Dem fans must play it tactile if you REALLY want more of a chance on this. Get Labour out entirely. Make yourselves the second biggest party by trouncing them first.
If Labour get it by way of Lib Dem popularity; or if we are in a hung parliament, Lib Dems are screwed ever more.
Think long term!
As it stands, after the Conservative cleanup, I too will likely vote Lib Dems, pending some of the policies remain the same! I just prefer how the Conservatives will tackle the main issues first.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
The Lib Dems won't win it based on the way the current system is. Does nobody realise this?
A vote for Lib Dems is just going to allow Labour to win it much easier than we need.
If you are die hard for the Lib Dems, you have to think ahead and if you MUST get your support for them in, you really need a Conservative government first.
If Labour win it, by basis of Lib Dems throwing support at a party that isn't going to win, we will have another 4 or 5 years of Labour, and people will be so peed that Conservatives will have a walkover the next election. Just to spite Labour. And then that will be it.
You Lib Dem fans must play it tactile if you REALLY want more of a chance on this. Get Labour out entirely. Make yourselves the second biggest party by trouncing them first.
If Labour get it by way of Lib Dem popularity; or if we are in a hung parliament, Lib Dems are screwed ever more.
Think long term!
As it stands, after the Conservative cleanup, I too will likely vote Lib Dems, pending some of the policies remain the same! I just prefer how the Conservatives will tackle the main issues first.
Whatever happens, it sure as hell is going to be interesting when the results come in.
This is going to shakeup this country whoever wins.
If it is a hung parliament, my god.
If Labour get it. Uproar.
If Conservatives get it, people will be pissed.
If Lib Dems win, absolute unknown.
So unpredicatable, and that is as scary as it could be utterly chaotic.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
This is going to shakeup this country whoever wins.
If it is a hung parliament, my god.
If Labour get it. Uproar.
If Conservatives get it, people will be pissed.
If Lib Dems win, absolute unknown.
So unpredicatable, and that is as scary as it could be utterly chaotic.
Also, if you need anymore evidence that a Tory will always be a Tory, check this out for some light reading: [www.guardian.co.uk]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.