Poll: Who Will You Be Voting For In The Next General Election?

nickmason

shoppaholic_returns wrote: »

Wouldnt it be great to have a no contribution/no vote law brought in, I'd say fairer also,we could then have more say on what our own TAXPAYERS money is spent on!!!!

No - even if it might in some calculus be fairer (which i don't believe) - conditionality of voting rights is a VERY VERY dangerous idea.

Whether it be on the grounds of intelligence (as was, I hope ironically, suggested earlier by someone), or having not earned the right, either through contributions or adherence to the law, withdrawing an individual's vote is an extreme cancer on democracy.

If both Gordon Brown and Ann Widdecombe think withholding voting rights for prisoners is a good thing, then I'm convinced of my position.;)

nickmason

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Do you really think any of those things would have been different in the Tories had been in power for the last 11 years?

If there would have been a difference, it would have only been because it would have been much worse.

The rich would be even richer than they are now and the poor would be even poorer.

GG

I don't think it's daft to suggest that the rich would be even richer, but so would the poor. And the middle class.
At least financially. I don't think either party would have made a substantive difference culturally or socially. Politically, also, we'd be richer - our unwritten democratic constitution and individual liberty wouldn't be in the tatters it is now.

drbeat

Life_Tasted_Sweet wrote: »

That's the one.

She won one because of the hard fought luck (and loss of lives) in the Falklands. The others due to gerrymandering and selling the Nation's silver (Gas, Water, Electricity and Council Houses to name but four). We complain now about the lack of social housing but choose to forget the root cause.

I don't normally speak ill of the dead but (soon) I'll make an exception for Thatcher.

I think you'll find that the 83 general election was a landslide because of the unelectable Michael Foot and the Falklands affect.

In 1979 she won because Callaghan was stupid enough to not go to the polls in 1978.

In 1987 the choice was Kinnock (yes I'll stand back and do nothing if the Soviets invaded, plus I'll ditch the nuclear deterrent too) or Thatcher.

It amazes me just how some blame a person i.e. Thatcher for all their woes! I think you ought to look at yourself for the root causes of your obvious issues. However, the housing issue was caused by THIS government by stopping development on the green belt and shifting it to the more expensive and harder to develop brownfields!

And just out of interest are you a Labour voter? If so do you think of countless dead and injured UK soldiers - due to Iraq and Afghanistan - when you vote? Dying because of a Labour lie! And the injured being treated like !!!!!! when they return to the UK; a country that they have put their lives on the line for?

And as for the Falklands twaddle you blabbed out: the Falklands was/is British territory that was invaded by a ruthless dictatorship! The argi-bargis were told to leave and they didn't so they got their @rses kicked! The soldiers returned to a HEROS welcome! Something I've yet to see under this NuLab government! But hey...you'll probably bring up the Belgrano affiar! I don't give two sh1ts about that...in fact our subs should have gone to the Argi ports and sunk every damn military ship in sight!

wigglebeena

I would vote Tory if David Davies was in charge: a working man of good sense with real concern for basic civil rights and liberty. As for Cameron, is there a smiley that indicates a contemptuous tut? Bloody public schoolboys with swollen engorged senses of entitlement that have nothing to do with any intellect or competence. Haven't we had enough of that from ******* ******* ******* war criminal Blair?

The Hague the Hague the Hague, that's all I 've got to say about Bliar.

drbeat

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Do you really think any of those things would have been different in the Tories had been in power for the last 11 years?

If there would have been a difference, it would have only been because it would have been much worse.

The rich would be even richer than they are now and the poor would be even poorer.

GG

The important aspect is that Labour did those things...not the Tories! Just like the Tories did those other things from 79 to 97...however, under Foot or Kinnock it would have been a lot worse!

storminbalder

If there is such a thing as an intelligent Tory I certainly see no evidence here.

The same cliches are spouted time and again. It really is embarrassing reading some of this ill-informed twaddle.

drbeat

storminbalder wrote: »

If there is such a thing as an intelligent Tory I certainly see no evidence here.

The same cliches are spouted time and again. It really is embarrassing reading some of this ill-informed twaddle.

Yes I am ebarrassed for you! No such thing as an intelligent Labour voter as the same old "Thatcher this, Thatcher that" twaddle is spouted.

nickmason

In response to GG's challenge:

drbeat wrote: »

High fuel prices Probably no change. Might have got nuclear in quicker, with resultant greater energy security.
Huge rise in stealth taxes Seriously doubt the Conservatives would have taken such an approach.
IRAQ No change - except for the critical point that I don't believe a conservative government would have thought it okay to lie and blag their way into a war. As an aside David Kelly would probably still be alive.
AFGHANISTAN No change
Boom & Bust Dampened; the conservatives would not have been so hubristic as to believe to have ended boom'and'bust.
Unemployment rising I agree it would be rising; I hope by less.
Repossesions rising They would be rising, but again I hope that my faith that conservatives wouldn't have allowed such an insane bubble is well placed.
Car Tax rising - applied retrospectively No idea
MRSA No idea
Police invasion of parliament Absolutely don't believe it would have happened.
Social Breakdown Such a huge question - I think the paths would have been very different, but can't really determine which would have been better.
Immigration Not sure which "immigration" problem you're referring to. Probably would have been similarly managed; after all some Tories can't understand how the media let labour get away with approachs that the Conservative party would have been crucified for, on the other hand labour seem to actually be adopting Conservative policies anyhow.
Asylum Seekers Glad to see this wasn't in the same category as immigration - but not sure what the huge national problem is? Frankly no parties come out smelling of roses on asylum seekers; even if that is to the benefit of the people, and the disbenefit of those in need.

God help us all if Labour win another term!

Gorgeous_George

nickmason wrote: »

I don't think it's daft to suggest that the rich would be even richer, but so would the poor. And the middle class.
At least financially. I don't think either party would have made a substantive difference culturally or socially. Politically, also, we'd be richer - our unwritten democratic constitution and individual liberty wouldn't be in the tatters it is now.

If everybody would be richer, who would be poorer. You cannot have one without the other.

GG

nickmason

storminbalder wrote: »

If there is such a thing as an intelligent Tory I certainly see no evidence here.

The same cliches are spouted time and again. It really is embarrassing reading some of this ill-informed twaddle.

This is one of those comments that, like a cartoon gun, rather explodes in your face. Unless it has happened so many times that you now fancy yourself as a Nelsonian commentator, deliberating perusing through a blind eye.

I'd be delighted for you - oh lofty, intelligent, superior storminbalder, to put me right on my ill-informed twaddle. But I suspect you'd come up short.