[QUOTE=Deng;47637887]Lol, Greens are a pretty terrible choice when you consider that their policies involve banning biotechnology and nuclear power.[/QUOTE]For a lot of people they're the lesser of two evils.
Heh, the "undecided voter" who savaged Miliband on the Labour letter last night had already signed the Conservatives business letter.
[QUOTE=Freeze;47637951]For a lot of people they're the lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]
Considering that they're directly attacking a field I'm going into, with the intention of ending it entirely, I will never vote for them.
[QUOTE=Jallen;47634890]
You sound like my hypothetical character "Dave" in my earlier post -[/QUOTE]
Sounds about right, but I also know about their other policies too so that's why I'm voting for them.
Reminder that Greens want to reduce the speed limit on rural roads from 60 to 40 mph. Not only is this horribly inefficient for the majority of cars but it will also cause a lot of frustration. They also want to but a quota on women on certain jobs making sure they have 40% females on boards and stuff, way to fight inequality with inequality. Also claiming to be pro-science but against GM crops (would help combat world hunger which is what they want to do) and get rid of nuclear energy.
As much as I agree with them socially, every time they say something good they shoot themselves in the foot. They need someone like the lib dems to give them a brain.
[QUOTE=Freeze;47632585]In the places we send that aid to a lot of people don't even have [I]clean drinking water[/I]. If you honestly think that spending 0.7% of our money on helping those people is too much I don't even know what to say.[/QUOTE]
Please explain how giving money to India; a country that is spending its money on a SPACE PROGRAM; is a good idea. We have people on our streets who need help as well as people in other countries.
Latest seat projections with 'likely alliance' totals:
[QUOTE]The Guardian: Con 277, Lab 266, Lib Dem 27, SNP 55, UKIP 3, Green 1, Others 21
Con alliance 316, Lab alliance 328
Electoral Calculus: Con 282, Lab 273, Lib Dem 17, SNP 55, UKIP 1, Green 1, Others 18
Con alliance 309, Lab alliance 335
Election Forecast: Con 280, Lab 268, Lib Dem 27, SNP 49, UKIP 2, Green 1, Others 23
Con alliance 318, Lab alliance 324
May 2015: Con 276, Lab 267, Lib Dem 26, SNP 56, UKIP 2, Green 1, Others 22
Con alliance 313, Lab alliance 330
Elections Etc: Con 290, Lab 258, Lib Dem 25, SNP 53, UKIP 3, Green 1, Others 20
Con alliance 327, Lab alliance 318
YouGov Nowcast: Con 272, Lab 276, Lib Dem 24, SNP 52, UKIP 3, Green 1, Others 22
Con alliance 308, Lab alliance 335
YouGov Forecast: Con 278, Lab 271, Lib Dem 30, SNP 46, UKIP 3, Green 1, Others 21
Con alliance 320, Lab alliance 324
[I]NB: Con alliance includes Lib Dem, UKIP and DUP - Lab alliance includes SNP, Green, PC, SDLP and Lady Hermon
All totals assume 9 seats for DUP, 3 seats for PC, 3 seats for SDLP[/I][/QUOTE]
I woke up this morning because I had a dream that labour and snp just got into government together. Scary
so it's a 95% chance of a hung parliament.
Doesn't this say that the entire system is crap and needs refining?
[QUOTE=CaptainObvious1;47638472]Please explain how giving money to India; a country that is spending its money on a SPACE PROGRAM; is a good idea.[/QUOTE]Well, for exactly that reason. Their government is spending money on a space program instead of helping their own people so we are trying to help them out instead. The aid doesn't go to the Indian government, it goes directly to charities that are focused on helping.
[QUOTE=CaptainObvious1;47638472]We have people on our streets who need help as well as people in other countries.[/QUOTE]Yep and the other 99.3% of our money is spent on trying to help them.
[editline]1st May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;47638535]so it's a 95% chance of a hung parliament.
Doesn't this say that the entire system is crap and needs refining?[/QUOTE]I think most people agree with that, we're all just waiting on one of the two major parties to really campaign properly for getting it changed.
[QUOTE=Marzipas;47637749]if labour reject a deal with the snp, a progressive left party not too dissimilar to labour, and let the conservatives, the polar opposites of labour into government, they will pretty much be dead to everyone in Scotland, and potentially everyone in the uk.
gj ed, keep running your party into the ground. thank god i've got the snp to vote for here because i honestly dont think anyone else other than the greens in the uk would get my vote.[/QUOTE]
Conversely, so much as a whiff of Labour considering a coalition with the SNP will kill of a lot of votes south of the border, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone outside Scotland saying they want the SNP to have any kind of power over the UK, and honestly i'm not overly fond of that idea either.
[QUOTE=Freeze;47638597]
I think most people agree with that, we're all just waiting on one of the two major parties to really campaign properly for getting it changed.[/QUOTE]
here's the result of the election:
Labour - 30
Conservative - 30
UKIP - 15
Lib - 10
Others - 15
Then it's the story of who begs whom to partner up to gain majority.
But the fact is, it's a mess.
If only they had switched to Alternative Vote then it'd be better.
[QUOTE=AK'z;47638535]so it's a 95% chance of a hung parliament.
Doesn't this say that the entire system is crap and needs refining?[/QUOTE]
I don't see anything wrong with having more than one party in government, if hung parliaments encourage more coalitions. From a representative standpoint, you're getting MPs from a broader range of political wings, which provides a more balanced approach to voting on legislation and influencing legislation in other ways, rather than having one party with an overall majority. The Opposition in the House of Commons is essentially useless - they have barely any influence of legislation unless backbench government MPs rebel, but even then that's only on voting.
Changing any legislation introduced by government Ministers is practically impossible for the Opposition. Having a more balanced and representative government and backbench is for the better, since legislation can be better tailored for a broader range of circumstances. Having a coalition at least gets broader representation [I]before[/I] legislation is introduced. Plus, the Prime Minister's prerogatives are limited when he's having to work with other parties. I don't think that's a bad thing.
[editline]...[/editline]
Though a single transferable vote system would actually be good for Westminster elections. They're good over here for the Assembly.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;47639050]I don't see anything wrong with having more than one party in government, if hung parliaments encourage more coalitions. From a representative standpoint, you're getting MPs from a broader range of political wings, which provides a more balanced approach to voting on legislation and influencing legislation in other ways, rather than having one party with an overall majority. The Opposition in the House of Commons is essentially useless - they have barely any influence of legislation unless backbench government MPs rebel, but even then that's only on voting.
Changing any legislation introduced by government Ministers is practically impossible for the Opposition. Having a more balanced and representative government and backbench is for the better, since legislation can be better tailored for a broader range of circumstances. Having a coalition at least gets broader representation [I]before[/I] legislation is introduced. Plus, the Prime Minister's prerogatives are limited when he's having to work with other parties. I don't think that's a bad thing.
[editline]...[/editline]
Though a single transferable vote system would actually be good for Westminster elections. They're good over here for the Assembly.[/QUOTE]
No.
In the last 5 years there have no been no real sense of a cohesive government. Lib Dems made a promise fees wouldn't rise and yet they were a part of the coalition and they had no influence on the policy change.
The promises get made on and on and nothing happens.
This time Labour may win the popular vote but the fact that it's so evenly proportionate means this will be the worst case of hung parliament in history.
[QUOTE=AK'z;47639121]No.
In the last 5 years there have no been no real sense of a cohesive government. Lib Dems made a promise fees wouldn't rise and yet they were a part of the coalition and they had no influence on the policy change.
The promises get made on and on and nothing happens.
This time Labour may win the popular vote but the fact that it's so evenly proportionate means this will be the worst case of hung parliament in history.[/QUOTE]
Having any sort of properly cohesive government is impossible anyway, though. The work of government is so vast, with departments so large, that either way you're going to have a disparity in policy decisions between departments. From that, though, I think having a broader party influence at least allows for policies coming from those departments to be more representative.
[QUOTE=Deng;47637887]Lol, Greens are a pretty terrible choice when you consider that their policies involve banning biotechnology and nuclear power.[/QUOTE]
I'll say what I always say about greens. I'd not really consider actively voting for them because they never drum up that much support, but they are pretty much the ideal world - regardless of your views if the world worked the way they envisage it, everything would be perfect. Unfortunately it'll never happen, so it's good to have some MP's from them there to stop people going too far in some respects, but if they won a majority I doubt they'd pull off what they say they could.
[url]https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/594183236479221762[/url]
BBC Reporter just posted this on Twitter. Quite an ugly scene in Scotland. Damnit this shit needs to seriously stop but I somehow doubt the SNP would do anything about it considering its their own supporters.
I don't see how a relatively peaceful protest = an ugly scene.
If I could, I would most certainly vote Conservatives. I'd rather have a posh boy than two dumb-dumbs that are lowering the minimum wage and believe that the last Labour government didn't overspend. Labour in government will mean the next 5 years will be hell.
[QUOTE=Potaji;47639674]If I could, I would most certainly vote Conservatives. I'd rather have a posh boy than two dumb-dumbs that are lowering the minimum wage and believe that the last Labour government didn't overspend. Labour in government will mean the next 5 years will be hell.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say *two* "dumb-dumbs" but Labour, SNP, Greens and the Lib Dems all state very clearly in their manifestos that they want to raise the minimum wage. You may not be able to vote but at least get the facts right.
[QUOTE=Metroid;47637668]If you don't know who you're voting for yet, there's a great website: [url]https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/[/url]
It pretty much takes off the labels of the parties and you vote strictly for the policies without knowing who you're voting for, you'd be surprised at how you split between the parties!
[img]http://i.gyazo.com/ae2b925dcc28a66cbf40c9291bf15b13.png[/img]
note: my UKIP percentages were on the topics of Health/NHS & Democracy, nothing on Immigration. I was 100% committed to Labour before and this reinforced my doubts![/QUOTE]
Took a gander there because I'm just curious as to how the UK operates and I just find these sorts of things very interesting.
Nonetheless, results that are unsurprising
[t]http://i.gyazo.com/a1cd09e33ce1cb8c7df936ae6ec44979.png[/t]
My results were interesting
[t]http://i.imgur.com/UPz1DeG.png[/t]
Only two parties with only one occupying one spot (Europe). Besides the Labour plan on Europe is much similar anyway, staying in is the main thing for me and they have it.
[QUOTE=Freeze;47639748]I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say *two* "dumb-dumbs" but Labour, SNP, Greens and the Lib Dems all state very clearly in their manifestos that they want to raise the minimum wage. You may not be able to vote but at least get the facts right.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, I'm right. Ed Milliband wants to raise the minimum wage to £8. Sounds wonderful! However, if the economy was left under George O. in its current state, the minimum wage would be OVER £8 by 2020. So um sorry, hut he's actually lowering it. Very few businesses believe that Labour in government will be a benefit. Milliband executes poorly in debates and he could say today "free unicorns for all" and have people believe him.
All Milliband does is tell people what they wish to hear and yet he's unable to say where all the money for lowered tutition fees and these promises is coming from. Mansion tax, I presume? GEE WHIZZ, THIS GUY SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PRIME MINISTER. I don't want a repeat of the last Labour government, thanks.
[QUOTE=Potaji;47639878]Oh no, I'm right. Ed Milliband wants to raise the minimum wage to £8. Sounds wonderful! However, if the economy was left under George O. in its current state, the minimum wage would be OVER £8 by 2020. So um sorry, hut he's actually lowering it. Very few businesses believe that Labour in government will be a benefit. Milliband executes poorly in debates and he could say today "free unicorns for all" and have people believe him.[/QUOTE]
1. No, that doesn't count as 'lowering' the minimum wage and you know it.
2. Even if it did Labour are proposing basically the same - the £8 they want to raise it to is by 2019, so in 2020 it would go above that.
[QUOTE=Potaji;47639878]All Milliband does is tell people what they wish to hear and yet he's unable to say where all the money for lowered tutition fees and these promises is coming from. Mansion tax, I presume? GEE WHIZZ, THIS GUY SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PRIME MINISTER. I don't want a repeat of the last Labour government, thanks.[/QUOTE]
Yeah because the Conservatives have been great on answering where they're getting their money fro-
[video=youtube;94hdq5iX9m8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94hdq5iX9m8[/video]
In case you weren't counting George Osborne dodged the question of where the £8b NHS money would come from eighteen times and it was the exact same in the debates.
[QUOTE=Freeze;47639955]1. No, that doesn't count as 'lowering' the minimum wage and you know it.
2. Even if it did Labour are proposing basically the same - the £8 they want to raise it to is by 2019, so in 2020 it would go above that.
Yeah because the Conservatives have been great on answering where they're getting their money fro-
[video=youtube;94hdq5iX9m8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94hdq5iX9m8[/video]
In case you weren't counting George Osborne dodged the question of where the £8b NHS money would come from [I]eighteen times[/I] and it was the exact same in the debates.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/fair-wages[/url]
2020, sir. So yeh, you're getting a lower minimum wage.
Pointing out flaws are we? Ed Miliband got ripped apart yesterday and his fall at the end was honestly the best he performed. Its nice and all he would rather not be in government than be with the SNP but should you really be saying that? As far as I know, David Cameron has not said "no coalition will blah blah" and while yes he wants a majority, he sems aware that he may need to form a coalition to get back into government.
Even better, the entire concept of the Labour party is to help the working class and have the rich pay more yet most members are incredibly rich and Ed pretending he knows anything about being working class is pathetic.
[t]http://horobox.co.uk/u/Reag_1430582659.jpg[/t]
I'm slightly surprised but then again the border between the Green Party and Labour is quite thin with their policies overlapping a lot.
Still voting Labour like, the Green Party never really has a chance at anything but the local level.
[QUOTE=Potaji;47640018][url]http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/fair-wages[/url]
2020, sir. So yeh, you're getting a lower minimum wage.[/QUOTE][B]By[/B] 2020. Check the more up-to-date manifesto where it makes it more specific: [url]http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE]We will improve the security and reward of working life by raising the National
Minimum Wage to more than £8 an hour by October 2019[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Potaji;47640018]Pointing out flaws are we? Ed Miliband got ripped apart yesterday and his fall at the end was honestly the best he performed. Its nice and all he would rather not be in government than be with the SNP but should you really be saying that? As far as I know, David Cameron has not said "no coalition will blah blah" and while yes he wants a majority, he sems aware that he may need to form a coalition to get back into government.[/QUOTE]So point out some actual flaws rather than just a vague 'oh yeah he got ripped apart yesterday!'. I'm not even a Labour supporter and I can see that you're not saying things that hold any ground. I agree they have flaws, but you're certainly not point out of any of them.
[QUOTE=Potaji;47640018]Even better, the entire concept of the Labour party is to help the working class and have the rich pay more yet most members are incredibly rich and Ed pretending he knows anything about being working class is pathetic.[/QUOTE]You don't need to be part of a group to stand up for them.
My results:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/QvAFTvc.png[/img]
Which is surprising, given that I took a similar quiz the other day at [url=http://www.votematch.org]votematch.org[/url] and returned Labour as the party I agreed most with.
[url]http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-general-election-2015-labours-historic-bind/[/url]
Just caught sight of this over on r/UnitedKingdom. Suggesting that Miliband may go down the route of a constitutional overhaul. Oh man this sounds so interesting.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;47640802][url]http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-general-election-2015-labours-historic-bind/[/url]
Just caught sight of this over on r/UnitedKingdom. Suggesting that Miliband may go down the route of a constitutional overhaul. Oh man this sounds so interesting.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The ideas thrown around for a constitution include full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, a federal senate replacing the House of Lords, a parliament for England, a proportional electoral system, and a clause written into the constitution that Britain is a member of the European Union.[/QUOTE]
Please no, all those things sound awful.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
