Who will you be voting for in the General election?

Who will you be voting for in the General election?

Poll: Who will you be voting for in the General election?

Total Members Polled: 601

Conservative: 49%
Labour: 7%
Lib Dem: 3%
UKIP: 29%
SNP: 3%
Green: 2%
Other : 2%
I won't be voting : 6%
Author
Discussion

Leithen

10,800 posts

266 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Labour for the first time in my life (No. 7 general election).

Heavy heart, but the only way to try and prevent SNP morons destroying my country.

hidetheelephants

23,768 posts

192 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
McWigglebum4th said:
Tory

Because i think that cameron is a useless sap with all the backbone of a blended jellyfish

But

They are mostly likely to keep the SNP out in my local seat
Snap; depressing isn't it? The SNP have taken a worrying turn toward screechy hectoring authoritarianism of late and the YeSNP mob are frankly off their rockers; I wouldn't mind but the sums don't add up either. Shame really as the idea of clearing out the Labour deadwood that's clogged the central belt for the last 40 years is otherwise quite appealing. Presumably the 'I vote Labour because that's what my daddy and my granddaddy did' brigade have belatedly woken up to the fact they've been blithely supporting any old superannuated ex-councillor Labour central office deigned to stick a red rosette on and decided it's no longer cricket.

My only hope is that whatever the outcome is we get some reform out of it; boundary reform is long overdue and a proper look at PR is also needed.

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
Bradgate said:
I support policies which would create a much fairer, much more equal society
In your opinion, contentious.
But of course that is the trouble with bland statements like "fairer" and "more equal" and it is also why politicians like to use them. They are subjective terms which mean whatever you want them to mean, depending on where you are on the political spectrum.

Dennis Healy's "We are going to squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" would be seen as fair by some of the population. Others were not quite so sure.

Margaret Thatcher's Community Charge/ Poll Tax was seen as fair by some people. Others begged to differ.

In my experience, many people confuse the meanings of "fairness" and "self interest"

And what exactly do we mean by "more equal?" Does it mean that everybody earns the same salary? Does it mean that everybody lives in the same size property? Does it mean that everybody drives the same type of car?

I think they tried this economic model in a few countries after WW2. Sales of Trabants were pretty good, as I recall...

Ecosseven

1,972 posts

216 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Difficult one for me. The 2010 result was

Labour 46%
Lib Dems 35%
SNP 10.5%
Conservative 7%

My political views are most aligned with the Tories but the have no chance of winning the seat. Logic suggests voting for the Lib dems if I want to maximise the chance of another Tory / Lib Dem coalition but I'm not convinced the Conservatives and Lib Dems will win enough seats across the country to form another Government and the Lib Dem vote will likely be reduced significantly. My no. 1 priority is keeping the SNP out so I may end up voting Labour.

stevensdrs

3,208 posts

199 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Ecosseven said:
Difficult one for me. The 2010 result was

Labour 46%
Lib Dems 35%
SNP 10.5%
Conservative 7%

My political views are most aligned with the Tories but the have no chance of winning the seat. Logic suggests voting for the Lib dems if I want to maximise the chance of another Tory / Lib Dem coalition but I'm not convinced the Conservatives and Lib Dems will win enough seats across the country to form another Government and the Lib Dem vote will likely be reduced significantly. My no. 1 priority is keeping the SNP out so I may end up voting Labour.
My views are also mostly aligned with the Tories but I will be voting SNP. In my view that is a sacrifice worth making in the short term to bring about constitutional change, destroy the Labour party once and for all and eventually end up with a rebirth of some credible right leaning party.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Voting for idiots to keep even worse idiots out and they wonder why people feel disenfranchised and voter turn out is so low. It's depressing. When I lived in the UK my only real choice was between Labour and Respect, FFS!

anarki

759 posts

135 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
It is crazy though, the more I hear of this tactical voting going on (not slandering it at all) when to think that 919,546 people voted for ukip in the 2010 general election but yet they haven't got a single seat in Westminster!

As I stated earlier on in this topic, my constituency is Bristol south which is generally seen as a poorer area compared to the rest of Bristol. I genuinely believe that is why Labour has a stranglehold on this area as the people feel as if they're better off with Labour. Maybe they're right, maybe not, I haven't seen much improvement to this side of town for a while!

Bradgate

2,819 posts

146 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
But of course that is the trouble with bland statements like "fairer" and "more equal" and it is also why politicians like to use them. They are subjective terms which mean whatever you want them to mean, depending on where you are on the political spectrum.

Dennis Healy's "We are going to squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" would be seen as fair by some of the population. Others were not quite so sure.

Margaret Thatcher's Community Charge/ Poll Tax was seen as fair by some people. Others begged to differ.

In my experience, many people confuse the meanings of "fairness" and "self interest"

And what exactly do we mean by "more equal?" Does it mean that everybody earns the same salary? Does it mean that everybody lives in the same size property? Does it mean that everybody drives the same type of car?

I think they tried this economic model in a few countries after WW2. Sales of Trabants were pretty good, as I recall...
'Fairer' means different things to different people, I agree. My definition of a fairer society would be one in which inherited wealth and privilege is much less significant than is currently the case. A practical example of this would be introducing quotas of state educated students at top universities.

'More equal' means what it says. The richest 1% of the UK population currently owns more assets than the bottom 55% of the population ( source : ONS). That is, in my view, an indefensible level of inequality and the assets owned by that 1% should be more heavily taxed.

I am advocating Scandinavian style Social Democracy, which demonstrably works, rather than totalitarian communism which, as you correctly point out, managed the impressive feat of impoverishing a country full of Germans.

Chlamydia

1,082 posts

126 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Bradgate said:
'More equal' means what it says. The richest 1% of the UK population currently owns more assets than the bottom 55% of the population ( source : ONS). That is, in my view, an indefensible level of inequality and the assets owned by that 1% should be more heavily taxed.
Why? I'm not sure of the figures but no doubt someone will pop up with them, but I'm sure the top 1% are already paying the largest sum into the public purse. What percentage of their income/assets would you deem 'fair' to be taken from them? I really struggle with the politics of jealousy, especially when the same people that call for these punitive taxes are the first to complain about welfare reform which would save us millions.
By the way, I'm sorry if it looks like I'm singling you out but I'm really interested in the answers and you're the only one so far who's been willing to explain his thoughts - no hard feelings I hope? smile

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Bradgate said:
'Fairer' means different things to different people, I agree. My definition of a fairer society would be one in which inherited wealth and privilege is much less significant than is currently the case. A practical example of this would be introducing quotas of state educated students at top universities.

'More equal' means what it says. The richest 1% of the UK population currently owns more assets than the bottom 55% of the population ( source : ONS). That is, in my view, an indefensible level of inequality and the assets owned by that 1% should be more heavily taxed.
As you correctly say, "fairer" means different things to different people.

I was educated in the state system at a not very good school. But despite that I got to University, founded my own business and am doing well enough to send my children to a fee paying school. Many at that and other schools are making big sacrifices for their children- we are not all the milionaires of Eton,Harrow as portrayed by the media. Indeed I know one family who have re-mortgaged their house as well as cutting out all holidays and making many other sacrifices. Why should that be penalised? Is that somehow less desirable for the country than them spending it on holidays and new cars? Or on booze and bingo? Indeed we could save the money and give it to the children as an inheritance- that would worsen inequality and deprive the country of some of its best talent.

Not all parts of the country are as lucky as the cities to have good schools in abundance - because funding has been concentrated on inner schools so rural areas have lost out.

Inequality in wealth is more to do with inheritance as anything. But inheritance tax is widely seen as one of the most unfair taxes, and who would not want to do the best for their children? (well admittedly some, but they perpetuate inequality the other way).



rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
Bradgate said:
'More equal' means what it says. The richest 1% of the UK population currently owns more assets than the bottom 55% of the population ( source : ONS). That is, in my view, an indefensible level of inequality and the assets owned by that 1% should be more heavily taxed.
There are many people who fall into the category of being asset rich/ cash poor.

I once lived a few houses away from a retired Brigadier who had a nice house (worth at today's values c.£2m - mine was bought in 1980 for £22.5k by the way smile ) whose only income was his army pension. OK, that pension was paying him rather a lot more than a retired dustman might get, but nevertheless it was still just a pension, and it certainly didn't make him cash rich.

The "mansion tax" that some political parties are currently banging on about runs the risk of heavily taxing quite a few pretty ordinary blokes and blokesses who bought a house somewhere like Richmond or Henley on Thames for £10k in 1966, and now see its value expressed in numbers that would only otherwise be seen in the phone book.

The richest 1% of the UK population currently owns more assets than the bottom 55% of the population is one of those simplistic phrases that politicians, often on the far left, frequently use as an excuse to hind behind to financially batter parts of the population who can't actually afford to be financially battered. We appear to be back to "fairness means what you want it to mean" again.



Woody3

748 posts

203 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
A slight conundrum for you... Out of interest, if the Conservatives got just under 39% and Labour got just over 37% in the 2010 election in your area (ex mining), would you risk splitting the Conservative vote?


JJ55

649 posts

114 months

Monday 30th March 2015
quotequote all
I'll be voting conservative. No way I'd want labour in charge of the purse strings after last time. I also can't support a party who tries to punish any one who does well for themselves. Their various policies on tax are awful & I say this as someone who is not a high earner affected by their high rates.

A bunch of champagne socialists led by the uninspiring miliband.

I can't say I'm massively impressed in Cameron who needs to grow some balls but I trust the conservatives to run the country more than the others.

I may however throw a curve ball & vote ukip.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
As you correctly say, "fairer" means different things to different people.

I was educated in the state system at a not very good school. But despite that I got to University, founded my own business and am doing well enough to send my children to a fee paying school. Many at that and other schools are making big sacrifices for their children- we are not all the milionaires of Eton,Harrow as portrayed by the media. Indeed I know one family who have re-mortgaged their house as well as cutting out all holidays and making many other sacrifices. Why should that be penalised? Is that somehow less desirable for the country than them spending it on holidays and new cars? Or on booze and bingo? Indeed we could save the money and give it to the children as an inheritance- that would worsen inequality and deprive the country of some of its best talent.

Not all parts of the country are as lucky as the cities to have good schools in abundance - because funding has been concentrated on inner schools so rural areas have lost out.

Inequality in wealth is more to do with inheritance as anything. But inheritance tax is widely seen as one of the most unfair taxes, and who would not want to do the best for their children? (well admittedly some, but they perpetuate inequality the other way).
not often we agree lately, but we do here.

speedy_thrills

7,760 posts

242 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
If people want to live in that kind of society, why not just move there?
I think climate, language (which is likely to limit your career go some extent) and not being aware of the local culture, laws, system put people off. Even moving to another English speaking country with a similar culture has challenges.

Du1point8

21,604 posts

191 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
otolith said:
If people want to live in that kind of society, why not just move there?
I think climate, language (which is likely to limit your career go some extent) and not being aware of the local culture, laws, system put people off. Even moving to another English speaking country with a similar culture has challenges.
Its not often I see such crappy excuses as a reason not to move to Scandinavian countries as what you posted, will take Finland as the example.

Climate - +30C in summer and usually -10 to -20C in winter, yet all resources still work and its not an issue.
Language - Not an issue in most jobs as they realise that only having 4.5 million people means they need to know english, or will lose out.
Culture - Generally honest, hard working, don't like slackers.
Laws - Same as most of the UK, except if caught speeding its based on salary.
System - Fully working even in snow and rain.
Alcohol - My god its expensive.
Food - Very Expensive.
Property - reasonably cheap.
Cars - Expensive even for 2nd hand models.
Education - Amazing.
Salaries - Quite good.
Health care - Free for people that live there.

So what stops people in the UK going there? Not a scooby why...

I will be moving there in a few years as Im not having my children using the UK education system, not a fking chance.

AA999

5,180 posts

216 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
May I ask, are you old enough to have voted Conservative with the result of a Conservative majority on a previous occasion?
Yes I did vote for them in my first voting experience in 1992 and again in 1997 election (when the UK took a turn for the worse).
I kept voting conservative until a new option became available (Farage) when I notice that the LibLabCon parties decided to all fight for the same centre-political media friendly grounds.
Seemingly spouting words that are aimed to generate the least amount of media backlash within total tight bounds of Labour's political correctness framework.

Policies that are media friendly are not necessarily best for the UK/England.

UKIP in my view are a breath of fresh air.


Digga

40,206 posts

282 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Bradgate said:
I am advocating Scandinavian style Social Democracy, which demonstrably works, rather than totalitarian communism which, as you correctly point out, managed the impressive feat of impoverishing a country full of Germans.
WOuld this be liek "zombie" Norway or deeply divided Sweden?

IainT

10,040 posts

237 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Woody3 said:
A slight conundrum for you... Out of interest, if the Conservatives got just under 39% and Labour got just over 37% in the 2010 election in your area (ex mining), would you risk splitting the Conservative vote?
No way, the risk to the country is too great - Lab/SNP is a far worse outcome than continued EU membership no matter what the reality of 'renegotiation' actually is.

Du1point8

21,604 posts

191 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Digga said:
Bradgate said:
I am advocating Scandinavian style Social Democracy, which demonstrably works, rather than totalitarian communism which, as you correctly point out, managed the impressive feat of impoverishing a country full of Germans.
WOuld this be liek "zombie" Norway or deeply divided Sweden?
I wouldn't waste your time... Bradgate ignored it when I wrote about Norway last time and still is in love with their idea.

Why does it always have to be that fairness is always the people who try (ambitious/hard working) need to support those that don't? What is exactly fair about that?