Who will win the UK election ?

N1AK

Sapphire wrote: »

and will continue to get news from my usual sources, e.g. Radio 4, Financial Times and the Standard at the least for a decent spread of news.

If you want any credit for using credible sources then you actually have to open the paper and read what's inside it, or turn the radio on for something other than the Archers.

There's no way someone of reasonable intelligence could not know about any Labour policies while genuinely getting information from those sources.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

If you want any credit for using credible sources then you actually have to open the paper and read what's inside it, or turn the radio on for something other than the Archers.

There's no way someone of reasonable intelligence could not know about any Labour policies while genuinely getting information from those sources.

Are you seriously suggesting that the BBC and the Financial Times are somehow biased against Labour? Have you forgotten that the Financial Times supported Labour in both 2001 and 2005?

Sapphire

Well, you see, once again you are making assumptions (e.g. that I listen to the Archers, which I never do) about someone you don't know at all.

Don't worry, I listen to/read the sources I mention, and I absolutely stand by my original post. The fact that you and someone else do not like my opinion and try to muddy the waters by calling me an 'apparatchik' and 'ignorant', and are now stating that I do not have 'reasonable intelligence' (thereby attempting to imply, of course, that you do) does not alter my view.

If you want to sleepwalk into a situation that will be disastrous for the United Kingdom (e.g. bankruptcy, loss of military deterrent and capability, inability to defend Argentina, general UK policies being dictated by a minority party that is hostile to most of the UK, and destruction of hard-won UK cohesiveness built up over centuries), you will deserve all you get – it's just a pity that if this happened, people who do not want such a situation will also have to put up with it, or leave.

I don't agree with everything the Conservatives suggest, but the alternative is too scary for me to contemplate.

N1AK wrote: »

If you want any credit for using credible sources then you actually have to open the paper and read what's inside it, or turn the radio on for something other than the Archers.

There's no way someone of reasonable intelligence could not know about any Labour policies while genuinely getting information from those sources.

Loughton_Monkey

michaels wrote: »

With my political blinkers on there looks to be a high correlation between tory seats and conscientiousness...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31816926

Don't know about that!

The BBC apparently want me living up in the East Midlands for god's sake! Seems I would get "77% Life Satisfaction".

Yet another BBC 'helpful' survey so simplistic, it was probably compiled by 17 year old interns whilst partaking of their 'legal highs'.

I'm an intolerant, miserable, and inflexible individual who is 100% happy being like that. I am also happy raking in the massive house equity down in these parts. So why I should want to move back to an area where houses are as cheap as chips and always will be, and lose 23% happiness is beyond me.

Lord Reith must be spinning in his grave.

wymondham

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32047995


looking at this I get disillusioned with politics... 'pledge' means absolutely nothing except saying what you think people want to hear, with no requirement or indeed often intention of carrying them out.


Each party that uses the term 'pledge' in any speech leading up to the election I wont be voting for. I want to see the term 'solemnly promise' instead whilst looking deeply into the camera, after all they are sparing to run the country, not sell you double glazing!

purch

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Milliband reiterated the policy in that speech he gave in Scotland the other day - committed to freezing prices until 2017

Is Millitwit getting a backhander from the Energy Company's ?? :eek:

vivatifosi

Am I alone in remembering Sapphire's posts from about a year ago, in which she said she was a floating voter but leaning more towards the conservatives? A bit surprised that she's now being called a dyed in the wool tory.

gazter

antrobus wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the BBC and the Financial Times are somehow biased against Labour? Have you forgotten that the Financial Times supported Labour in both 2001 and 2005?

They even supported Kinnock!

michaels

I am so biased; the BBC this morning was leading with Millibands 'H*ll Yes' soundbite. (Leaving aside whether swearing is appropriate) I thought the way he stumbled over delivering this prepared soundbite was really poor, clearly his cheerleaders at the BBC who seemed to swallow whole the spun line of 'see he wasn't that bad really' saw it differently.

Not that Cameron came over very well either. I would like to see a lot more 'honest answers to simple questions' rather than the endless dissembling designed not to offend anyone.

TickersPlaysPop

Manifestos should include a list of where the election funding and party funding has come from.

This goes a small way to making our democracy transparent.

We are not just voting for a political party we are voting to support a select list of business individuals and organisations.

We should be told who these are before a general election, and arguably updated in real time. Why should this information be difficult to get hold of?