The Student Room Group

Don't vote Conservative ... We've came to far as human beings.

Scroll to see replies

To the threat starter - wow

Can't say I agree with everything you said to the same extent but you raise some good points.

The Conservatives have it economically wrong and morally wrong. They are trying to make us turn on the weakest in are society, those who slip through the cracks.

And they expect us to cheer them for it - to think that anything else is rewording the unworthy,not providing the safety net that is are duty as fellow human beings WHO CAN to provide for those WHO CAN'T.
The Tories have almost 3 times more money than Labour as well as nearly every media outlet and newspaper on their side and still they're lagging in the polls to the 'hopeless' Ed Milliband.
Who's a weak leader now?
Davey boy is running scared.
Original post by Bornblue
The Tories have almost 3 times more money than Labour as well as nearly every media outlet and newspaper on their side and still they're lagging in the polls to the 'hopeless' Ed Milliband.
Who's a weak leader now?
Davey boy is running scared.


So you know the current balance for both parties, eh?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Guy can't even use the correct "to" in the thread title.

Sounds like a typical labour voter.
Original post by Jammy Duel
So you know the current balance for both parties, eh?

Posted from TSR Mobile


Yep. 3 times the warchest of Labour and still lagging. Running away from debates and came across very poorly the other night.

This is Ed Milliband, who's been described as hopeless and weak by the Tory Murdoch press and the Tories still are lagging behind.

Weak party, weak Prime Minister.
Original post by Bornblue
Yep. 3 times the warchest of Labour and still lagging. Running away from debates and came across very poorly the other night.

This is Ed Milliband, who's been described as hopeless and weak by the Tory Murdoch press and the Tories still are lagging behind.

Weak party, weak Prime Minister.

So, tell me where you can get second by second up to date accounts?
And unless the balance is very low it actually means they've spent less on the campaign so far :wink:
I love how people go on about the Tories as if Labour would do ANYTHING differently.

Do you want someone to stab you in the back while they smile to your face, or someone to stab you in the back while telling you you need to be stabbed in the back, it's for your own good and you will thank them in 5 years time.

Either way, you're going down.
Original post by Jammy Duel
So, tell me where you can get second by second up to date accounts?
And unless the balance is very low it actually means they've spent less on the campaign so far :wink:


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/02/labour-general-election-campaign-douglas-alexander

And still they can't beat this 'weak, hopeless' leader.
Not to mention they have the huge majority of the press on their side and the Murdoch agenda doing all they can to scupper Ed's chances.
Tories are running scared.
Bring on May 7th.
Original post by Bornblue
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/02/labour-general-election-campaign-douglas-alexander

And still they can't beat this 'weak, hopeless' leader.
Not to mention they have the huge majority of the press on their side and the Murdoch agenda doing all they can to scupper Ed's chances.
Tories are running scared.
Bring on May 7th.

And that article brings into question: what the **** are Labour spending their money on?
Original post by Jammy Duel
And that article brings into question: what the **** are Labour spending their money on?


The Tories have 3 times as much money and they still lag behind.
The country is waking up to the horror show of what they actually are.
No surprise that the first time they saw Ed Milliband, he surpassed all expectations and comfortably beat Cameron.
No wonder he didn't want a head to head debate.
Original post by Bornblue
The Tories have 3 times as much money and they still lag behind.
The country is waking up to the horror show of what they actually are.
No surprise that the first time they saw Ed Milliband, he surpassed all expectations and comfortably beat Cameron.
No wonder he didn't want a head to head debate.

Except they don't have three times as much money, based on their income they only have about 20% more, so as I said, what has Labour been spending all their money on?
The link you gave, having read it again, does not say "they are spending three times as much", rather "they MAY spend three times as much", again, the fact that that statement is even possible raises the question "what are they spending their money on?"
Last I checked if Miliband did win it was only just because whichever way the results went it was close.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Except they don't have three times as much money, based on their income they only have about 20% more, so as I said, what has Labour been spending all their money on?
The link you gave, having read it again, does not say "they are spending three times as much", rather "they MAY spend three times as much", again, the fact that that statement is even possible raises the question "what are they spending their money on?"
Last I checked if Miliband did win it was only just because whichever way the results went it was close.


I didn't say 'spend' I said 'have'.

Actually Milliband did win. The latest yougov poll shows 49% Milliband won compared to Cameron's 34%. That's not close.
The ICM/Guardian Poll showed that amongst undecided voters Milliband was seen as stronger by 56% as compared to 30% for Cameron.
Most major networks and newspapers, even Tory supporting papers such as the Times and Telegraph called it for Milliband.

Milliband was the clear victor, surpassing all expectations.

If he is so weak why couldn't Cameron beat him? If he's so weak why wouldn't Cameron debate him?

He's running scared.
Conservatives will win.
The conservatives have been in power for the last 4 (5?) years and the economy's been slowly growing, slowly but surely for the vast majority of that time afaik.

There aren't any potholes in my town; I hear on the news unemployment is at an all-time low; I haven't heard of any crime in my area recently; My parents are both employed; My school doesn't seem particularly strapped for cash; I've been able to see a doctor when I've needed to... the point is why would I want change?

This whole comment may come across as a bit naive but the point I'm making is that the country's not gone to **** in the past 4 years, why would I want to vote for anyone else who proposes different policies?

Why some people act like another 5 years of conservatives is going to ruin everything is beyond me.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue

No wonder he didn't want a head to head debate.


A head to head debate would be useless. They just devolve into shouting matches where no actual policies are discussed.

Debates just encourage people to vote for irrelevant **** like personality and how they managed to shout back at Jeremy Paxman once. We should be encouraging people to vote for POLICIES.


Original post by edd1234
The conservatives have been in power for the last 4 (5?) years and the economy's been slowly growing, slowly but surely for the vast majority of that time afaik.

There aren't any potholes in my town; I hear on the news unemployment is at an all-time low; I haven't heard of any crime in my area recently; My parents are both employed; My school doesn't seem particularly strapped for cash; I've been able to see a doctor when I've needed to... the point is why would I want change?

This whole comment may come across as a bit naive but the point I'm making is that the country's not gone to **** in the past 4 years, why would I want to vote for anyone else who proposes different policies?

Why some people act like another 5 years of conservatives is going to ruin everything is beyond me.

Amen.
Original post by Appeal to reason
A head to head debate would be useless. They just devolve into shouting matches where no actual policies are discussed.

Debates just encourage people to vote for irrelevant **** like personality and how they managed to shout back at Jeremy Paxman once. We should be encouraging people to vote for POLICIES.




Pathetic. You know Milliband would come out on top. Dave was all for these debates five years ago but against them now. Hypocrasy.
Original post by Bornblue
Pathetic. You know Milliband would come out on top. Dave was all for these debates five years ago but against them now. Hypocrasy.


In a shouting match? Maybe.

In terms of actual policies and ability to run a country? Not a chance.
Original post by Appeal to reason
In a shouting match? Maybe.

In terms of actual policies and ability to run a country? Not a chance.


So why did Ed come out on top the other night?
He's a coward, running away from the debates and the public are starting to see it.
Original post by Bornblue
So why did Ed come out on top the other night?
He's a coward, running away from the debates and the public are starting to see it.


Thats all opinion. Torys think Dave won, Labour voters think Ed won, and the undecided think Ed won because he snapped and shouted back at Jeremy Paxman. No actual worthwhile discussion went down. Dave got ripped into for the current government, Ed got quizzed on the Blair/Brown government, fabulous, but how about next time they discuss policies, I was of the impression that was the whole point of the damn thing.
Ed got off easy as anyone can rip into the Blair/Brown government, Dave had the hard job of defending his own government.

You can hardly call what happened the other night a debate. It was more of an interrogation.
Original post by Appeal to reason
Thats all opinion. Torys think Dave won, Labour voters think Ed won, and the undecided think Ed won because he snapped and shouted back at Jeremy Paxman. No actual worthwhile discussion went down. Dave got ripped into for the current government, Ed got quizzed on the Blair/Brown government, fabulous, but how about next time they discuss policies, I was of the impression that was the whole point of the damn thing.
Ed got off easy as anyone can rip into the Blair/Brown government, Dave had the hard job of defending his own government.

You can hardly call what happened the other night a debate. It was more of an interrogation.

No, Ed won. Even the Murdoch press called it for Ed. The Yougov poll says 49% say Ed won compared to 34% for Cameron and Ed had a 26% lead over Cameron for the undecideds.

Ed has nothing to do with the Blair-Brown era. He was Energy secretary ffs, hardly sofa government is it?
He was asked irrelevant questions on his brother.

Ed came across far better and considering the media have been banging on about how appearance matters, Ed won hands down.

Quick Reply

Latest