Turn on thread page Beta

Which UK political party will you be voting for in the next election watch

  • View Poll Results: Which party will you be voting for in the next election?
    Labour
    46
    30.26%
    Conservatives
    42
    27.63%
    UKIP
    26
    17.11%
    Lib Dems
    9
    5.92%
    Green party
    22
    14.47%
    Other
    7
    4.61%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    Why 'support' any of them? All the politicians are cast from the same mould, they are all 'third way' social democrats who love the idea of political theatre.

    Anybody who thinks an MP is there solely for the good of the country is a moron. They act first to use the force of government to further their own ends, and act secondly in the interest of constituents to try and win votes.

    Party politics is a complete sham, as is this middle of the road statism we currently live under which creeps slowly but steadily towards greater and greater authoritarianism.
    (Original post by John Stuart Mill)
    “There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism.”
    - Henry George

    The conservatives are there to maintain traditional values; they are there merely to hold back any form of social change; and such change is to be needed if we're to live in a greater society; of one that provides the greatest number of happiness for the greatest number of people; conservatives are paid baby sitters.
    yes yes yes:
    Party and consensus politics, power hungry politicians, and the attitude "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", well what if the alternative is better? Anyone who encourages sticking to the status quo doesn't have morals or principles.

    By the above definition of the conservatives (small 'c') I am definitely liberal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lunch_Box)
    The only policy the conservatives live by is greed.
    As yet, the conservatives haven't destroyed entire industries through greed, while the trade unions did that quite nicely for British mining.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Stuart Mill)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...United_Kingdom

    "The Conservative Party: senior Conservatives, including David Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, and Theresa May supported the bill,[111][112] however, the issue is contentious in the party. Just over half of Conservative MPs voted against the second reading[113][114] but polling has shown that the majority of Conservative voters support the bill"

    On voting intention, 73% Liberal Democrats, 64% Labour voters and 53% Conservatives agreed that gay couples should have the right to marry.[55][56]

    In 2010 the Green Party of England and Wales,[98] the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru endorsed same-sex marriage at their party conferences.
    The following groups and individuals expressed their support for same-sex marriage legislation in England and Wales:


    On 16 January 2013, the Coalition for Equal Marriage announced that it had found evidence for the support of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.[SUP][104]

    So the conservatives just decided not to give their opinion on anything like they always do because they don't want any form of change unless it benefits it them.
    I'd say passing the bill legalising gay marriage is a little more useful than expressing support for the idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    I'd say passing the bill legalising gay marriage is a little more useful than expressing support for the idea.
    Yes certainly, i'm not condemning the conservatives on that account that they passed the bill is good, but the very nature of the party is to keep true to traditional values and had the idea not been expressed by other political parties previously I doubt they would have rushed to act (certainly doesn't look like it was based on their view towards it prior to their election).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Stuart Mill)
    Yes certainly, i'm not condemning the conservatives on that account that they passed the bill is good, but the very nature of the party is to keep true to traditional values and had the idea not been expressed by other political parties previously I doubt they would have rushed to act (certainly doesn't look like it based on their view towards it prior to their election).
    Well, in that case surely they represent a good balance, as a party who want to preserve what is best of traditional values, but is prepared to make improvements where there is clear need for them, as there was in this case. They've demonstrated that they aren't blindly devoted to tradition, but aren't so devoted to the idea of progress that they'll put any bill labelled progressive through without proper scrutiny and debate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    As yet, the conservatives haven't destroyed entire industries through greed, while the trade unions did that quite nicely for British mining.
    Nope, but they did bring us into the EU, increase income inequality, bleed the poor, rim the rich.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why punish the poor and let the rich get richer, when it was a banking crisis, not fiscal.

    When Gordan Brown was in no one wanted cut-backs, in a boom no one wants to get off the ride.

    As a percentage of GDP, Gordan brown actually spent less than David Cameron in 2012.

    Real wage levels have fallen for 37 out of 38 months David Cameron has ruled over the country.

    The small amount of GDP growth is only a result of huge quantitative easing, so inlation renders this useful.

    Labour has been replaced by part time jobs and the cost of living has skyrocketed, David has done little about this.

    The help to buy scheme is to help his banking pals. Increasing demand whilst keeping supply constant (of housing) skyrockets the price, this forces people to take out a loan since everyone is priced out of the market. Therefore, the banks get richer and the people get poorer. Not only this, people will more likely default on their loans, meaning that the banks get even richer, causing another financial collapse and more greed/wealth inequality.

    The number of millionaires has increased exponentially whilst the poor's wages have continued to fall (whilst prices rise).

    Don't listen to the propaganda, the banks failed because they were deregulated (Gordan brown did this). Nontheless, David Cameron actually criticsed Gordan brown on this and wanted more deregulation - we'd be worse than we currently are.

    It has been the slowest growth in 100 years.

    He's restricted internet usage blocking various websites and setting up data mining centres in the middle east, to steal their privacy in the name of security.

    A guardian journalist reporting about GCHQ/government was arrested for his publishings, freedom of press?

    Higher wealth inequality leads to higher drug rates, prison rates and mental illnesses.

    Thousands of workers have been unfairly made redundant because of the work of rich bankers.

    To name a few things.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toxic09)
    Well, since labour always seem to spend and spend. The tories have to make cuts and are seen as the bad guys. They are starting to help the economy and we need to give them a chance. But yes, also social values. I'm not from a rich family, but I agree with some of their values. However, I believe footballers should be taxed way more

    Also, the unions have Miliband wrapped around their finger and that cannot be good.
    For all their drastic cuts, the Tories have presided over the slowest economic recovery in British history. They have consistently failed to live up to OBR forecasts and of course the lower and middle classes have been hit disproportionately hard by all of this. Bottom line is, we have sacrificed so much for so little. Broadly speaking, austerity hasn't worked, has never worked and probably never will work.

    On that note, here is a video of Paul Krugman tearing apart 2 Tory morons on Newsnight last year:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Why punish the poor and let the rich get richer, when it was a banking crisis, not fiscal.

    When Gordan Brown was in no one wanted cut-backs, in a boom no one wants to get off the ride.

    As a percentage of GDP, Gordan brown actually spent less than David Cameron in 2012.

    Real wage levels have fallen for 37 out of 38 months David Cameron has ruled over the country.

    The small amount of GDP growth is only a result of huge quantitative easing, so inlation renders this useful.

    Labour has been replaced by part time jobs and the cost of living has skyrocketed, David has done little about this.

    The help to buy scheme is to help his banking pals. Increasing demand whilst keeping supply constant (of housing) skyrockets the price, this forces people to take out a loan since everyone is priced out of the market. Therefore, the banks get richer and the people get poorer. Not only this, people will more likely default on their loans, meaning that the banks get even richer, causing another financial collapse and more greed/wealth inequality.

    The number of millionaires has increased exponentially whilst the poor's wages have continued to fall (whilst prices rise).

    Don't listen to the propaganda, the banks failed because they were deregulated (Gordan brown did this). Nontheless, David Cameron actually criticsed Gordan brown on this and wanted more deregulation - we'd be worse than we currently are.

    It has been the slowest growth in 100 years.

    He's restricted internet usage blocking various websites and setting up data mining centres in the middle east, to steal their privacy in the name of security.

    A guardian journalist reporting about GCHQ/government was arrested for his publishings, freedom of press?

    Higher wealth inequality leads to higher drug rates, prison rates and mental illnesses.

    Thousands of workers have been unfairly made redundant because of the work of rich bankers.

    To name a few things.
    Disappointed that I spent 7 quid on TSR pro and I can't even rep the same post 84 times in a row.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    I'd say passing the bill legalising gay marriage is a little more useful than expressing support for the idea.
    I think it's baffling the state even has anything to do with marriage contracts anyway.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    yes yes yes:
    Party and consensus politics, power hungry politicians, and the attitude "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", well what if the alternative is better? Anyone who encourages sticking to the status quo doesn't have morals or principles.

    By the above definition of the conservatives (small 'c') I am definitely liberal.
    the word liberal has no meaning any more. It can mean anything from socialist to libertarian.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Why punish the poor and let the rich get richer, when it was a banking crisis, not fiscal.
    An often repeated peice of rhetoric by the left, when in reality the poorest quintile is the only group to have seen disposible income rise under the Coalition, while the tax burden has shifted with the rich having contributed more every year than any year of Labour's previous 13 in power. Don't let facts get in your way though.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    When Gordan Brown was in no one wanted cut-backs, in a boom no one wants to get off the ride.
    Not really helping his case, more just proven he was a weak leader.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    As a percentage of GDP, Gordan brown actually spent less than David Cameron in 2012.
    Well that's just not true. The 2009/10 deficit was 11.2% of GDP, in 2011/12 it was 7.9%.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    The small amount of GDP growth is only a result of huge quantitative easing, so inlation renders this useful.
    Except GDP growth takes into account inflation.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Labour has been replaced by part time jobs and the cost of living has skyrocketed, David has done little about this.
    No, part time jobs have been added to the labour force. More people are in work than ever before in the history of this country.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    The help to buy scheme is to help his banking pals. Increasing demand whilst keeping supply constant (of housing) skyrockets the price, this forces people to take out a loan since everyone is priced out of the market. Therefore, the banks get richer and the people get poorer. Not only this, people will more likely default on their loans, meaning that the banks get even richer, causing another financial collapse and more greed/wealth inequality.
    No, the help to buy scheme is to help me and you, something you've accused him of not doing enough of. You can't win with some people. You might also want to actually read about the policy before coming out with nonsense.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    The number of millionaires has increased exponentially whilst the poor's wages have continued to fall (whilst prices rise).
    A major problem I have with the left- the idea of people doing well for themselves seems to piss you off. It's as if you want everyone to be equally miserable. As for the second bit of that statement, I refer you to the top of this post.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    It has been the slowest growth in 100 years.
    Er, no it hasn't.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    He's restricted internet usage blocking various websites and setting up data mining centres in the middle east, to steal their privacy in the name of security.
    If the Kenyan shopping mall massacre was repeated on British shores you'd be singing a different tune I'd imagine.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    A guardian journalist reporting about GCHQ/government was arrested for his publishings, freedom of press?
    Is that your stance regarding the Daily Mail and Ralph Miliband?

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Higher wealth inequality leads to higher drug rates, prison rates and mental illnesses.
    Dubious claim, especially considering wealth inequality has fallen.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    To name a few things.
    The vast majority of which was just completely wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I think it's baffling the state even has anything to do with...*insert just about anything*
    Indeedy.

    As for the Tories, well all the principles that they espouse but fail to live up to I could find in UKIP, so why bother with an average, middle of the road social democratic party that is indistinguishable from the other three? Their commitment to spending cuts in and of itself is laughable. Of course, a cut in the rate of growth of government when its overall size has barely been curtailed masquerading as austerity is pretty comical as well. I can't imagine using the same advice some economists dish out regarding the economy in my personal finances (spend spend spend spend spend and don't stop spending because it'll "hurt" supposed "growth"), but then again I don't have my own personal printing press. Daniel Hannan is the only Tory I like, and that is because of how un-Tory he is. As a person who is for free markets (and not the jokes known as "public-private" partnerships and other instances of crony capitalism) and having the state butt out of people's personal lives, what in this party should draw me to it?

    That said, David Cameron does have some amusing quips.

    But hey, at least they're not (so-called) Labour.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Because they are ***** that have done nothing but destroy our beautiful country.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Pointlessly restructuring and privatising huge segments of the health service, re-creating the postcode health lottery, tripling student fees, selling off student debt to private companies so future interest rates on loans are not guaranteed, cracking on with implementing the health 'reforms' before they were even passed and then shifting that under the rug, removing the actual responsibility for the country's healthcare from the Secretary for Health, making NICE into a purely advisory body and creating a system where it's cash over quality in healthcare.

    This is despite promising no changes to the health service, so nobody even voted for their policies on this... indeed, nobody even knew about it. Which isn't technically wrong, but it's pretty poor form to campaign on one agenda, get a minority share of government and then whip out the secret agenda. Anyway, all of that is by the by.

    All of the above is factual stuff that they've done.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lunch_Box)
    Their spending cuts are actually having a negative impact on our economy.

    Also, unions views represent a better view of our country's demand compared to the rich conservatives.
    Oh please! the unions are the biggest group of self-serving greedy ****ers in the country. What I do admire about them though is that they've managed to convinve so many people that they're fighting for the working man
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:


    Can you really trust this guy and his friend Dave?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuy117)


    Can you really trust this guy and his friend Dave?
    He's a politician, so of course not.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    An often repeated peice of rhetoric .
    I think you've stumbled into the wrong thread. This is the convince me not to support the Tories thread, the parrot Tory propaganda hq thread is nextdoor.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    We have seen the effect that the Unions have if they are allowed to enact their policies. It ended in an IMF bailout and the death of British industry. Why should workers want to be represented by the people whose greed destroyed our industries?
    Why are you bringing Margaret Thatcher into this?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.