# General Elections soon - Who will you be voting for?



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

*Who will you vote for?*​
Labour 3917.57%Lib Dems 198.56%Conservative 6227.93%Scottish National Party (SNP) 62.70%Plaid Cymru 00.00%UK Independance Party (UKP) 135.86%Green Party 20.90%British National Party (BNP) 5122.97%Other 62.70%Not Voting2410.81%


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

Just interested to see who fellow users will be voting for?

Just to add, no racist comments please. Fair enough if you want to vote BNP...as not all of their policies are what i'd say 'foreigner hating' and are actually ok...but if you say something like 'I'm voting BNP so immigrants can f*ck off back home the dirty c*nts' then that's below the belt really.

I don't want to start a huge racism or political debate, just really curious to see who will be voting for who.

Personally I'm going for conservative. Mainly because labour have gone back on everything they've said and lied about so many things. Also I don't believe the way they treat the benefits system. If tories win and actually stick to their policies...people who should be working will be working and they won't take the ones who just cannot be bothered to work lightly. Although to be honest conservative will probably end up to be as bad as labour.


----------



## ichigo (Dec 22, 2008)

up to now not voteing dont trust any mp as far as i could throw them


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

I will will be voting Lucifer or Darth Yoda


----------



## adlewar (Oct 14, 2008)

Khaos said:


> I will will be voting Lucifer or Darth Yoda


my votes yoda!!!!

"i cannot teach him the boy has no patience"


----------



## DENYSS (Apr 7, 2010)

do any of you know about the situation in south africa? wtf!!!


----------



## scobielad (Feb 27, 2010)

Coalition government.


----------



## Jux (Jul 23, 2008)

I dunno but i hope the parliament is well hung.


----------



## DENYSS (Apr 7, 2010)

tHE WHOLE sOUTH aFRICAN SITUATION IS SICK!!!! RACISM AT ITS WORST!


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

whats happening in south africa ,

i was voting bnp until incredible bulk got me thinking in another thread an to be fair it would be a wasted vote. so more than likely torries . just to get spongers off their ass more than anything


----------



## DENYSS (Apr 7, 2010)

WELL, THERE ARE RUMOURS BEING SPREAD THAT BLACKS ARE GETTING TOGETHER TO KILL ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE... THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HOUSEHOLDS!!


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

DENYSS said:


> WELL, THERE ARE RUMOURS BEING SPREAD THAT BLACKS ARE GETTING TOGETHER TO KILL ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE... THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HOUSEHOLDS!!


that sounds like fun for the world cup ,


----------



## bassmonster (Aug 29, 2009)

They're all of bunch of liars so not voting like i haven't been for the last 2 elections...


----------



## eurgar (May 5, 2008)

have not voted since I was around 18 cant see this changing this time either infact I am not even registered to vote


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

DENYSS said:


> WELL, THERE ARE RUMOURS BEING SPREAD THAT BLACKS ARE GETTING TOGETHER TO KILL ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE... THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HOUSEHOLDS!!


Stuff like that has been happening for years, the whites just aren't wanted there.


----------



## ms4 (Jun 20, 2008)

I'm voting mainly to stop parties like the BNP getting in. As an ethnic minority, even though i'm born here, parties like that scare me


----------



## DENYSS (Apr 7, 2010)

You guys have no idea what's happenning here... I would think twice about coming here for the world cup.... Farmers are being slaughtered on their farms, women raped and it do not even reach the media.

At this moment, SA is an circus!!! And if you decide to come for the world cup....good luck.


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

DENYSS said:


> You guys have no idea what's happenning here... I would think twice about coming here for the world cup.... Farmers are being slaughtered on their farms, women raped and it do not even reach the media.
> 
> At this moment, SA is an circus!!! And if you decide to come for the world cup....good luck.


totally agree with you there mate ,why the fvck the world cup

is being held there is beond me.The place is a nightmare. :ban:


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

BNP, although I probably won't bother.


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

ms4 said:


> I'm voting mainly to stop parties like the BNP getting in. As an ethnic minority, even though i'm born here, parties like that scare me


then if your born here why worry ?? its illegal immagrants they promise to remove , if your born here then surely your classed as brittish??


----------



## justincjoe (Jul 30, 2007)

DENYSS said:


> You guys have no idea what's happenning here... I would think twice about coming here for the world cup.... Farmers are being slaughtered on their farms, women raped and it do not even reach the media.
> 
> At this moment, SA is an circus!!! And if you decide to come for the world cup....good luck.


i used to work with a man from SA lost his farm house every thing they chased him his wife and kids off his own land with machetes he had to come to england with they money he had on him at the time very sad as he was very elderly must be hard starting over at that age


----------



## strange_days (Aug 6, 2009)

Lloyd DA said:


> I dunno but i hope the parliament is well hung.


You're lucky I don't neg you for that, I feel used after having read it


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

NEVER VOTE FOR A PARTY: THEY ARE THE ANITHESIS OF DEMOCRACY.

We have a perfectly adequate majority vote system to elect an MP to represent us.

Once an MP is elected, he swears to represent all his constituents - those who voted for him, those who voted against, and those who didn't vote.

An MP represents his constituents - that is, he attends Parliament where they cannot all be and speaks and listens on their behalf and looks after their interests.

An MP is not mandated - he is not required to do only what the majority who elected him want, but to represent all his constituents' interests.

Unfortunately, most loyal Party MPs will toe their Party line, and obey the disgraceful Whip system.

SO, listen to the candidates in your constituency, and decide who is most able to represent you and your fellow constituents.

If you think that none of the candidates is able and worthy of your vote, don't vote.

Or, since it's your right and important to exercise your vote, write "none of the above" on the ballot paper.

Years ago we had many more Independent MPs in Parliament, and if you vote for the ablest candidate, not the Party, we will get more answerable and responsible Government.

And btw, a "hung" Parliament, does not mean a coalition government, and will do us no harm. It means that the ruling Party will have to work all the harder to persuade Parliament to approve its policies.

And if there are many independent-minded MPs there will not be a huge opposition simply able to block sensible bills.


----------



## justincjoe (Jul 30, 2007)

as for the voting not sure yet cant make up me mind just have to pick the best of a bad bunch


----------



## ms4 (Jun 20, 2008)

Dantreadz85 said:


> then if your born here why worry ?? its illegal immagrants they promise to remove , if your born here then surely your classed as brittish??


Yeh but I don't believe that's their only agenda. Not sure who to vote for, but will be one of the three main parties, incidently Bob Ainsworth is my local MP but not sure if i'll vote him yet.


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

ms4 said:


> Yeh but I don't believe that's their only agenda. Not sure who to vote for, but will be one of the three main parties, incidently Bob Ainsworth is my local MP but not sure if i'll vote him yet.


mate altho i highly doubt bnp will ever get near being in power ( altho there is a lot of protest voting towards bnp due to out of work brits i cant see it outweighing the votes one of the main 3 get) if your born in britain then surely you have a brittish passport , an it would be against human rights and extremely racist to be removed from the country on colour of skin .

a lot of people get there policys wrong an just mistake them for racists , its to do with the fact of make britain brittish if that makes sense


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Dantreadz85 said:


> mate altho i highly doubt bnp will ever get near being in power ( altho there is a lot of protest voting towards bnp due to out of work brits i cant see it outweighing the votes one of the main 3 get) if your born in britain then surely you have a brittish passport , an it would be against human rights and extremely racist to be removed from the country on colour of skin .
> 
> a lot of people get there policys wrong an just mistake them for racists , its to do with the fact of make britain brittish if that makes sense


I feel this is a naive view point. They always start shaving away at the edges... it's what comes next that is the problem. If being British was all they cared about they would have allowed members other than "Caucasians" years ago.

I'm personally voting Labour - Geordie lad through and through!


----------



## davieez (Sep 27, 2009)

too early to say yet, have to at least wait till they get some sort of manifesto out so we know where they all stand. at the minute they are just all sledging each other like children, its pathetic!!

watched newsnight last night and it seems that the conservatives numbers regarding these 12billion efficiency savings are a bit suspect.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> ...
> 
> I'm personally voting Labour - Geordie lad through and through!


If you think that the Labour Party candidate is the one best able to represent all the constituents - vote for him.

But will he honestly represent the interests of all those who didn't vote Labour as well?

Especially as his majority may only be a minority of those who could have voted!

If you always vote for a Party, no matter how able the candidate, Parliament will only get less and less responsive to most ordinary people.


----------



## YetiMan1436114545 (Dec 7, 2007)

Not voting.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

it amazes me that anyone will vote labour at all......can they not see the state the country is in...they have bought us to our knees and yet some people are still gonna vote for em...beggars belief


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

Lostgeordie said:


> *I feel this is a naive view point. They always start shaving away at the edges... it's what comes next that is the problem*. If being British was all they cared about they would have allowed members other than "Caucasians" years ago.
> 
> I'm personally voting Labour - Geordie lad through and through!


have a laugh lol . so what do you think would come next then if they were in power , anyone that wasnt white would be be headed or something??

mate british is british , bottom line , regardless or colour . but i do agree strongly with thei views on illegal and legal immagration .

but on the other hand i do see them as very inexperienced and just as bad as the other parties , so therfore a wasted vote . but if one of the main 3 come with similar policies on immagration i would not hesitate to vote


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

IanStu said:


> it amazes me that anyone will vote labour at all......can they not see the state the country is in...they have bought us to our knees and yet some people are still gonna vote for em...beggars belief


I totally agree with you here.

We are in the worse position financially we have ever been in history.

We have total uncontrolled immigration and a massive rise in the far right and racism going on.

We have a doubled national debt since they came to power.

We have idiots like harriet harmon in power.

Then someone says 'cos im a geordie through n through, i gotta vote labour!'

Its like saying 'cos im a geordie through n through, i gotta jump off a cliff!'

Unreal isnt it?


----------



## KRS (Nov 27, 2008)

Britbb said:


> I totally agree with you here.
> 
> We are in the worse position financially we have ever been in history.
> 
> ...


That actually sounds quite reasonable.


----------



## robdog (Dec 2, 2003)

I know Labour have messed up but i just dont see the tories being a credible alternative, there numbers just dont add up.

I think alot of peole are thinking because Labour have messed up the tories HAVE to be a better choice which isnt necessarily the case.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

robdog said:


> I know Labour have messed up but i just dont see the tories being a credible alternative, there numbers just dont add up.
> 
> I think alot of peole are thinking because Labour have messed up the tories HAVE to be a better choice which isnt necessarily the case.


x2

At least the Conservatives won't be able to de-nationalise anything this time round. Now's the time when Labour need to re-nationalise things i.e. the Rail!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Parties create themselves.

All MPs are officially individuals. Although they may stand for a particular Party, as far as the Constitution goes, parties do not officially exist.

There is nothing official about the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems, or any other party.

There is simply the Government and the Opposition.

It is only safe convention that, after a General Election, the Sovereign calls upon the leader of the Party with most seats to form a Government.

If there are no parties with clear majorities, the Queen in Council can call on any MP she thinks able to do so to form a Government, and he can choose MPs, Lords and even civilians of any political persuasion to be Ministers.

If we broke the stranglehold of the established political parties, the appointed Government would have to do more to persuade the majority of MPs of the wisdom of their policies.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

GunnaGetBig said:


> x2
> 
> At least the Conservatives won't be able to de-nationalise anything this time round. Now's the time when Labour need to re-nationalise things i.e. the Rail!


Considering that re-nationalising industry creates more losses and will plummet us further into debt.

We are currently in our worst ever economic crisis in history. We have the biggest national debt weve ever had. We need to make big cuts.

But you think it will be a good idea to re-nationalise certain industries?

So i ask plainly, considering that when 'nationalised' these companies made massive losses...what would your reasoning be for renationalising these companies now when we are in our worst ever economic situation?

Can you explain why this would be a good idea please? Why would this be good for our economy? It would collapse our economy completely!


----------



## Seyyed-Merat (Sep 1, 2007)

lib dem, best of the worst imo, their all crap choices, but not voting is plain stupid...


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

GunnaGetBig said:


> x2
> 
> At least the Conservatives won't be able to de-nationalise anything this time round. Now's the time when Labour need to re-nationalise things i.e. the Rail!


Just because British Rail was de-nationalized in the wrong way, it doesn't follow that nationalized companies do better.

Some of us can remember the dreadful, expensive phone service under the GPO, and how anti-consumer the monopoly gas and electricity companies were, and in fact how old, dirty and late the trains were and how unfriendly the staff.


----------



## stavmangr (Nov 25, 2008)

*LABOURS *

If i were a boss i would vote for torries though,interesting to see a person who never has worked in his life,never wonder how he will pay his bills because his family is rich, to think and help the poor and middle class sitizens.........

:cool2:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

stavmangr said:


> *LABOURS *
> 
> If i were a boss i would vote for torries though,interesting to see a person who never has worked in his life,never wonder how he will pay his bills because his family is rich, to think and help the poor and middle class sitizens.........
> 
> :cool2:


As I said: never vote for a Party!

But anyway, the idea that a rich Tory has no understanding or sympathy with poorer people is absurd.

Just remember - all the Ministers in most Labour Governments have been public school toffs, and they were rarely accused of ignorance.

Any MP worth the position will want a Britain better for more of its citizens. It's just how to achieve it that's arguable.

If fewer MPs blindly toed their Party line our economy and society might be far better.


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

youd be surprised how much 'labours' tax and **** the low income people too.....

this class divide crap is just that .......

undr labour they have managed to create lots of pointless jobs in government departments to waste more money and thus create illusions of employment.

also lets remember weve had an unelected PM ......

good points from Patrick above.....

have a think ignore the 'advertising' and dont be a sheep/lemming


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

The Tories, from the evidence I have seen, not a credible option to run the country. You think it's bad now imagine you had the tories in power for the last 13 years. If you're very well off you would be okay, but if, like me, you have to work for your crust you'd be way worse off.

I actually think that the Liberal Democrats would represent my views and the views of my fellow constituents better but looking at the previous election results for where I live, they have no chance of getting in. Since I believe that the Tory candidate will represent only himself and his party I will be voting labour.

In my opinion there are more members of the Labour and Lib Dems who are willing to risk the party whip and take a stand for their constituents than in the Tories.

Some of you think it's ludicrous to vote Labour... I tell you what, I find it just as ludicrous that you would consider voting Conservative. How quickly we forget huh?

That's the problem with our political system, it's totally divisive.


----------



## SK-XO (Aug 6, 2009)

I don't vote, no point. They all say they will do this, that and the next thing but as soon as in power do fk all but line up their own pockets and boost taxes and petrol up.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

robdog said:


> I know Labour have messed up but i just dont see the tories being a credible alternative, there numbers just dont add up.
> 
> I think alot of peole are thinking because Labour have messed up the tories HAVE to be a better choice which isnt necessarily the case.


Good post:thumbup1: Totally agree.

Have to say they are all much of a muchness, does anyone really think things

will improve whoever gains power, if you do, your deluded

Unfortunately, although some don't realise it, we are a one party state, the party of fools:rolleyes:

Ian, you forgot the thatcher years, she is responsible for the lack of community

spirit and promoted greed and selfishness, now we pay the price:thumb:


----------



## bassmonster (Aug 29, 2009)

Britbb said:


> I totally agree with you here.
> 
> We are in the worse position financially we have ever been in history.
> 
> ...


It's just all part of the plan mate...expect a much of a rough time in decades to come.


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Dantreadz85 said:


> have a laugh lol . so what do you think would come next then if they were in power , anyone that wasnt white would be be headed or something??
> 
> mate british is british , bottom line , regardless or colour . but i do agree strongly with thei views on illegal and legal immagration .
> 
> but on the other hand i do see them as very inexperienced and just as bad as the other parties , so therfore a wasted vote . but if one of the main 3 come with similar policies on immagration i would not hesitate to vote


The party is fundamentally racist at the top. I'm not sure how much evidence needs to be made public before people will realise that. If you really believe that immigration is the biggest threat to our nation go ahead and vote for them. Personally I think a lack of immigration would be just as damaging... possibly more so.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> ...
> 
> In my opinion there are more members of the Labour and Lib Dems who are willing to risk the party whip and take a stand for their constituents than in the Tories....
> 
> That's the problem with our political system, it's totally divisive.


No - Labour Party MPs have always been the most obedient to the Whips.

Such as over the Iraq invasion.

Poorer MPs are always keen to hang on to their constituencies and don't want to be deselected.

Labour's Bob Marshall Andrews is about the only MP who's recently defied his whip - and he's a rich public school toff.

It's not our political system that's divisive, it's the Party system!


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Prodiver said:


> No - Labour Party MPs have always been the most obedient to the Whips.
> 
> Such as over the Iraq invasion.
> 
> ...


How many MPs resigned in the Labour party over the war in Iraq?

How many Tories who also backed the War?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> ...
> 
> Ian, you forgot the thatcher years, she is responsible for the lack of community
> 
> spirit and promoted greed and selfishness, now we pay the price:thumb:


This is a piece of nonsense totally unsupported by history.

Poorer people got proportionally richer and with more opportunities under Thatcher than at any time since Labour have been in power.

The fact that so many ordinary people expect so much - have so much disposable income is due to her Governments.

Under her, British society actually returned much to its traditional Victorian values - not greed and selfishness as some would love to believe, but the industry and responsibility of the individual, rather than the Government wet-nursing us all, and philanthropy and charitable giving were far higher than now.


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

Lostgeordie said:


> The party is fundamentally racist at the top. I'm not sure how much evidence needs to be made public before people will realise that. If you really believe that immigration is the biggest threat to our nation go ahead and vote for them. Personally I think a lack of immigration would be just as damaging... possibly more so.


i at no point said no immagration , neither does the bnp to be fair.

its illegal immigration and them working for peanuts thus puttin a lot of brits out of work . and then sending all the money effectively leaving the economy . ( i would love to see how much leaves britain for just one week , i would bet a lot its ridiculous)

and its the legal immigrants who are sponging an literally raping the country for whatever they can , we have our own idiots that expect a living for nothing we dont exactly need more . its thanks to gordon brown an his merry men that theres the somalians ect that never work a day in their life get a 5 bedroom house for nothing , have a few more kids claim theres not enough space an get a 7 bed house !!!! yet someone like my old grandad and many more have worked all their life paid into the system for years and get absoulutley nothing except the goverment trying to dip into their pensions ! its utter bollox and disgusting IMO . my nan had to sell her house that she planned to leave to her kids just to get care as the government would not help her out until her money and assets run out . whats the point in even tryin to save for your children and give them a head start in life when this in the treatment we recieve .

but an immagrant in the same situation , now thats a different story , lets all chip in an help them out , fcuk it how about we all do headstands while trying balance and juggle with our feet for their fcukin ammusement while were at it .

how any one could vote for labour is beyond me

rant over

sorry guys lol


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> No - Labour Party MPs have always been the most obedient to the Whips.
> 
> Such as over the Iraq invasion.
> 
> ...


Robin Cook? Clare Short? They weren't obedient...

To all those saying that yes, Labour have messed up but the Tories won't do much better; surely it would be better to allow the Tories to give it a shot? Labour have had years to prove their worth in terms of economics and have repeatedly failed to do so. Time to give someone else a chance to rectify the economic situation. Maybe the Tories won't be able to solve the problem, but Labour sure as hell aren't either.I mean FFS, Gordon Brown sold off our gold reserves for about 8 billion less than they would be worth now. The ONE thing that is guaranteed to maintain or increase its value is gold. Somebody please explain the reasoning behind that because as far as I can see, it's just blind incompetence.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> How many MPs resigned in the Labour party over the war in Iraq?
> 
> How many Tories who also backed the War?


No Labour MPs resigned from the Party at all. One Minister gave up his post but continued as aLabour MP.

For the Tories it was a free vote.

MPs had only T Blair's weasel 45 minute words to go on!

It's not the business of the Opposition to frame policy but to call the Government to account when it doesn't deliver.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

rdfp22 said:


> Robin Cook? Clare Short? They weren't obedient...
> 
> To all those saying that yes, Labour have messed up but the Tories won't do much better; surely it would be better to allow the Tories to give it a shot? Labour have had years to prove their worth in terms of economics and have repeatedly failed to do so. Time to give someone else a chance to rectify the economic situation. Maybe the Tories won't be able to solve the problem, but Labour sure as hell aren't either.I mean FFS, Gordon Brown sold off our gold reserves for about 8 billion less than they would be worth now. The ONE thing that is guaranteed to maintain or increase its value is gold. Somebody please explain the reasoning behind that because as far as I can see, it's just blind incompetence.


Robin Cook continued as a back-bencher.

Clare Short - great woman - didn't defy the whip and voted for - to her regret now.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> No Labour MPs resigned from the Party at all. *One Minister gave up his post but continued as a Labour MP. *
> 
> For the Tories it was a free vote.
> 
> ...


Clare Short and Robin Cook both resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq War.

EDIT: you posted too quickly for me :lol:


----------



## Squeeeze (Oct 2, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> This is a piece of nonsense totally unsupported by history.
> 
> Poorer people got proportionally richer and with more opportunities under Thatcher than at any time since Labour have been in power.
> 
> ...


In some areas maybe, but tell that to the old mining and heavy industry communities, especially in the NE, many of which are still suffering the consequences to this day.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2010)

I knew if I opened this thread I wouldn't be able to walk away from it - so before I end up spending my entire day on this, I will leave it.

Funnily enough I'm currently writing my dissertation for my degree in Politics about the legitimacy of military intervention, with the Iraq War being a key case study!


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

"The ONE thing that is guaranteed to maintain or increase its value is gold." thats not true....

if you had bought gold mid/end of '07 then it would have been worth 25% less 6 months later enough to make anyone think twice....

Gold is traded on international markets and like all commodities rises and falls in value

Gordon did however sell it at all time lows which is a bit of a schoolboy error.... as he announced it to the market before actual doing the trade....doh


----------



## Random181 (Oct 4, 2009)

Lostgeordie said:


> The party is fundamentally racist at the top. I'm not sure how much evidence needs to be made public before people will realise that. If you really believe that immigration is the biggest threat to our nation go ahead and vote for them. * Personally I think a lack of immigration would be just as damaging... possibly more so.*


Edit: Dantreadz85 said what I was thinking


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2010)

Perhaps guaranteed was too strong... most likely would have been more appropriate. (See - already broken my attempted self-ban from this thread!)


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

I just thank God that Prodiver is here to put us all right with his infallable opinions, have you

ever thought of running for Pope, the only other infallable human on earth 

All hale the Prov :rolleye:

Thatcher promoted Greed and created a massive have and have not society

Just like in Victorian times, so your right about that:thumbup1:

*JMO* though

Can I have one Prov, go on, please, pretty please (an opinion that is):laugh:

Who actually thinks any one party is better than any other??


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

haha im the same, am trying to avoid the thread but interesting to see how many think

some very poor advice he got on Gold though......


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

under Labour though we have promoted a massive housing bubble fuelled by cheap money (all under chancellor Brown), while on his watch have the highest levels of consumer debt on record, got ourselves involved in a cpl of very costly wars (at least maggie started on people who actually invaded British Territory ;-) - we then have ****ed away money left right and centre in nonsense jobs and creating more UK passports to again fudge 'uk' employment numbers - have had a flood of immigration (govt estimated 30k and we ended up with over 1million - oops).

Current government then decides to try and destroy the financial centre by using cheap vote winner tactics thus driving talent/business abroad....


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Squeeeze said:


> In some areas maybe, but tell that to the old mining and heavy industry communities, especially in the NE, many of which are still suffering the consequences to this day.


150 years ago miners were largely itenerant - expert British miners would travel the world (literally) mining wherever they could make money. When a mine ran out, they'd move on.

This is a principle of most jobs throughout history: people gravitate to where thw work is, and when there's no more demand, they move on.

No-one, no government can afford to pay people to produce something no-one wants.

It was the WW1 and the first Labout Government that lulled miners into a false sense of security that they could stay in one place and have a job for life.

Not only did British coal become too exoensive to produce, but in fact we should have left far more of it underground for a rainy day and used S African and Polish coal while it was far cheaper.

I worked in the shipping industry and offshore industries for some years, and witnessed unionized British workers, despite good pay and working conditions, refuse to deliver machinery well-made and on time, so oil-rig owners etc. went abroad.

Contrast this with the fact that when things are set up right, as under Thatcher's government, companies can thrive: Nissan can produce better cars in numbers than Japan - in Sunderland! - and JCB can compete with any world digger manufacturer.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

I'm certain most major policy is shaped by large corporations rather than the cabinet of any

Party that may be in power.

The financial centre was destroyed by greedy banking groups lending money to people/firms who

simply couldn't afford to pay it back, but they still got there bonus's which again was down to greed.

Don't kid yourself things are better abroad, not many countries escaped the world wide banking

crisis.

I'd go as far to say I probably lost more than anyone on this forum through it, but I don't blame

the Labour Party, the way things were being managed it was inevitable, sure the system

could of been policed better, but I'm 100% certain it will happen again down the line.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> ...
> 
> *JMO* though
> 
> Can I have one Prov, go on, please, pretty please (an opinion that is):laugh: ...


You're not only allowed to have a personal opinion - if you join the argument you're expected to.

Better do your homework on the facts first, though, or like any undergraduate you'll get shot down in flames.


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> You're not only allowed to have a personal opinion - if you join the argument you're expected to.
> 
> Better do your homework on the facts first, though, or like any undergraduate you'll get shot down in flames.


whoo patrick that sounds like fighting talk ha ha


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

reps to pro diver as pretty much saved me a post.

set things up right in business's where there are markets and the expertise will - almost ' guarantee work

just having a state run job scheme that is a financial burden just to give the appearance that alls well is actually taking money OUT of the system - and a burden on taxpayers.

Almost like some of these union strikes now - private sector is shedding jobs to cut costs and public sector seem to think they are somehow immune to it.... surely the burden is shared by all? especially as the 'union' bosses are pretty much the exact type of 'fat cats' that joe public screams about


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

noel said:


> under Labour though we have promoted* a massive housing bubble* fuelled by cheap money (all under chancellor Brown), while on his watch have the highest levels of consumer debt on record, got ourselves involved in a cpl of very costly wars (at least maggie started on people who actually invaded British Territory ;-) - we then have ****ed away money left right and centre in nonsense jobs and creating more UK passports to again fudge 'uk' employment numbers - have had a flood of immigration (govt estimated 30k and we ended up with over 1million - oops).
> 
> Current government then decides to try and destroy the financial centre by using cheap vote winner tactics thus driving talent/business abroad....


Noel, exactly the same happened in the 80's and 90's, nothing new there.

I'd say the ones in the 80's&90's was just as bad, 1000's of construction workers

on the dole, every man and his dog were claiming social and trying to get

cash in hand jobs (remember Yosser Hughes and Boys from he Black Stuff)

Just the same old song, just a different party


----------



## Squeeeze (Oct 2, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> 150 years ago miners were largely itenerant - expert British miners would travel the world (literally) mining wherever they could make money. When a mine ran out, they'd move on.
> 
> This is a principle of most jobs throughout history: people gravitate to where thw work is, and when there's no more demand, they move on.
> 
> ...


I don't dispute any of that, but you painted a picture of a caring tory party. Thatcher dropped the mining and heavy industry like a hot brick with fcuk all support and as a direct result some areas are still amongst the most deprived areas in the country.


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

this time round though much worse - definately in the financial sector etc.... and last time wasnt so global either - anyway time for unelected Gordo to go......


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> You're not only allowed to have a personal opinion - if you join the argument you're expected to.
> 
> Better do your homework on the facts first, though, or *like any undergraduate you'll get shot down in flames*.


Sounds awfully like a dig at me :lol:


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

noel said:


> this time round though much worse - definately in the financial sector etc.... and last time wasnt so global either - *anyway time for unelected Gordo to go*......


truest words spoken


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> I'm certain most major [economic] policy is shaped by large corporations rather than the cabinet of any
> 
> Party that may be in power...
> 
> ...


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> You're not only allowed to have a personal opinion - if you join the argument you're expected to.
> 
> Better do your homework on the facts first, though, or like any undergraduate you'll get shot down in flames.


Facts:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh reminds me of Protein for some reason:lol: :lol:

You are so entertaining Prov

No homework required, I was there


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

rdfp22 said:


> Sounds awfully like a dig at me :lol:


No it wasn't! :laugh: Takes me back to my Uni days...


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

I don't know who to vote for, they are all into dodgy dealings and all very un-trustworthy.

They will tell you anything to get your vote and get them into power, then do whatever the hell they like.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> Facts:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh reminds me of Protein for some reason:lol: :lol:
> 
> You are so entertaining Prov
> 
> No homework required, *I was there*


So was I.

But it takes more than personal experience to be able to discern the wood for the trees.

Homework is always essential.

Doing a History degree teaches you to distrust personal prejudices and gain perspective.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dezw said:


> I don't know who to vote for, they are all into dodgy dealings and all very un-trustworthy.
> 
> They will tell you anything to get your vote and get them into power, then do whatever the hell they like.


Interesting point.

Until the 50s, there were no such things as Party Manifestos.

You went to the hustings and listened to what the candidates stood for individually, and voted accordingly.


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

wow i didnt think me starting the thread would create so many views!

it's pretty cool to be honest. it is odd though how near enough every person is stating labour, conservative or bnp!

some of the posts have been pretty awesome. reps up for those!


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

oh yes and for those who don't vote.

YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T VOTE! RISING PETROL PRICES, TAXES, WELFARE SYSTEM....ANYTHING!

If you don't vote you cannot profess politics to people. you chose not to try and make a better change yourself so dwell in the sess pool that is, the uk.

true fact that.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

deeppurple said:


> oh yes and for those who don't vote.
> 
> YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T VOTE! RISING PETROL PRICES, TAXES, WELFARE SYSTEM....ANYTHING!
> 
> ...


Not so.

It's important to exercise your right to vote, deeppurple, but it would be hypocritical to vote for someone whose policies you didn't agree with, or whom you didn't believe worthy to represent you.

Such a candidate might be a useless Party placeman in a safe seat who's only interested in his party and supporters, and not in all his constituents - and there are plenty of such MPs!

So constitutionally it is in fact also your explicit right not to vote for someone, which is why we don't have compulsory voting.

Yet you still do have a right to speak about what happens in your constituency, not least because you live there, and the elected MP swears to represent all his constituents, including those who didn't vote.

As I said before, if you strongly want to exercise your vote but don't think any of the candidates are worthy to represent you and others, write "none of the above" on the ballot paper.


----------



## robdog (Dec 2, 2003)

People keep going on about national debt etc which is worrying but we are not the only country in trouble.

People go on about sick note britain under labour when it was the tories who infact pushed unemployed people on to sick benefit in the first place to lower unemployment figures.

I say again imo Labour are the worst of a bad bunch, if the tories get in things will get even worse. Yes we are in debt which needs to be payed off but we need to get confidence back into our economy first imo not cut cut cut just as things are on the upturn.


----------



## Testoholic (Jun 13, 2009)

can we make this a poll?


----------



## BLUTOS (Mar 5, 2005)

I think I might vote for labour, not cos i like em or what they done, but because they have caused so much kak to the country.

Comes a time when you got to stand up and take responsibilities for your actions, and I think labour need to get the kicking from the unions and public sector that they spent 13 years over inflating.

Who ever wins will scream when they open the books and see the real level of debt, next will be we loose our triple A credit rating as a country, then all bets will be off. I'd rather that fall on the party that caused it.

When they go after public service pensions, then the unions might stop funding labour, and we might get a real choice again in British politics rather than all parties trying to occupy the middle ground.


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

i would rather hang myself than vote labour


----------



## Waxfin (Jan 6, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> As I said: never vote for a Party!
> 
> But anyway, the idea that a rich Tory has no understanding or sympathy with poorer people is absurd.
> 
> ...


But almost all MPs do follow the party line so they can get promoted - the whips are 'all powerful' in parliament. Very few MPs these days are genuinely independent, although there are a few stubborn b'gers in each party that are happy to stay on the backbenchers (like Dennis Skinner).

So, whatever the theory is about us choosing an MP to represent us, when you vote you are voting for a party.


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

The problem is, as we all know its a two horse race and would we really trust Tim nice but dim with the countries finances?


----------



## Captain Hero (Jun 13, 2004)

Prodiver said:


> If you think that the Labour Party candidate is the one best able to represent all the constituents - vote for him.
> 
> But will he honestly represent the interests of all those who didn't vote Labour as well?
> 
> ...


Going on what you have said then I dont feel as though Labour has its constituents interests at heart.


----------



## dixie normus (May 11, 2008)

I'm going to spunk on my ballot paper:thumb:


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Im still waiting for the moron who said we should deprivatise the private sector rail companies and have a massive loss making public rail service to explain how this will be good for our massive economic debt.

In a time when the private sector is all we really have to rely on in order to bring us out of recession, a time where we have the biggest debt in history...

Yet people think it will be a good idea to weaken the private sector even more and replace with massive loss making totally inept public rail companies.

THINK!!!


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Britbb said:


> Im still waiting for the moron who said we should deprivatise the private sector rail companies and have a massive loss making public rail service to explain how this will be good for our massive economic debt.
> 
> In a time when the private sector is all we really have to rely on in order to bring us out of recession, a time where we have the biggest debt in history...
> 
> ...


Behave.....

Look at the Countries with the best rail systems... France, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden, for example. That's how national rail is done properly. Not the joke of a rail system we've got these days. YOu obviously like the idea of increasing ticket prices in order to line the pockets of the private owners. IMO...No thanks....I'd rather the money went back into the government


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

tel3563 said:


> Ian, you forgot the thatcher years, she is responsible for the lack of community
> 
> spirit and promoted greed and selfishness, now we pay the price:thumb:


No I havent forgoten the Thatcher years...best time of my life...my business thrived and was extremely succesful under her leadership...its now on its last legs under this bunch of morons.....

she created an enviroment where it was OK to achieve something and not feel ashamed...success doesnt mean greed...thats the biggest load of bollocks.....its now a sort of poplular myth that she made people greedy and bad....people are what they are its nowt to do with any one primeminister

the labour party has to go they are pure evil with a grinning face :devil2:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Behave.....
> 
> Look at the Countries with the best rail systems... France, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden, for example. That's how national rail is done properly. Not the joke of a rail system we've got these days. YOu obviously like the idea of increasing ticket prices in order to line the pockets of the private owners. IMO...No thanks....I'd rather the money went back into the government


Why should all the people throughout the country (like me and my parents) who never use trains subsidize cheap fares for all the commuters (who are the main rail users)?

They expect London weighted salaries and fare subsidy!?

Some other countries - like France - are even more centralized than us - and taxes are punitively high - just ask French people in the countryside!

In fact British railways actually make an operating profit: it's the huge British Rail pension liability and restrictive practices that cause their losses.

And amyway, my French and German friends say our ordinary railways are in practice just as clean and punctual as theirs.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

dixie normus said:


> I'm going to spunk on my ballot paper:thumb:


Postal ballot - or do it in the polling booth? :laugh::laugh:


----------



## dixie normus (May 11, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Postal ballot - or do it in the polling booth? :laugh::laugh:


Definately in the booth. For naughtiness and given my volumous productions the ballot box is going to get sticky:lol:


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

dixie normus said:


> Definately in the booth. For naughtiness and given my volumous productions the ballot box is going to get sticky:lol:


you should go up to brown and do it on his face too!

he needs a face mask pack and he'll probably enjoy it too!


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

well there have been some rants on here lol.

can i add a poll to this as a gentleman said earlier on in the thread?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

deeppurple said:


> well there have been some rants on here lol.
> 
> can i add a poll to this as a gentleman said earlier on in the thread?


Just make sure to include "Independent", "not the current MP" and "I haven't decided yet" as well as all the usual political parties.


----------



## Dean00 (Jan 25, 2009)

SHINN FIEN :lol:


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

Added a poll!


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

forgot to mention earlier - i really hope scotland get independance.

if they do, watch how magnificent their country will become compared to englands.


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

dunno?will see how a feels when i walk through the doors,decide

on the day,go with the flow like:thumb:


----------



## dixie normus (May 11, 2008)

deeppurple said:


> you should go up to brown and do it on his face too!
> 
> he needs a face mask pack and he'll probably enjoy it too!


Alistair Darling is my MP. He can use it to dye his fecking weird eyebrows:whistling:


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

dixie normus said:


> Alistair Darling is my MP. He can use it to dye his fecking weird eyebrows:whistling:


hahaha! try to make it a bit coloured then...

perhaps drink lots of pen ink a day before you shoot your load  :thumb:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

When I said "Independent" I didn't mean the UKIP!

I meant a candidate affiliated to no polltical party.

Now all I can vote is "other".


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Behave.....
> 
> Look at the Countries with the best rail systems... France, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden, for example. That's how national rail is done properly. Not the joke of a rail system we've got these days. YOu obviously like the idea of increasing ticket prices in order to line the pockets of the private owners. IMO...No thanks....I'd rather the money went back into the government


Behave? Pmsl, another fake avatar nobody telling me to 'behave'.

You have failed to examine or explain how nationalising our railways IN THIS TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS would provide beneficial to our economy?

The reason your comment was retarded is very simple. The railways were making massive losses, hence why they were privatised and the free market forces took over and now opperate. The free market is used the tool to balance demand and supply, if rail prices increase and demand falls, companies will reduce the price until equilibrium is reached. Otherwise companies make losses and go bankrupt.

However as prodiver rightly said, if we pump lots of money into our railways and subsidise ticket costs at the expense of the tax payer (and national debt) this not only causes taxes to increase (i thought the goal was to incease spending in the economy to get us out of recession? Instead will cause less spending as taxes will be higher) and also cause the national debt to rise more and more and more.

If thatcher had not have sacked the unions and our mining industry had continued to be propped up by the government because it cant compete against the global market, our economy wpuld have gone bust.

We are in our worst ever economic time and u are seriously suggesting that the government should do something which will create even more massive losses?

Personally i dont care if fat cats make large profits, theyve earned it, they set up their company and they are entitled to whatever profits they make. I work hard graft in 2 jobs in london, i earn my money, i dont own my own home and i say 'good on them' if they have set up a company that employs thousands of workers and earns them great profit and contributes to society.

Yet you on the other hand care so much about 'harming the fat cats' that u dont care that these fat cats employ thoisands of people amd youd rather our economy completely collapsed by nationalising large firms which would quite simply bleed our economy to its knees!

Behave.


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

Britbb said:


> Behave? Pmsl, another fake avatar nobody telling me to 'behave'.


should i get an avatar of me ?? :confused1:

im a powerlifter so i havent got huge arms and a ripped body haha.

i'd look like a lemon


----------



## Aron (Mar 29, 2010)

I bet my life you are not a powerlifter i bet you are out of shape and just use "I am a powerlifter" as an excuse hahaha


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

Aron said:


> I bet my life you are not a powerlifter i bet you are out of shape and just use "I am a powerlifter" as an excuse hahaha


i will tell you this now, in light that perhaps you won't continue doing this mistake and do any more which if the mods see fit result you in a ban.

yes. i am quite new to this forum.

yes, i have made a few posts which perhaps were worded wrong (which also may of come across a bit smarmy/silly/arrogant) yet when i realised i had offended some people I DID apologise.

and yes, i am a powerlifter.

I have reported you.

Why? Because the last few posts in whatever I have put you have replied immediately with some sort of post trying to slate what i have said. You have tried singling me out and picking on me.

I do not post this so it makes me look like a grass, or makes me look like a pu*sy. I do not need to 'man up' and I do not need you negatively commenting on everything I put. I have posted this because I cannot PM you, and if it persists it will just be more evidence against you which I will also report.

I joined this forum to give advice, take advice, sometimes have a laugh and even maybe making a few new friends who share the same interests. NOT for somebody to keep trying to rip into me.

I'm sure nobody else on this forum would like it. So back off, and try to grow up before your new membership risks being terminated if mods see fit.


----------



## Aron (Mar 29, 2010)

deeppurple said:


> i will tell you this now, in light that perhaps you won't continue doing this mistake and do any more which if the mods see fit result you in a ban.
> 
> yes. i am quite new to this forum.
> 
> ...


OK sorry fella didnt think you would be so sensitive to be honest


----------



## Aron (Mar 29, 2010)

One thing tho fella just because you train like a powerlifter doesnt actually make you one, just so you know. :thumb:


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

Aron said:


> OK sorry fella didnt think you would be so sensitive to be honest


it's not the fact of me eing sensative, it's the fact that i just think it's stupid to try to subject somebody all the time, plus if you subject to somebody else who is really sensitive, it could drive them away from using this forum - which they are fully entitled to do.

i think there is no need for a reply to this. please don't add salt to the wound.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

deeppurple said:


> should i get an avatar of me ?? :confused1:
> 
> im a powerlifter so i havent got huge arms and a ripped body haha.
> 
> i'd look like a lemon


You can if u like?

Or, as a great powerlifter as you say you are, you could quite simply tell us your name, then we can all see the titles youve won and your current contest lifts and then you will get respect from me of course for being a great strength athlete.

I dont just respect other bodybuilders, i respect all athletes.

Infact i respect anyone who says something worth saying...not people who dont have an avatar of themselves in their profile and then come up with some rubbish about how the government should nationalise the railways (yeah and put us even further into debt, crippling us completely) without being able to explain economically what benefit this would have at all (well thats because it would just cripple the country) and then tell me to 'behave'.

'Behave son calm down son, behave yourself son, behave.... .... ....'


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

Britbb said:


> You can if u like?
> 
> Or, as a great powerlifter as you say you are, you could quite simply tell us your name, then we can all see the titles youve won and your current contest lifts and then you will get respect from me of course for being a great strength athlete.
> 
> ...


i never said i am a great powerlifter, in fact in multiple posts i have stated my bench isn't great. however, sorry if i am big headed but my DL is pretty decent.

i am not going into a comp for a year or 2...

i didn't say anything about the railways or anything? is your last programme at somebody else?


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Why should all the people throughout the country (like me and my parents) who never use trains subsidize cheap fares for all the commuters (who are the main rail users)?
> 
> They expect London weighted salaries and fare subsidy!?
> 
> ...


Well according to the Office of Rail Regulation, in 2008-2009 taxpayers paid £5.2 billion for Britain's railways. This is over three times more than the £1.6 billion paid for nationalised British Rail in 1993-1994. Passengers are paying more too, with fares costing 22.7 per cent more in real terms than they did in 1995.

You seem to think that you don't pay anything towards the rail now.....



Britbb said:


> Behave? Pmsl, another fake avatar nobody telling me to 'behave'.
> 
> You have failed to examine or explain how nationalising our railways IN THIS TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS would provide beneficial to our economy?
> 
> ...


This guy makes me laugh......please accept my sincere apologies for posting without having a real avatar on display. I was not aware that this formed part of the forum rules. I can't believe I got away with it for so long!

As with Prodiver, you seem to be under the impression that when the rail was privatised, the government ceased to put loads of money into the rail?...wrong. As above the taxpayers have been paying three times more than when it was a nationalised system. What do you get for that? increased prices and a cut in services....sounds like an awesome deal ....yea

The way the tories handled the privitisation was a shambles and has led to one of the most embarrasing rail systems for such a developed country


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

Labour, I think it is so funny all these working class people backing the conservatives. What the **** do they think will happen to them if the Torys win? They will go back on all their promises, privatise the NHS and everything else. My uncle and auntie are local Conservative members, go to all the meetings ect. they send my 2 cousins to a school that costs 25k a year each, and basically they talk about everyone else as scum. It's people like that who will benefit from conservatives. My cousins wont have to pay inheritance tax on mummy and daddys fortune whilst people like us will be ****ed.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Dalton1988 said:


> Labour, I think it is so funny all these working class people backing the conservatives. What the **** do they think will happen to them if the Torys win? They will go back on all their promises, privatise the NHS and everything else. My uncle and auntie are local Conservative members, go to all the meetings ect. they send my 2 cousins to a school that costs 25k a year each, and basically they talk about everyone else as scum. It's people like that who will benefit from conservatives. My cousins wont have to pay inheritance tax on mummy and daddys fortune whilst people like us will be ****ed.


LOL...that was funny...I'm assuming you are living in the 1950's....who exactly are these "working class people" that you speak of and what has the labour party done to help them, I'd be very interested to know?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)




----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Well according to the Office of Rail Regulation, in 2008-2009 taxpayers paid £5.2 billion for Britain's railways. This is over three times more than the £1.6 billion paid for nationalised British Rail in 1993-1994. Passengers are paying more too, with fares costing 22.7 per cent more in real terms than they did in 1995.
> 
> You seem to think that you don't pay anything towards the rail now....
> 
> The way the tories handled the privitisation was a shambles and has led to one of the most embarrasing rail systems for such a developed country


You're quite right - the denationalization was a shambles because it wasn't done completely. It should have been done in such a way that train companies weren't limited to particular regions, but could book train slots on all Railtrack-maintained routes (much like airlines) as they did very successfully before WW2 and nationalization. But in the face of public prejudice the government lost its nerve despite such advice.

The reason for the huge 2008-9 spend, apart from inflation, was mainly the cost of re-nationalization - also done ineptly.

Of course we have subsidized the railways for years, both denationalized and nationalized. This government is talking of reducing subsidy, just like all governments, but it has even less chance than the Tories, considering the rail unions' relationship with Labour.


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

IanStu said:


> LOL...that was funny...I'm assuming you are living in the 1950's....who exactly are these "working class people" that you speak of and what has the labour party done to help them, I'd be very interested to know?


Working class people are the majority, those who cant afford to spend 50k a year on their kids education. Labour has helped as best as it can. The current economic crisis is not Labours fault and they are doing their best. They are supporting those who are out of work and trying to create new jobs. Allister Darling invested over £50 million earlier this year in a new manufacturing site aimed at producing components for nuclear energy sites. They have kept the NHS and all the other public services running. I have no problem paying 1% more National Insurance. Its better than paying medical bills of £000's if I ever fall ill with cancer or something else...

Maybe your mega rich though and then I can understand your view, maybe you should go vote conservative.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

essexboy said:


>


Reps! :laugh: :thumb:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dalton1988 said:


> Labour, I think it is so funny all these working class people backing the conservatives. What the **** do they think will happen to them if the Torys win? They will go back on all their promises, privatise the NHS and everything else. My uncle and auntie are local Conservative members, go to all the meetings ect. they send my 2 cousins to a school that costs 25k a year each, and basically they talk about everyone else as scum. It's people like that who will benefit from conservatives. My cousins wont have to pay inheritance tax on mummy and daddys fortune whilst people like us will be ****ed.


You think there's an obvious link between Labour and working class people? Think again!

Labour leaders and many Party members have so often been Public School - and Labour governments were often rightly accused of patronizing and nannying working people, just as today.

The greatest beneficial change to working people's lives was conceived and planned by a Conservative government: the Beveridge Report, which brought about the NHS and the Welfare State, though the new Labour government implemented it ineptly and had to quickly retrench.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

"Why should all the people throughout the country (like me and my parents) who never use trains subsidize cheap fares for all the commuters (who are the main rail users)?

They expect London weighted salaries and fare subsidy!?"

If you looked at the tax receipts for those working in London and the South East, I`m pretty sure even after you factor in any 'transportation subsidies', you will find that these people are in fact subsidising the rest of the country...

And an efficient transport system is pretty much an integral part of every successful economy.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

goonerton said:


> "Why should all the people throughout the country (like me and my parents) who never use trains subsidize cheap fares for all the commuters (who are the main rail users)?
> 
> They expect London weighted salaries and fare subsidy!?"
> 
> ...


No. Southern and Home Counties taxpayers almost totally consume and keep the wealth they generate themselves. Country dwellers are significantly disadvantaged by the wealth-pit of the Capital.

A good freight transport system is essential, but the necessity of a huge tidal volume of commuters in and out of our big cities is an indefensible nostrum. It's such a huge waste of energy, time, health and relationships.

Most commuters spend more time at their workplaces and travelling than at home. There's little point in going home...

There was never any real need for such commuting, and there's even less need today with modern communications. The railway companies were allowed to build vast strip estates and cynically promoted the false superiority of "working in Town" to perpetuate their passenger base.

This has led to generations of suburban people who live totally artificial, ungrounded lives who believe that commerce and industry have no place where they live. The cost in mental health is incalculable...


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> A good freight transport system is essential, but the necessity of a huge tidal volume of commuters in and out of our big cities is an indefensible nostrum. *It's such a huge waste of energy, time, health and relationships.*


What about the carbon emissions from all the cars that a decent railway system

would save??

Can't put a price on saving the Earth for our children and childrens children, can we??

Don't spout about the fact we aren't choking our own and the USA/China etc will never tow

the line, the buck has to stop somewhere, and its this generation.

I'm amazed at nobody making a stand on green issues this election, probably

because we're all obsessed with ourselves and how much money we have/have not,

and the politicians know this.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> What about the carbon emissions from all the cars that a decent railway system
> 
> would save??


I wasn't for a moment suggesting that people should commute by car instead of train!

All commuting is absurd - whether by train, car or plane.

People should live where they work and work where they live, and there's little excuse for not doing so nowadays.

Unfortuantely people still define themselves by whether they're the sort of people who commute to prestige jobs.

What's really needed is NOT development of our transport systems, but the integration of commerce and hi-tech industry into our suburban housing estates, so people can mostly walk or cycle to work.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> No. Southern and Home Counties taxpayers almost totally consume and keep the wealth they generate themselves. Country dwellers are significantly disadvantaged by the wealth-pit of the Capital.
> 
> A good freight transport system is essential, but the necessity of a huge tidal volume of commuters in and out of our big cities is an indefensible nostrum. It's such a huge waste of energy, time, health and relationships.
> 
> ...


With all due respect your information is badly flawed.

Have a read of this: http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/regcont.pdf



"Research carried out by Oxford Economics for the City of London Corporation in the last two years has highlighted the extent to which London makes a net financial contribution to the UK exchequer, supporting public spending in other parts of the economy.
​


• This article takes our research further, by repeating the analysis for each country and region in the UK.
​


• *It concludes that each of the regions in the so-called wider south east (London, the South East **and the Eastern region) made a positive net contribution **to the UK public finances in 2004-05,*
​
*while all other regions of the UK had a net fiscal deficit."*

As for the transport system, the South East is the driving force of the UK economy ,so an efficient transport system is imperative to the overall health of the wider economy.

And there is never going to be enough available accomadation in London and the South East to house all the employees the region needs.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

goonerton said:


> With all due respect your information is badly flawed.
> 
> Have a read of this: http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/regcont.pdf
> 
> ...


I think you'll find a recent report found that there's in fact no net benefit to countryside dwellers, and little to the rest of the country as a whole.

We don't need an efficient people transport system or more accommodation in London!

We need to integrate commerce and hi-tech industry into our residential areas so people don't need to commute: far cheaper and greener!

No sane person can really defend commuting!


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> I wasn't for a moment suggesting that people should commute by car instead of train!
> 
> All commuting is absurd - whether by train, car or plane.
> 
> ...


Right, sorry, I misunderstood

Thats a nice notion but I think we both know that it will never happen, well

not in our lives or our childrens


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> Right, sorry, I misunderstood
> 
> Thats a nice notion but I think we both know that it will never happen, well
> 
> not in our lives or our childrens


Actually, tel, I think it well might, for a number of reasons.

Commuting is getting more trying whether by car or train because of the sheer traffic density; today's kids are better travelled and less impressed with the kudos of working in London; they're also less concerned about keeping residential-only areas; IT is getting better and better at remote working; and energy is becoming more expensive.

Trying to get ever more people faster and faster daily to and from a workplace is a ridiculous prospect!

Most underwiters and stock dealers can now just as easily work at home, for instance. It's only false prestige that makes them waste so much money commuting.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> I think you'll find a recent report found that there's in fact no net benefit to countryside dwellers, and little to the rest of the country as a whole.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

goonerton said:


> ...
> 
> And how would it be "cheaper" to integrate "commerce and high tech industry" into residential areas?
> 
> *It would require the large scale relocation of companies, rerouting of the transport system to accommodate, rehousing people that are living in said residential areas*...Not sure how you believe this would be cheaper!!??


It wouldn't require any of these.

Most companies are small anyway, and if allowed could easily establish in existing premises in residential areas rather than in remoter industrial estates. They already are in some enlightened boroughs.

We are not talking today about big, dirty heavy industry. Most modern industry is hi-tech, clean and compact.

There would be very little displacement or people or need for rehousing. And more premises would actually return to residential use in London.

And many large companies could become virtual, with no need of big offices.

No rerouting of any transport sysems is required where people can walk to work.

Actually, this is beginning to happen in many small towns out here in E Anglia.

It's delightful to see how much happier people are when they don't commute and begin to live and participate in real local life!


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Dalton1988 said:


> Working class people are the majority, those who cant afford to spend 50k a year on their kids education. Labour has helped as best as it can. The current economic crisis is not Labours fault and they are doing their best. They are supporting those who are out of work and trying to create new jobs. Allister Darling invested over £50 million earlier this year in a new manufacturing site aimed at producing components for nuclear energy sites. They have kept the NHS and all the other public services running. I have no problem paying 1% more National Insurance. Its better than paying medical bills of £000's if I ever fall ill with cancer or something else...
> 
> Maybe your mega rich though and then I can understand your view, maybe you should go vote conservative.


no mate I'm not mega rich...infact the opposite...but I'm also not mega stupid and naive.....how can you say the economic crisis has nothing to do with the goverment...they created the enviroment that allowed it to happen....they made corruption acceptable at all levels wich allowed the banks to run amock....they bare alot of the responsibility and for that alone they should be booted out

the labour party couldnt give a fvck about the so called working class....they are just a bunch of self serving hypocrites, who just keep spouting the same old tired sh!te...i.e. "we're the party of the working class...vote for us" and the pity of it is that people still swallow it

personaly I dont believe in universal suffrage, I was in town today and it occured to me that some of the low lifes that were hanging around the streets could actualy decide who is gonna govern me, there needs to be some sort of basic inteligence test for everyone, if you dont pass it you dont vote...that should eliminate about 90% of the population:thumbup1:


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

IanStu said:


> no mate I'm not mega rich...infact the opposite...but I'm also not mega stupid and naive.....how can you say the economic crisis has nothing to do with the goverment...they created the enviroment that allowed it to happen....they made corruption acceptable at all levels wich allowed the banks to run amock....they bare alot of the responsibility and for that alone they should be booted out
> 
> the labour party couldnt give a fvck about the so called working class....they are just a bunch of self serving hypocrites, who just keep spouting the same old tired sh!te...i.e. "we're the party of the working class...vote for us" and the pity of it is that people still swallow it
> 
> personaly I dont believe in universal suffrage, I was in town today and it occured to me that some of the low lifes that were hanging around the streets could actualy decide who is gonna govern me, there needs to be some sort of basic inteligence test for everyone, if you dont pass it you dont vote...that should eliminate about 90% of the population:thumbup1:


Dont lie ian, you're 'MEGA RICH!'

Only the 'mega rich' vote for the tory party!

Pmsl, thats why the tories get the most votes in the country virtually every election. Our system is done via proportional representation and not overall peoples votes which allows mp's to get seats for their constituencies. If it was just done on overall votes the tories would be in every single general election.

Perhaps this is because 60% of the voting public are 'MEGA RICH' as well:lol:


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Britbb said:


> Perhaps this is because 60% of the voting public are 'MEGA RICH' as well:lol:


yeah mate never thought of that....bit stupid of the labour party to make us all so wealthy:whistling: bless em....sort of shot themselves in the foot.....

reminds me of the alternative words to the red flag,

"The working class can kiss my ass

I've got the bosses job at last"

pretty much sums up socialism :ban:


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

Dantreadz85 said:


> whats happening in south africa ,
> 
> i was voting bnp until incredible bulk got me thinking in another thread an to be fair it would be a wasted vote. so more than likely torries . just to get spongers off their ass more than anything


Spongers like Unwin don't have to get off their **** they got millions of tax payers money, as far as spongers, where are the jobs??? I'm scrambling around for what I can get, and you canstick minimum wage...


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

at present, labour first...BNP second...conservative third.

cripes!


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Dalton1988 said:


> Working class people are the majority, those who cant afford to spend 50k a year on their kids education. Labour has helped as best as it can.
> 
> Maybe your mega rich though and then I can understand your view, maybe you should go vote conservative.


Well according to John Prescott (in that awful documentary which followed him around parts of the UK) he was the only member of the labour Govt when T.Blair was in power to NOT have his kid at a fee paying school.......hypocrisy of the highest order?

and these guys tell us that the state school system is great and that we shouldn't need or aspire to send our kids to a private school. :lol:

There are people out there who are not mega rich, have worked hard all their lives and send their kids to fee paying schools.


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

IanStu said:


> *how can you say the economic crisis has nothing to do with the goverment...they created the enviroment that allowed it to happen....they made corruption acceptable at all levels wich allowed the banks to run amock....they bare alot of the responsibility and for that alone they should be booted out*


I completely disagree with this statement at all levels. Firstly because it was the Conservatives who privatised all our industries which meant our manufacturing industry fell because the UK is not competitive on wages. The service/finance sector now accounts for over 75% of GDP. *GLOBALLY *the finance sector has been in trouble due to Mortgage Backed Securities and the countries that have been hit worst are thoses with no manufacturing industry to support GDP. If you want to blame a political party then blame the conservatives.

And I am almost certain Tony Blairs children went to public school. And my local Labour MP sends his children to the same school I went too....


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2010)

It really is worrying that the BNP are second in this poll.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Britbb said:


> Dont lie ian, you're 'MEGA RICH!'
> 
> Only the 'mega rich' vote for the tory party!
> 
> ...


I get your point Britbb, but we don't in fact have proportional representation.

It's important to stress that the "unfairness" of constituency boundaries by which the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily get the most seats is only an artefact of Party politics, which I have been trying to get UK-M members to understand.

Our electoral system is the way it is because, strictly, political parties do not officially exist in our Constitution.

Of course there have always been groupings and factions in Parliament, and that's fine.

But, really, every MP should be elected not for the benefit of his Party, but to represent all his constituents, in which case our majority vote system would be perfectly adequate in every constituency for electing a representative.

What we need is the abolition of the Party Whip system so that every vote in Parliament is free (and probably secret), and a consequent reduction in the power of Parties to steamroll or block policy.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dalton1988 said:


> ... the Conservatives [who] privatised all our industries which meant our manufacturing industry fell because the UK is not competitive on wages...


Nothing could be further than the truth.

At first, Thatcher's economic reforms resulted in a significant rise in maufacturing; but a combination of old practices and lack of earlier investment meant that the UK couldn't meet demand, and European and Japanese manufacturers serviced peoples' higher disposable incomes.


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> Nothing could be further than the truth.
> 
> At first, Thatcher's economic reforms resulted in a significant rise in maufacturing; but a combination of old practices and lack of earlier investment meant that the UK couldn't meet demand, and European and Japanese manufacturers serviced peoples' higher disposable incomes.


I am saying what the conservatives did, lead to a decline in manufacturing. That is 100% true. Labour can not be blamed for the current economic crisis. Gordon Brown is the best man to get us out of this recession. As someone with a BA in Accouting & Finance, fully CIMA qualified and in my final year studying Msc International Management, I feel that I know the things David Cameron and George Osborne talk about is complete and utter crap. They will send this country straight to the levels of Greece.


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

this has turned into full on politics!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dalton1988 said:


> I am saying what the conservatives did lead to a decline in manufacturing. That is true.


No - what the Conservatives did was to free manufacturing.

The sad thing is our companies and workers didn't rise to the occasion.

And manufacturing has decreased even faster under Labour.


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

will have to warn you now.

if this political debate continues, I'm going to have to ring Jeremy Kyle.

'shut up i'm talking. what does it say up there? the jeremy kyle show so shut your mouth' lol


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> No - what the Conservatives did was to *free manufacturing.*
> 
> *The sad thing is our companies and workers didn't rise to the occasion.*
> 
> And manufacturing has decreased even faster under Labour.


So you think that people should have to work all day for **** wages to be competitive? What the conservatives did was let foreginers buy our infrastructure and then close us down.

You are right that manufacturing has decreased faster under Labour. But the spiral started when the Conservatives started their privatisation spree. Labour cannot stop the effects of what the conservatives did...


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

deeppurple said:


> will have to warn you now.
> 
> if this political debate continues, I'm going to have to ring Jeremy Kyle.
> 
> 'shut up i'm talking. what does it say up there? the jeremy kyle show so shut your mouth' lol


Lol. I respect peoples opinions. To be honest though if the conservatives did get in I would just get transferred abroad after september so it wouldnt really affect me that badly. I think it would be a great shame for so many other people though.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dalton1988 said:


> So you think that people should have to work all day for **** wages to be competitive? What the conservatives did was let foreginers buy our infrastructure and then close us down.
> 
> You are right that manufacturing has decreased faster under Labour. But the spiral started when the Conservatives started their privatisation spree. Labour cannot stop the effects of what the conservatives did...


Course I don't think people should have to work all day for **** wages. Duh! 

Do you know how much greater local overheads - chiefly astronomical rents and business rates - and red-tape are in the UK than in the US, Japan and Germany?


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> It wouldn't require any of these.
> 
> Most companies are small anyway, and if allowed could easily establish in existing premises in residential areas rather than in remoter industrial estates. They already are in some enlightened boroughs.
> 
> ...


Your ideas are nice in theory. But in practice they would never be logistically possible.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

goonerton said:


> Your ideas are nice in theory. But in practice they would never be logistically possible.


It's going to happen, especially as energy gets so expensive and IT becomes ever more flexible.

Around 98% of all VAT-registered enterprises, that is with a turnover of more than £70,000, have fewer than 50 employees.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that businesses have to have large numbers of employees in one place together. This is largely no longer necessary.

Most desk jockeys can now work perfectly well from home. Surveys show they're often more efficient.

But it takes a leap of imagination to feel secure and maintain an identity working without fellow emplyees around you, and managerial types don't like the idea of having no physical group of people to manage - it threatens their status!


----------



## Will101 (Apr 14, 2009)

I need an option for "no idea".... As far as I can tell, there is no clear cut option that is best. As such, I suspect a lot of people will vote to keep a party out, rather than get one in - voting for the best of a bad bunch rather than one they really want to win.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Ok so Britbb never replied.....other than a negative rep.....



Britbb said:


> gota neg ya fella, total disrespect for people with a far superior physique than yourself (on a bodybuilding forum) and using words like 'behave' yet coming up with no debate at all


First of all....."total disrespect for people with a far superior physique"....erm.....I thought my blinds were closed at night? obviously not.....You seen me in real life?......I thought not. This remark is a totally unnaceptable thing to say to someone and I feel everyone should see what you are really like....

"Using the word 'behave'"....Whoa big deal!

"coming up with no debate at all".....See above....I posted and you never replied.....

Not sure if you noticed but this is in the General Forums>General Section so please once again accept my sincere apologies if I missed the rule where it states that you must have competed in order to post your opinion in the GENERAL FORUM in a conversation about POLITICS.....Your neg statement stating that I cannot challenge you because you feel my physique (which you have never seen) is inferior to your own....

*Am I the only person that thinks that this neg was totally un-called for?*


----------



## jordi (Dec 17, 2009)

lol, here... have another. I don't get why people care about reps on a forum though? Do you win a car?

My 2p is they are all lying, hypocritical, thieving, bastrds and I'll no doubt vote for the one with the nicest smile.


----------



## BigStew (May 6, 2008)

OMFG!!!!

Labour & BNP tied 1st, Conservatives 3rd at time of voting! :confused1: :cursing:

What a sad day!!

I WON'T vote Labour as they're a bunch of totally useless, thoroughly inadequate, lying, hypocritical, expenses thieving, stealth taxing cnuts!

I DEFINITELY WON'T vote BNP as this is the country of my birth & I don't wish to be forced to no longer integrate nor do I wish to be sent packing to a country that means a lot to my parents, but nothing to me!

So, there is & was ever only ONE option to me....

come on you BLUES!! :thumb:


----------



## Bombazine (Apr 10, 2010)

People will vote for the party that offers them the best deal personaly. I pay a mortgage and run a small business so Im not a labour voter....

Want cheaper council tax? Dont vote for a labour council. The stats are out there.

If you want to live in government housing and work for a government owned factory then move to China.

Its not fashionable to say "Im a tory" but as bodybuilders we are a self motivated lot and would all rather live in California than a socialist place. No?


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

people should be able to vote for the catholic church :laugh:


----------



## Bombazine (Apr 10, 2010)

In the old days young boys wanted to enter the priesthood, now its the other way round lol


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

BigStew said:


> OMFG!!!!
> 
> Labour & BNP tied 1st, Conservatives 3rd at time of voting! :confused1: :cursing:
> 
> ...


i'd rather vote BNP than labour .... i hate the ****ers and everything they stand for


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Bombazine said:


> In the old days young boys wanted to enter the priesthood, now its the other way round lol


haha...made me smile...have some reps :lol:


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

BigStew said:


> I WON'T vote Labour as they're a bunch of totally useless, thoroughly inadequate, lying, hypocritical, expenses thieving, stealth taxing cnuts!


Well yes... they're politicians... if you really think that the Tories are any better then I'm worried you're gonna spend the next 5 years disappointed if they get past the post.


----------



## BigStew (May 6, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> Well yes... they're politicians... if you really think that the Tories are any better then I'm worried you're gonna spend the next 5 years disappointed if they get past the post.


Sorry but all that matters to me is they always help me keep MORE money in MY pockets so they get my vote!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> Well yes... they're politicians... if you really think that the Tories are any better then I'm worried you're gonna spend the next 5 years disappointed if they get past the post.


I have no party affiliation.

But history shows the Tories can be expected to unapologetically strive for wealth, and have always made everyone richer.

Labour is doctrinaire and has always lumbered the country with hidden taxes and stubbornly repeatedly bankrupted it with unaffordable policies. Remember the IMF being brought in under Callaghan?


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Prodiver said:


> I have no party affiliation.
> 
> But history shows the Tories can be expected to unapologetically strive for wealth, and have always made everyone richer.
> 
> Labour is doctrinaire and has always lumbered the country with hidden taxes and stubbornly repeatedly bankrupted it with unaffordable policies. Remember the IMF being brought in under Callaghan?


They strive for wealth at the expense of those who need it most. The overall wealth increases under a Tory government as does the gap between rich and poor.

I cannot in good conscience vote for a party who will make life worse for those really on the breadline (not those of us who moan that our disposable income is decreasing who are actually quite well off because we HAVE disposable income)

I'm actually quite pleased to see the Tories in 3rd place on this straw poll... but a bit scared to see the BNP as high as they are. I guess that's to be expected when immigration is such a hot topic amidst a recession.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> They strive for wealth at the expense of those who need it most. The overall wealth increases under a Tory government as does the gap between rich and poor.


Absolutely wrong.

Under each Labour government the gap between rich and poor has increased.

It was least in our history under Thatcher.

It's no good you pretending out of misplaced loyalty that Labour policies have been good for this country just because you feel you ought or want to like them.

You'd cut off your own nose to spite your face!


----------



## 8103 (May 5, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> I'm actually quite pleased to see the Tories in 3rd place on this straw poll... but a bit scared to see the BNP as high as they are. I guess that's to be expected when immigration is such a hot topic amidst a recession.


I wouldn't be worried lol

UKmuscle hardly represents the UK population


----------



## -Jack- (Sep 28, 2009)

Looking at the results it would seem that body building is very right wing. Not one green vote and BNP would win....intresting.

Every one that doesn't vote is a retard to stupid to understand politics, if you want to throw away you cival right go and sit on your **** and suck your toes. Even if you don't agree with any one you should atleast spoil your ballot, but if you but the research in there will be some one standing that shares your views. Any one that disagrees with compusary voteing please quote me or message me and i will be happy to help change your mind.


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

BNP in lead.

woooahh.


----------



## 8103 (May 5, 2008)

deeppurple said:


> BNP in lead.
> 
> woooahh.


as I said a few posts up, UK muscle hardly represents the population :lol:


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Prodiver said:


> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> Under each Labour government the gap between rich and poor has increased.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry by what measure are you working? Care to back up your rhetoric with some actual facts and figures? Or would you like to simply sit on your intellectual pedestal and make judgments about me?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Blimey - just looked at the poll and the BNP have more votes than Labour or Conservatives. Didn't expect that!


----------



## Seyyed-Merat (Sep 1, 2007)

Still unsure who to vote for tbh, my parents always vote for lib dems, me myself I want to see some change in my local area (local council is lib dems) and nationwide (lib dems dont have much of a chance tbh).

In this case it makes sense to vore for conservitives meaning I vote for a change of local council and goverment....but in all honasty, policies just arnt really hitting it for me so most of the parties dont really have my attention, but I still want to vote, dont want it to go to waste (first time im ellgible vote as well!)


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Merat said:


> Still unsure who to vote for tbh, my parents always vote for lib dems, me myself I want to see some change in my local area (local council is lib dems) and nationwide (lib dems dont have much of a chance tbh).
> 
> In this case it makes sense to vore for conservitives meaning I vote for a change of local council and goverment....but in all honasty, policies just arnt really hitting it for me so most of the parties dont really have my attention, but I still want to vote, dont want it to go to waste (first time im ellgible vote as well!)


In Australia voting is mandatory - enforceable by law and they get a fantastic option on the ballot paper that says: "I have no faith in any of the above candidates"

I bet that option would win hands down right now


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Lostgeordie said:


> In Australia voting is mandatory - enforceable by law and they get a fantastic option on the ballot paper that says: "I have no faith in any of the above candidates"
> 
> I bet that option would win hands down right now


That would be good thing here and send a decent message. A good one also might be for proportional representation and to take the percentage that tick the "I have no faith in any of the above candidates" and have that percentage of parliament EMPTY!!!

That would teach the politicians to be more relevant to everyday people.


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Cameron sounds like such a cock.

That's all I have.


----------



## robdog (Dec 2, 2003)

Witch-King said:


> Cameron sounds like such a cock.
> 
> That's all I have.


For me Cameron is just a young face to get people to vote, you can bet your last quid he is just a puppet for the old guard.


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> I'm sorry by what measure are you working? Care to back up your rhetoric with some actual facts and figures? Or would you like to simply sit on your intellectual pedestal and make judgments about me?


I know this was aimed at PD, but I was interested so looked this up. Its taken from a paper report of various studies. It would appear he's right 

*Gap between rich and poor grows to record levels, official figures show *

*The gap between rich and poor grew to record levels last year, official figures have disclosed. *

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

Published: 9:30PM BST 07 May 2009

The number of children living in poverty rose by 100,000, the data showed, confirming Labour's failure to meet a promise to cut child poverty.

The Department of Work and Pensions yesterday released income data for 2007/08, the last full financial year before the UK economy went into recession.



 





*Labour's betrayal of the poor is an open goal for David Cameron*http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/comment/...e-poor-is-an-open-goal-for-David-Cameron.html


https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/news/ne...ween-rich-and-poor-official-figures-show.htmlLabour has failed to narrow gap between rich and poor, official figures show



The data showed that while incomes for the better-off grew only slowly, they still increased more quickly than those of the poorest. 


Inflation also hit the incomes of the poorest disproportionately, eroding the value of their welfare payments. 


People are commonly defined as being in poverty when their income is only 60 per cent of the median salary in Britain. 


By that measure, the number of children, working-age adults and pensioners in poverty rose by 300,000 to 11.0 million in 2007/08 before housing costs are considered. 


After housing costs, the number in poverty rose by 200,000 to 13.5 million. 


According to economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the figures mean that the Gini Coefficient, a measure of income inequality, is now at its highest level since they began compiling figures in 1961. 


Alastair Muriel, an IFS economist said: "Since the election, average incomes across the population have grown slowly, whilst they have fallen for the poorest." 





Is that good enough for you?


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

phys sam said:


> Is that good enough for you?


Actually it isn't but it does make for very interesting reading. The reports fail to factor in population growth and global economics. That's not to say that these papers aren't valid as I imagine factoring in these things would be extraordinarily difficult and at some point you would have to draw the line.

As we can never have 2 governments in power for the same period in history every comparison you make will always be subject to caveats.

If we could review the last 13 years with a Tory Government, a Labour Government and a Lib Dem government, only then would we have any kind of truly objective measure.

The truth is that Socialism, while flawed, fits my political beliefs best. No party offers more policies in its manifesto that I agree with than the Labour party, though I confess the Lib Dems come very close. If it was a close marginal I would very happily vote Lib Dem to try and ensure that the Conservatives do not get in - sadly where I live it's a bit of a 2 horse race.


----------



## robdog (Dec 2, 2003)

Lostgeordie said:


> Actually it isn't but it does make for very interesting reading. The reports fail to factor in population growth and global economics. That's not to say that these papers aren't valid as I imagine factoring in these things would be extraordinarily difficult and at some point you would have to draw the line.
> 
> As we can never have 2 governments in power for the same period in history every comparison you make will always be subject to caveats.
> 
> ...


Im all for Socialism too mate. If done properly it would be perfect.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

TBH I haven`t agreed with much Prodiver has posted on this thread, and IMO the good majority of it is simply factually inaccurate. But to be fair what he posted about the rich poor gap widening under New Labour is true and has been well documented even by those on the left.

Even one of Labour`s own MPs Kelvin Hopkins(one not embroiled in the expenses scandal) confirms this fact on his website

"New Labour has many sins of commission to its shame, but its greatest sin of omission is its failure to deal with poverty. The gap between the rich and poor in Britain is now wider than it was under the Tories before 1997. "

IMO the Labour Party pretty much adopted most of the Tory policy of the 90s and then renamed themselves "New Labour". They still harp on about being the "party of the people" and how they are helping the poor and vulnerable. But in reality they do very little(if anything) that actually helps the poor and they are completely lacking the Tory ability of balancing the books.


----------



## tuna_man (Nov 24, 2009)

which party is most bodybuilding friendly i.e. towards gear etc?

and will not allow the EU to meddle in our policies e.g. banning supplements such as creatine and protein powders in europe?


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

tuna_man said:


> which party is most bodybuilding friendly i.e. towards gear etc?
> 
> and will not allow the EU to meddle in our policies e.g. banning supplements such as creatine and protein powders in europe?


in some places is protein and creatine banned!!?

sorry if that sounds like a silly question...if it is i am shocked.


----------



## tuna_man (Nov 24, 2009)

deeppurple said:


> in some places is protein and creatine banned!!?
> 
> sorry if that sounds like a silly question...if it is i am shocked.


Not banned anywhere yet, but the EU can ban the sale of anything they want in european countries, and they may restrict supplements so that only sugar-water such as lucozade will be allowed.

Look up ESSNA - European Specialist Sports Nutrition Alliance, they are a group built to defend the supplement industry


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

goonerton said:


> TBH I haven`t agreed with much Prodiver has posted on this thread, and IMO the good majority of it is simply factually inaccurate. But to be fair what he posted about the rich poor gap widening under New Labour is true and has been well documented even by those on the left.
> 
> Even one of Labour`s own MPs Kelvin Hopkins(one not embroiled in the expenses scandal) confirms this fact on his website
> 
> ...


The trend towards greater concentration of wealth owned by the richest in society bottomed out around 1980 and has been increasing ever since.

Long term redistribution and more importantly improvements in life chances is a very difficult thing for any government to achieve [iMO]. I think that the current executive have made a number of efforts to improve the factors commonalty associated with life chances - education, access to health care, proactive health education, etc, but any executive needs to carry the consent of the electorate, hence political aspirations are always going to be tempered by the public acceptability of these.

The whole issue of poverty is extremely complex both to understand and to influence IMO. As far as acts of omissions go, I cannot understand how a more right-wing ie(conservative) approach would improve the chances of those most disadvantaged in our society when they would be cutting much of the provisions for those with the least to ease the taxes of those with the most.

J


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

tuna_man said:


> Not banned anywhere yet, but the EU can ban the sale of anything they want in european countries, and they may restrict supplements so that only sugar-water such as lucozade will be allowed.
> 
> Look up ESSNA - European Specialist Sports Nutrition Alliance, they are a group built to defend the supplement industry


i hope they dont ban them!


----------



## marsh (Apr 12, 2010)

very suprised about the poll results, the BNP are alot more popular than i thought. just hope they manage to gain a few more seats :thumb:


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

marsh said:


> very suprised about the poll results, the BNP are alot more popular than i thought. just hope they manage to gain a few more seats :thumb:


i expected BNP to be in the top 3. but not that far ahead.

i still dont know who to vote for. i really reckon every single party has some lie up there sleeve


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Dantreadz85 said:


> whats happening in south africa ,
> 
> i was voting bnp until incredible bulk got me thinking in another thread an to be fair it would be a wasted vote. so more than likely torries . just to get spongers off their ass more than anything


Last Tory government put everyone ON the dole.


----------



## NickC (Apr 6, 2010)

I am not 100% sure at the moment but for now I have voted Labour, can't really be bothered to go into it but they seem to be the least worst of the parties lol :lol:


----------



## Dave 0511 (Feb 13, 2009)

tuna_man said:


> which party is most bodybuilding friendly i.e. towards gear etc?
> 
> and will not allow the EU to meddle in our policies e.g. banning supplements such as creatine and protein powders in europe?


if thats your top priority to come out of these elections, not banning supplements, then you either have a very easy life or have your priorities screwed up.

There are more important things to care about than that. No party is going to suddenly allow gear to be sold in supplements shops, so what does it matter.


----------



## dazsmith69 (Oct 29, 2009)

UKIP for me, seems like other parties are stealing their policies and claiming them for their own. They seem to have an ounce of common sense amongst them.

If people stopped voting BNP for the sheer imigration/jobs taken topic, and voted for these, they would have a significant majority, and could make a difference.


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Witch-King said:


> Last Tory government put everyone ON the dole.


More than the winter of discontent?


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> Actually it isn't but it does make for very interesting reading. The reports fail to factor in population growth and global economics. That's not to say that these papers aren't valid as I imagine factoring in these things would be extraordinarily difficult and at some point you would have to draw the line.
> 
> As we can never have 2 governments in power for the same period in history every comparison you make will always be subject to caveats.
> 
> ...


I hadn't seen a tory manifesto at the time you wrote this. What are their policies? Do you have a heads up


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Well it has been all over the internet for about 24 hours and was confirmed last night as accurate.


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

labour manifesto - defensive in the main (understandably) and although they have access to financial figures the other parties don't, still evasive.

We have to wait for a comprehensive spending review that will come out....after the election 

tory manifesto: big idea seems to be this big society idea. empower the people with support of co-operatives to run schools,hospitals and other public services.

At least its an idea. Give some people some power Vs centralise power and allow whitehall to continue to run things centrally.


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

phys sam said:


> labour manifesto - defensive in the main (understandably) and although they have access to financial figures the other parties don't, still evasive.
> 
> We have to wait for a comprehensive spending review that will come out....after the election
> 
> ...


It is an idea though not exactly a new one it's the same "Less Government" approach that the tories generally take.

The private sector certainly IS more efficient than government at running businesses and institutions, I don't think anyone disputes that. It's the private sector motives I question. Where you get motives of self interest you tend to get behaviours to match.


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

I also like the tory idea of helping businesses including small ones (like mine) with no NI increase, a cut in corporation tax rates and cuts in taxes on first ten jobs.

This seems to make sense to me (or maybe just appeals)


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> It is an idea though not exactly a new one it's the same "Less Government" approach that the tories generally take.
> 
> The private sector certainly IS more efficient than government at running businesses and institutions, I don't think anyone disputes that. It's the private sector motives I question. Where you get motives of self interest you tend to get behaviours to match.


thats human nature isn't it? Are you telling me govt run institutions aren't therefore self serving and protectionist - with the problems that generates?


----------



## Squirrel (Jun 7, 2009)

Show me the party that will spend on education & the NHS instead of lining their own pockets, that will close our borders & control further immigration whilst deporting ALL illegals, that will provide a police service that is free of red tape and the fear of getting it wrong, that can make our streets safe to walk again, a party that will ensure punishment fits the crime (no more slaps on the wrist & naughty boy/girl), that will create real jobs to get this country back on its feet, that will prosecute its own for fraud & questionable accounting, and that will actually take notice of the people, (I could go on), and I will show you a man who after almost 50 years of disinterest will make the effort to vote.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

phys sam said:


> ..,
> 
> At least its an idea. Give some people some power Vs centralise power and allow whitehall to continue to run things centrally.


This is a very important point.

All governments, by their very nature, tend to aggregate power and centralize control.

Historically, Conservative governments have been least guilty of this.

The present government has been by far the worst offender in this, using spurious security claims and legislation to impose control.

Yet it failed astonishingly to control the banking and financial indusry.

Socialism has traditionally had to impose heavy central control, trying to make people good, because the majority of the people don't actually like or thrive on true socialist policies.

No government can create real jobs: only entrepreneurs can do that. But excessive socialist employment rules and red tape very really deter anyone from starting a business. I speak from experience.

Politicians always conveniently forget the fact that no-one actually starts a business to employ people.

Mainly, people start businesses because they have an expertise by which they can prosper. In the UK rules and regulations and excessive overheads are absolute killers.


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

phys sam said:


> thats human nature isn't it? Are you telling me govt run institutions aren't therefore self serving and protectionist - with the problems that generates?


I guess it's all by degrees. I believe that the degree of self interest in government bodies and quangos is less about lining their pockets and more about building and protecting a little empire for themselves.

I am sure that there are some senior civil servants who are all about lining their pockets but I am talking about the general trend.

I have more faith that they have the interests of joe public at heart than say the private sector who are primarily financially driven.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

It seems to me history shows that enlightened self-interest (which is the story of Britain) is far more reliable at creating and spreading wealth than doctrinaire Labour socialist policies - which is why New Labour abandoned them.


----------



## Judas (Jan 21, 2009)

Still unsure on who to vote for. It'll be my first time voting as well.


----------



## Bambi (Jul 1, 2009)

Same. Most (99% of people i have talked to) say we need a change of government but no one seems to want Cameron!! He's just not likeable!


----------



## nobody (Apr 20, 2009)

im not voting unless we have another Maggie Thatcher, that woman had balls unlike the poofters of today


----------



## El Ricardinho (May 30, 2008)

i will be voting labour. my local mp is a great candidate.

he has done a lot for the community.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

El Ricardinho said:


> i will be voting labour. my local mp is a great candidate.
> 
> he has done a lot for the community.


Assuming what you say is true, and that he has looked after the interests of all his constituents, not just Labour voters, this is THE best reason to vote for him.


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

What's the point?

It's like deciding how you want to be executed. End result is still the same.

Although, I do understand the need for a government.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2010)

Labour - I want to keep my job :lol:


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

why are you in the public sector


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2010)

Its funded by them, so the chances are if anyone else gets in the funding will no longer be there.


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

agreed


----------



## ollie321 (Mar 29, 2010)

conservative I actually want a job Labour suck


----------



## ollie321 (Mar 29, 2010)

suliktribal said:


> What's the point?
> 
> It's like deciding how you want to be executed. End result is still the same.
> 
> Although, I do understand the need for a government.


took the words out my mouth your spot on


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2010)

ollie321 said:


> conservative I actually want a job Labour suck


Labour made a job for me


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

Dan said:


> Labour made a job for me


 you work in imigration Dan?? :laugh:


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2010)

Kezz said:


> you work in imigration Dan?? :laugh:


 :lol:


----------



## benb1975 (Nov 19, 2009)

I'll be voting labour the country has came too far to go back to the governments we had back then. The conservatives are being far too evasive on there spending cuts as well. I think they will make massive cuts. Working tax credits and child tax credits seem at risk. Which would cripple us financially with 3 children. Conservatives talk about cutting state sector but its peoples lives and jobs they will be cutting. I think it will be a disaster for the country if Dave Cameron gets in.


----------



## Robbyg (Feb 25, 2008)

So mate you think the last 13 years of a corrupt labour is great . I will not support a lying cheating goverment which does not have the balls or the know how of how to run this country . They have crippled us with tax apon tax with there lies. Look at the Nhs it's on the brink of the end cuts everywhere . We went to war on the promise that he had WMD yet we found none a pm who killed for money . If you want to vote for a man who sold all are gold for next to nothing go for it and run this country into the ground further .

Time for a change the pound is so weak like the goverment worst recession ever lo gest recession for any goverment . I'm sick of getting ripped off big rant yes  vote labour vote labour Fu cking not


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

benb1975 said:


> I'll be voting labour the country has came too far to go back to the governments we had back then. The conservatives are being far too evasive on there spending cuts as well. I think they will make massive cuts. Working tax credits and child tax credits seem at risk. Which would cripple us financially with 3 children. Conservatives talk about cutting state sector but its peoples lives and jobs they will be cutting. I think it will be a disaster for the country if Dave Cameron gets in.


"the country has came too far to go back" Do you mean Labour has fu.cked the country so much it cannot recover? because thats what has happened.Your children , will still be paying for this when they reach adulthood.Child tax credits? I presume that is money you recieve from the tax payer for having children.This is where the system is flawed.People haiving children that are supported by me(a tax payer)


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

Robbyg said:


> Time for a change the pound is so weak like the goverment worst recession ever lo gest recession for any goverment . I'm sick of getting ripped off big rant yes  vote labour vote labour Fu cking not


If you knew anything about economics at all you would know that at the moment a weak pound is good. It makes our exports cheaper which increases demand for products made in the UK.... And Gordon Brown is a very cleaver man. 100 dumb **** business men with millions in the bank agree with Cameron (millions in the bank being the main point), whereas nearly all economists agree with brown and know that what Cameron is proposing will destroy the british economy.


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

essexboy said:


> "the country has came too far to go back" Do you mean Labour has fu.cked the country so much it cannot recover? because thats what has happened.Your children , will still be paying for this when they reach adulthood.Child tax credits? I presume that is money you recieve from the tax payer for having children.This is where the system is flawed.People haiving children that are supported by me(a tax payer)


Child tax credits are what 9 out of 10 people get... I am sure you will get them if you ever have kids aswel...


----------



## BLUTOS (Mar 5, 2005)

Might be interesting to do a poll how many of use are registered to vote at next election.

I got two polling cards a white one and a yellow one, one for council and one for parliament. Con though the council stagger the election so only certain area's get voted on each time, so no party can get a mauling on all seats at the same time, bloody ridiculous.


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

Why not to vote for Cameron:


Immediate cuts will destroy economic recovery,

Conservatives admit they will scrap all of Labour guarantees for NHS patients,

Conservatives plans cut school expenditure,

Conservatives will cut policing expenditure and do not support DNA archives, meaning thousands of rapists will never be brought to justice,

Conservatives will cut the child trust fund and tax credits,

Conservatives will not support Labouts £5 billion plan to create jobs.


Basically all Cameron and his cronies care about is their own masses of wealth. They dont give a **** about the NHS, schools, supporting low earners... They will never need to use the NHS, public schools or need help because their on a low income.


----------



## Robbyg (Feb 25, 2008)

Well Any Government will have to make cuts as labour has spent all there money bailing out all the robbing banks .So yes there has to be cuts .The NHS has wasted the money they have on mangers which they do not need on stupid policies and having to hire foreign works because we can attract are own nurses because the pay is so crap .

Schools are the same wasting money at the local government level .

So with the cuts all these rapists will be set free ooooooooooooooooo So your telling me all the illegal immigrants which labour let in like rapists murders child killers is ok then ?

So labour will create jobs for the million they have put out of work ?

We should cut all money to the spongers of this country which all they do is get pregnant and get a house with there 50in tv and go out and get wasted each weekend on my fu cking money Well done Labour for creating a slob society


----------



## Captain Hero (Jun 13, 2004)

Dalton1988 said:


> Child tax credits are what 9 out of 10 people get... I am sure you will get them if you ever have kids aswel...


yes but point being you get more for having more children so the system is open to abuse, why should we have to fork out more to help support people that cannot afford to support their own children?


----------



## Captain Hero (Jun 13, 2004)

Dalton1988 said:


> Why not to vote for Cameron:
> 
> 
> Immediate cuts will destroy economic recovery,
> ...


Proof?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Dalton1988 said:


> Child tax credits are what 9 out of 10 people get... I am sure you will get them if you ever have kids aswel...


 they didnt exist when my kids were young.


----------



## Dalton1988 (Mar 6, 2010)

Captain Hero said:


> Proof?


Conservative manifesto... Shame people dont actually read them.


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Fvck it. I'm always a socialist voter coz I can't stand the poncy posh cnuts winning. But if it keeps looking like Lib Dems could just about manage it I'll vote for them.

Anything to stop that weirdo Cameron


----------



## Captain Hero (Jun 13, 2004)

Dalton1988 said:


> Conservative manifesto... Shame people dont actually read them.


I did, I agree with a lot of it 

For proof of how **** the Labour government is you only need look around you as we are living it


----------



## Robbyg (Feb 25, 2008)

The Libs dont have the experience to run this country .You do only have to see what a great big mess labour has made of this country Biggest unemployment ever biggest national debt only Greece and Ireland have worse debt than us . Maybe i'm willing to give Cam ago Brown has destroyed this country even when he was chancellor he had no idea .


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Again I'm saddened that some on here believe such extreme and nonsensical things about the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and even the UKIP.

There certainly are some real differences in philosophy and policy between them, but the truth is that whoever wins this election will have to make drastic cuts in all sorts of areas.

The present government are being dishonest about this and saying they won't cut back now because it would destroy the economy - but this isn't surprising as they don't want to offend any voters.

The Conservatives cannot say what cuts they would make with any accuracy, as they are not in power and in the know, and the present government have purposely delayed the financial review which would give some public indication of exactly what a mess we're in.

It's not surprising that Labour's doctrinaire "socialists" have repeatedly bankrupted the country each time they're in power. Governments should follow home economy, like wise families do. Labour only end up making us all poorer, and the poor poorest.

Unsurprisingly the Tories have the best connections with the City and work to make themselves richer. Happily, this has always made us all richer, and the poorest have consistently done well under Tory govenments.

Bluntly, many working people on here could never have aspired to the standard of living they've enjoyed until this government if it hadn't been for Mrs Thatcher's liberating policies. Own their own houses? Cheap telephones for all? Masses of consumer goods? Crikey, whoever brought those about!?


----------



## Robbyg (Feb 25, 2008)

Exellent post there pro


----------



## Mareth (Dec 13, 2009)

Prodiver I couldnt have put it better myself. I just hope others see sense on May 6th...


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

LMAO @ the BNP votes thank god we dont have proportional representation in this country!

How people think the BNP will help the country is beyond me. Ok its a nice idea to make Britain British again, but these lot could not run constituency let alone a country!


----------



## DanB (Dec 28, 2009)

Magic Torch said:


> LMAO @ the BNP votes thank god we dont have proportional representation in this country!
> 
> How people think the BNP will help the country is beyond me. Ok its a nice idea to make Britain British again, but these lot could not run constituency let alone a country!


Totally agree.

From these poll results it seems alot of the members of this forum are really unintelligent.


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

DanB said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> From these poll results it seems alot of the members of this forum are *really unintelligent.*


Great post, people who want to vote for the BNP are unintelligent:rolleyes: I am voting for them, they're probably just about the only party who will actually do something about all these fcking immigrants, at least they have the balls to say what they think.


----------



## ba baracuss (Apr 26, 2004)

Magic Torch said:


> LMAO @ the BNP votes thank god we dont have proportional representation in this country!
> 
> How people think the BNP will help the country is beyond me. Ok its a nice idea to make Britain British again, but these lot could not run constituency let alone a country!


MPs don't run the country, civil servants do. BNP or any other random party couldn't do much worse than labour have done. It's no surprise that the likes of the BNP are popular because people are sick to death of the other parties.

I doubt I'll vote but if there was a UKIP candidate in my area I might. Whoever gets in is p1ssing in the wind anyway as the country is completely fvcked.


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

WRT said:


> Great post, people who want to vote for the BNP are unintelligent:rolleyes: I am voting for them, they're probably just about the only party who will actually do something about all these fcking immigrants, at least they have the balls to say what they think.


Tom what will the BNP do about the other matters of the state? Do you honestly think that immigrants are the biggest problem we face? The BNP CANNOT solve the economic crisis we face, we need a stable intelligent government to take care of us.


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

ba baracuss said:


> MPs don't run the country, civil servants do. BNP or any other random party couldn't do much worse than labour have done. It's no surprise that the likes of the BNP are popular because people are sick to death of the other parties.
> 
> I doubt I'll vote but if there was a UKIP candidate in my area I might. Whoever gets in is p1ssing in the wind anyway as the country is completely fvcked.


Civil servants dont make the decisions tho mate, it sounds nice in a sweeping statement but yes, the BNP would do a lot worse than Labour have done.

I'll agree with your last statement dude


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

Magic Torch said:


> Tom what will the BNP do about the other matters of the state? Do you honestly think that immigrants are the biggest problem we face? The BNP CANNOT solve the economic crisis we face, we need a stable intelligent government to take care of us.


Immigrants are a big problem IMO, they take jobs and scrounge off benefits, I've actively been looking for a decent full time job for months and have only just got one, and that was only because he's a mate of my dads. I've registered at 4 agency's and they've not even contacted me once.

No other party has solved this problem yet and my vote isn't going on those PC ar$eholes who promise lots of things but it never happens. I'm willing to take my chances and vote for the BNP and see if they will actually do what they say.

I might be biased as I've watched the place where I grew up slowly being taken over by immigrants. :cursing:


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

WRT said:


> Immigrants are a big problem IMO, they take jobs and scrounge off benefits, I've actively been looking for a decent full time job for months and have only just got one, and that was only because he's a mate of my dads. I've registered at 4 agency's and they've not even contacted me once.
> 
> No other party has solved this problem yet and my vote isn't going on those PC ar$eholes who promise lots of things but it never happens. I'm willing to take my chances and vote for the BNP and see if they will actually do what they say.
> 
> I might be biased as I've watched the place where I grew up slowly being taken over by immigrants. :cursing:


Fair enough, I'm not knocking your point VERY valid, but if the economy heads further in to debt, there may be no jobs left for anyone, immigrants or nationals!


----------



## southshields (Mar 1, 2009)

As Doug Stanhope puts it, if an illegal immigrant is more qualified to do you're job than you are then you're a ****ing loser of the highest order.

The BNP haven't a clue. This video sums up all you need to know about the party. People actually are going to vote for these racist amateurs? Beyond belief.

http://www.vote-no-to-bnp.org.uk/2010/04/john-walker-proves-the-bnp-are-crap-comedy-gold.html#3xdzJPDQUqqt


----------



## DanB (Dec 28, 2009)

WRT said:


> Great post, people who want to vote for the BNP are unintelligent:rolleyes: I am voting for them, they're probably just about the only party who will actually do something about all these fcking immigrants, at least they have the balls to say what they think.


And do you class yourself as intelligent? In my experience, people with with the level of ignorance required to consider voting for the BNP generally aren't the brightest!


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Dalton1988 said:


> Why not to vote for Cameron:
> 
> 
> Immediate cuts will destroy economic recovery,
> ...


Stupid immature little pathetic boy!

Do you not understand how fukd our economy will be if labour get in again?

Tell me, where does this spending come from for the extra input on nhs an police? It comes from higher taxes!

Labour = high taxes, tory = low taxes.

You obviously dont work yourself and i'll take a guess u are a student?

Low taxes = benificial to working class. Tories = lower taxes which means working class keep more of their hard earne income.

Lower taxes = more income people have to spend in private sector = more economic activity = more money for everyone whether rich.

Labour have created hundreds of thoisands of totally unecessary wasteful jobs, they have completely crippled this country, if u had thr ability to speak to any city workers face to face and find out what they tell u will happen should labour get in, u would not be voting for them!

We now have millions of job losses in our provate sector therefore less money cycling trough the econony, but hundreds of thousands of totally unecessary management, middle management, pen pusher jobs in nhs and police that cost the public money.

Why do u think our nhs is so unefficient? Its because ofthe waste, thoisands of jobs in managememt, pen pushing, admin, cleaning etc that laboir created which slow everything down, tons more paperwork, millioms of assylum seekers bleeding our system yet giving nothing back to society.

Why is our poloce force bogged down doing paperwork and not out solvinh crimes? Because labour introduced pen pushers and management departments as extra links in the chain, slowing down policing. Get out there and ask a high ranking police person who has seen the difference in paperwork and beaurocracy over the last 13 years... You would not vote labour!

Tories will cut all these job that no one benefits from, so no, actually people will benefit from the cuts because they will remove all the beaurocracy from nhs and police that labour created! When u remove the cancer from a body, it actd more efficiently and becomes healthy again, we nee to remove the cancer from within!

When u speak of benefits that labour gives, who is getting these benefits? No hard working class honest people are getting them, they are going to immigrants, assylum seekers, scroungers, teenage pregnant mothers, child benefit scroungers. They are NOT going to honest hard working low income earners. Labour have made it harder for the working class by taxing them more!

They tax the working class more and give the money to immigrants, assylum seekers and scroungers. As well as making a totally innefficient nhs and wasteful poloce force! Get bloody real boy!

Your hatred an lies of the tories is so immature, "ohh no, ee cant vote tory cos cameron is well educated and from a rich background". Pmsl, pathetic. Clegg is from a richer background than cameron is from!

You need to get rid of ur prejudice and realise that labour have crippled the economy for the worling class man (me) and give my hard earned money to scroungers, assylum seekers, chavs and immigrants by taxing me ove the top to pay for the massive waste and cancer they have created from making useless office middle management jobs in the publoc sector.

You're little avatar shows ur maturity levels!! Why dont u put up an avatar of ur massive shredded physique, yeah right!

What are u, a student, an assylum seeker or a dole scrounger?

If ur an immigrant, a chav, an assylum seeker or a scrounger then vote labour, youll get more benefits.

But i ur a working class man who earns low to medium income and an honest living, vote tory so u get less tax and can keep more of ur income and buy more goods for urself thus stimulating extra growth in the economy


----------



## ba baracuss (Apr 26, 2004)

Magic Torch said:


> Civil servants dont make the decisions tho mate, it sounds nice in a sweeping statement but yes, the BNP would do a lot worse than Labour have done.
> 
> I'll agree with your last statement dude


So you think labour have made good decisions then? They've been shocking IMO. I doubt the BNP could do any worse. I'm not going to vote for them but I think they get a rough deal from the media who manipulate the electorate with ease.


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

ba baracuss said:


> So you think labour have made good decisions then? They've been shocking IMO. I doubt the BNP could do any worse. I'm not going to vote for them but I think they get a rough deal from the media who manipulate the electorate with ease.


Some good some bad, I dont think the economic mess was 100% their fault, but I think they could have done more to stop it/help it. My biggest problem with Labour is Gordon Brown, the best thing they could have done was find a new leader before the election.

I will vote Conservative this election, I think its the only sensible vote.

TBH the BNP dont help themselves in the media light, mostly due to the members behaviour.


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

BNP for me. Never voted before but I read their manifesto and all their ideas sounded good to me.

This country is in a state, and no other party has Britains best interests at heart. The rest all try to walk the line and be as PC as possible.

While not perfect, something needs to be done about the scroungers, illegal immigrants and all the PC'ness and more power needs to be given to the police to deal with real criminals.

If it comes accross as racist, which I am not, then that's the lesser of two evils for me, if it helps Britain be a better place for BRITISH people.

When I say British, I mean people who were born here, regardless of colour, who are willing to work and blend in with British society and customs, and not to mock and flaunt or country and actively seek to denature our customs.

We have a culture of being ashamed to be British. Sad.

Over the decades, the government has taken away any priviledges of being British, because, hell, it's floodgates are open to any tom dick and harry to recieve wellfare and health care.


----------



## southshields (Mar 1, 2009)

suliktribal said:


> BNP for me. Never voted before but I read their manifesto and all their ideas sounded good to me.
> 
> This country is in a state, and no other party has Britains best interests at heart. The rest all try to walk the line and be as PC as possible.
> 
> ...


Out of interest which other party manifesto's have you read?


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

southshields said:


> Out of interest which other party manifesto's have you read?


All of them.

I'm not one to blindly do something. Which is why I never voted before, but since the country is in such a state, I took an interest.


----------



## Totalrebuild (May 26, 2009)

They all lie and sell the working man out. We get screwed whoever gets in, as the country is in so much of a mess, theres no option but to keep hammering the working man ! :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:

I voted Conservative in the poll, as they appear to be the best of a bad bunch !


----------



## T_Woody (Jul 16, 2008)

Im suprised to see UKIP are not more pop0ular. They have good policies IMO.. also along the lines of BNP but not racist about the way they are going about things.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

suliktribal said:


> BNP for me. Never voted before but I read their manifesto and all their ideas sounded good to me.
> 
> This country is in a state, and no other party has Britains best interests at heart. The rest all try to walk the line and be as PC as possible.
> 
> ...


I agree.As long as the media continue to vilify the BNP, they will gain momentum.The poor fools, who oversee what we are allowed to see and hear via the media are so contemptuous of us, they they think we are stupid enough to believe, that our wonderful integrated society, is a reality, and not an Orwellian dream.

No politician has ever had the courage to say what many of us feel and believe, until the BNP became a legitimate force.

Our country is awash with people.The younger generations will never be able to buy houses of there own.The health, welfare and education systems, will become stretched to breaking point,and our larger cities will become ghettos.We have to close the floodgates,and curb the settlement of all but the most needed.If we need doctors, nurses and teachers fine.They are welcome to live here and contribute to the welfare of the nation irespective of enthnicity.What must stop, is the massive settlement of unskilled, and skilled, that are of no benefit and a further drain on the country.We have enough British builders who have to support there own families.We have too many women , who churn out kids, and then drain the system.

This is basic mathematics.Its not racist, its rational self interest.EVERYONE can see the logic , yet all the lily livered lefties can do is shout "racist" Its the only response they have to try and stiffle the truth.The time for change is nigh.I believe the BNP will garner far more support than many care to admit.The main parties are cacking themselves


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2010)

WRT said:


> Immigrants are a big problem IMO, they take jobs and scrounge off benefits, I've actively been looking for a decent full time job for months and have only just got one, and that was only because he's a mate of my dads. I've registered at 4 agency's and they've not even contacted me once.
> 
> No other party has solved this problem yet and my vote isn't going on those PC ar$eholes who promise lots of things but it never happens. I'm willing to take my chances and vote for the BNP and see if they will actually do what they say.
> 
> *I might be biased as I've watched the place where I grew up slowly being taken over by immigrants*. :cursing:


i went go to hounslow where i grew up to the age of 13 because my girlfriend lives there and i have to say its now a disgrace. unless your first language is of eastern european or somalian base your fvcked and to mme thats just plain wrong.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

T_Woody said:


> Im suprised to see UKIP are not more pop0ular. They have good policies IMO.. also along the lines of BNP but not racist about the way they are going about things.


Before you label the BNP as racist, you might care to read the definition of the word."The desire not to integrate with anyone other than those of the same race" is part of the definition.Do you believe that ONLY the BNP posess this desire? The country is full or pockets of individuals who have no desire, to integrate with me, or my race.Strange how they dont get labelled in the same way?


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

DanB said:


> And do you class yourself as intelligent? In my experience, people with with the level of ignorance required to consider voting for the BNP generally aren't the brightest!


I would actually, though I may not come across as intelligent:thumbup1:


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

DanB said:


> And do you class yourself as intelligent? In my experience, people with with the level of ignorance required to consider voting for the BNP generally aren't the brightest!


I am by no means a possible bnp voter but believe in the right for people to vote

without prejuidice from other people.

Please explain why you'd have to be intelligent to vote for anyone but the bnp?


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

Britbb said:


> Stupid immature little pathetic boy!
> 
> Do you not understand how fukd our economy will be if labour get in again?
> 
> ...


Adam - There is no need to get into personal attacks. You are more than capable of debating through the merits of your arguments.

Your concept of taxation differences between labour and conservatives is quite polarised IMO and fails to account for the many nuances of individual circumstances.

I would agree with the polar sentiments that labour are committed to higher public spending than the conservatives, however no party will distribute the funding of that public spending gap equally over the population. So then it comes down to who will pay for increases in public spending, or who will be rewarded with a lower tax burden?

Possible changes in VAT could spread the change in taxation across the population, whereas other changes would preferentially benefit certain segments in society eg( tories plans to give couples a tax break, or lib dems to give tax breaks to the poorest earners ).

A similar situation exists when considering who gets disadvantaged the most with public sector spending cuts. If spending cuts are made to Whitehall the effect will be different to what happens when funding is cut to child protection services. There will always be winners and looser from political change - regardless of party. Claims to only trim the waste and inefficiencies are complete hocum and have been touted around for more centuries now.

That said, I do suspect that redistribution of wealth under labour has been less than claimed, however I suspect that redistribution of wealth would not be greater under the conservatives, considering that the long term downward trend in the proportion of national wealth owned by the top 1% of the population made an abrubt u turn under the thatcher administration. In addition the inheritance tax changes proposed by the Tories would frustrate redistribution further.



> What are u, a student, an assylum seeker or a dole scrounger?
> 
> If ur an immigrant, a chav, an assylum seeker or a scrounger then vote labour, youll get more benefits.


People vote for all sorts of different reasons - not just those reasons which are important to you. To stereotype and demonise people who support a labour in such a way is just as ludicrous as suggesting that the only people who benefit from supporting conservatives are the aristocracy, wealth wannabes and those whose concentration allows them only to vote on a soundbite of "we need change".

J


----------



## Captain Hero (Jun 13, 2004)

WRT said:


> Immigrants are a big problem IMO, they take jobs and scrounge off benefits, I've actively been looking for a decent full time job for months and have only just got one, and that was only because he's a mate of my dads. I've registered at 4 agency's and they've not even contacted me once.
> 
> No other party has solved this problem yet and my vote isn't going on those PC ar$eholes who promise lots of things but it never happens. I'm willing to take my chances and vote for the BNP and see if they will actually do what they say.
> 
> I might be biased as I've watched the place where I grew up slowly being taken over by immigrants. :cursing:


To be honest mate the majority of people that scrounge benefits are british, not foreign


----------



## ba baracuss (Apr 26, 2004)

Magic Torch said:


> Some good some bad, I dont think the economic mess was 100% their fault, but I think they could have done more to stop it/help it. My biggest problem with Labour is Gordon Brown, the best thing they could have done was find a new leader before the election.
> 
> I will vote Conservative this election, I think its the only sensible vote.
> 
> *TBH the BNP dont help themselves in the media light, mostly due to the members behaviour*.


Such as what?

I cringed at question time a few months ago when griffin was on - not at what he said but at the childish way other members of the panel were on his case continually - paticularly the no mark black AMERICAN woman (wtf uk politics has to do with her I don't know).

He made his case pretty plainly and the rest of them just continually talked over him.


----------



## benb1975 (Nov 19, 2009)

I will vote labour but they have made bad decisions a lot of things could be done better. But conservatives will put lots of people out of work huge savings cannot be made without it. People are wrong to think about government spending in a straight line it goes out the people spend there wages fueling the economy it gets taxed again. The thing about bailing out banks is ridiculous us we will get the money back. Banks cannot fail it would be chaos businesses collapsing all around us. The Americans letting lehman brothers fall triggered a lot of the global banking problems. I work I always have but not a well paid job at all. There are no tax cuts that could make up for what I think I would lose under a conservative government. I think labour will always be the best party for the working class but they do need to improve on a lot of things.


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

Captain Hero said:


> To be honest mate the majority of people that scrounge benefits are british, not foreign


Have you got evidence for that?


----------



## RedKola (Nov 27, 2008)

I'm kinda hoping they will all die of food poisoning before it gets to the elections! :thumb:


----------



## Captain Hero (Jun 13, 2004)

WRT said:


> Have you got evidence for that?


I work as a civil servant and my job involves being in touch with people who claim benefit, the majority of people I get calling are British, and in comparison the amount of foreign people I speak to is a lot smaller.

Not so much evidence, just in my experience.


----------



## ba baracuss (Apr 26, 2004)

benb1975 said:


> I will vote labour but they have made bad decisions a lot of things could be done better. *But conservatives will put lots of people out of work huge savings cannot be made without it*. People are wrong to think about government spending in a straight line it goes out the people spend there wages fueling the economy it gets taxed again. The thing about bailing out banks is ridiculous us we will get the money back. Banks cannot fail it would be chaos businesses collapsing all around us. The Americans letting lehman brothers fall triggered a lot of the global banking problems. I work I always have but not a well paid job at all. There are no tax cuts that could make up for what I think I would lose under a conservative government. I think labour will always be the best party for the working class but they do need to improve on a lot of things.


How did you come to that conclusion? How are they going to put people out of work and how can doing so make huge savings? :confused1: More people unemployed means more benefits claimed for starters, not to mention other negative influences on the economy.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people blindly vote for the same party out of habit.


----------



## dazsmith69 (Oct 29, 2009)

Im quite shocked at the number voting BNP

Read the UKIP manifesto. They could run a country the BNP dont have a clue.

Thats the problem with people voting. They dont know enough about the parties policies to make a justified decision.

These debates are going to influence so many people. Shame other paries werent allowed to participate.

If Lib Dems get in, were completely ****ed though :cursing:


----------



## benb1975 (Nov 19, 2009)

ba baracuss said:


> How did you come to that conclusion? How are they going to put people out of work and how can doing so make huge savings? :confused1: More people unemployed means more benefits claimed for starters, not to mention other negative influences on the economy.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how so many people blindly vote for the same party out of habit.


By cutting jobs in the public sector. The huge savings they talk about cannot be made through efficiency drives. They have given very little detail on ho they will make these huge savings. I think a lot of public sector jobs will go.


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

just make me laugh, why would anyone vote labour, unless they are welsh or scottish? And I have a lot of scottish family, with a history of voting labour in the past. Many only vote labour becasue its bred into them - which is pathetic when you look at what the working man's, socialist party has done for you average man on the street. If you work for yourself or have a good job or care about the welfare of this country you cannot vote labour. That disgusting closet homosexual (nothing against homosexual just sneering false people that pretend to be something they are not, same way he pretended to be a intelligent finance man capable of running the country's finances - which he clearly has proved he cannot) needs to be removed from office ASAP


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

benb1975 said:


> By cutting jobs in the public sector. The huge savings they talk about cannot be made through efficiency drives. They have given very little detail on ho they will make these huge savings. I think a lot of public sector jobs will go.


yes they will and they need to, the public sector is massively inefficient I could rant for hours about the money wasted there. Its not the money they will save on wages that will be the biggest factor, its the money they will save in efficiency. My friend work on a defence project that is already 5BN over budget, mainly due to civil servants off sick with stress or dragging their feet because they have no pressure on them to prove their worth in a job. They pay private contractors more then £500 a day and half the time they cannot do their job because some 30K a year civil servant is playing funny buggers. This cannot happen in the private sector or companies would go bust - but no the government keeps pumping money OUR in.

Another one is the NHS new computer system - it does not exist - they have spent billions on it and it does not work - could you imagine this happening in the private sector? Money has been wasted on bureaucracy, inefficiency and poor management.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

LOL

Most of the professional polling companies have BNP support at between 1-2%. Then here we have them at nearly 27%.

WTF!! Is it just this board, or are BBers in general really that much more racist than the rest of the population?? :confused1:


----------



## benb1975 (Nov 19, 2009)

goonerton said:


> LOL
> 
> Most of the professional polling companies have BNP support at between 1-2%. Then here we have them at nearly 27%.
> 
> WTF!! Is it just this board, or are BBers in general really that much more racist than the rest of the population?? :confused1:


Your spot on there the BNP only seem to have one policy as far as I can see


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

since creating this thread i am shocked and amazed at all the bnp goers!!

fair enough, they are entitled to their opinions and beliefs.

speaking to people i know, friends etc....90 percent of them are BNP, the rest are conservative!


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

benb1975 said:


> Your spot on there the BNP only seem to have one policy as far as I can see


I suggest then , you invest in a pair of spectacles.You dont see very well.


----------



## benb1975 (Nov 19, 2009)

essexboy said:


> I suggest then , you invest in a pair of spectacles.You dont see very well.


I will take a look at there stuff so I know the rest. But I thought they were the National Front and managed to make themselves legit. But will have a look out of interest.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Joshua said:


> Adam - There is no need to get into personal attacks. You are more than capable of debating through the merits of your arguments.
> 
> Your concept of taxation differences between labour and conservatives is quite polarised IMO and fails to account for the many nuances of individual circumstances.
> 
> ...


Joshua, i have labelled your points from 1-5 and will try to answer each of them so that you can see my point of view in this debate.

I have gone to quite a lot of time to construct this post for you so that you can see some of my beliefs and reasonings clearly and then see exactly why i have taken my stance on the situation. Also a brief part at the end on the bnp. This is a long read, however i think it is worth it (i sure as hell wont be doing this again! and you seldom see in depth posts like this on a muscle forum regarding politics):

1. Under labour, it appears to me as if the people who they claim to stand for are indeed people such as myself.

Honest, law abiding and hard working class citizens who have a low to middle income job and are trying to earn a living by working hard, paying taxes and giving back to the community.

However, i have recieved absolutely nothing from labour. I have recieved zero tax credits, zero council housing, zero housing benefits (even though i have applied and at times during the recession should have qualified), taking up two jobs to earn enough money for the extortionate london rent.

Labour have failed me. As a working class white british citizen who has no criminal record and has worked an honest living in my working career, i recieve nothing from them and have never recieved from them.

Now, i also presume you are reffering to labour trying to take taxes from the extreme wealthy. Which of course they are doing as well. They are taking from low income earner, middle income earner and extreme wealthy, in order to give to people that they see are the most vulnerable of society.

THERE IS A MASSIVE PROBLEM!

The beaurocracy and ability to 'fiddle the system' ultimately allows many 'undeserving people' to be classed as 'vulnerable of society'. Millions.

Incidently, this year (according to telegraph) will be the first year in a long while since the amount of benefits given out will be greater than the amount of taxes collected and the amount of n.i. collected put together!

In other words, more and more benefits are constantly being paid out. So you can see somewhere along the line something is very wrong!

Why is it, every year, more and more benefits are being paid out? Because labours system is set up to be abused, those who are the low income, hard working honest working class people (myself) are being heavily taxed so that we can pay for a system which is massively abused and overused. It is supposed to be there as a safety net, instead nowdays it is an excuse, it is an excuse for people who chose not to bother. Plain and simple the whole benefits system needs an overhaul, it is a shambles and is bankrupting this economy!

I dont understand this huge anger people have seemingly 'YOU MUST TAX THE RICH, YOU MUST TAX THE RICH' etc. Those who are fortuante enough to be rich in this country tend to be professional people who have worked bloody hard. Yet they also see sometimes upto 50% of their income being taken away to be given to (sometimes genune cases) other times 'the lazy'.

As a result, they move abroad and britain loses their tax revenue and in some cases british workers lose their jobs because of it. Why are some people so eager to 'punish' those who have earned their wealth by hard work? Or even those who inherit their wealth from their parents who earnt it via hard graft? Why is this hatred still in this society?

Labour have failed the working class in order to prop up the 'underclass', the working class have been hit hardest by the higher taxes and the money has been used to help increase the amount and also prop up the 'underclass', that is precisely how i see the current benefits system.

It needs to change. We need to stop propping up this underclass, we need to tighten things up, we need to stop paying out as many benefits and we need to lower the taxes in the economy in order to stimulate economic growth within the private sector.

2. Agreed here. However the lib dems will also increase overall tax, so the 'tax breaks' that the low income earners (such as myself and other working class men) would recieve will probably equate to the same high taxes we currently pay under labour...and again would these simply go towards 'propping up the underclass'?

The tories are planning on the couples tax break because they want to promote the tradionalist idea of education starting in the family, there idea is that a strong family with good values and morals deserves tax reductions as a way of 'reward' for controlling and bringing up their children well. Again, you can also see the benefits of this, well brought up children = better educated = more beneficial to society = less chance to become part of 'underclass' and more chance when they grow up to work hard for their income and contribute to society.

3. I dont think the question is 'IF PUBLIC SPENDING CUTS ARE MADE', i think it is 'WHEN PUBLIC SPENDING CUTS ARE MADE'. Joshua we are in the highest national debt ever, you already know this. Greece have gone bankrupt, the euro is a mess. We can not keep on borrowing more and more money. We are borrowing more and more money in order to pay for the increase in jobs (thousands, hundreds of thousands) of public service sector jobs that labour created. Many of these jobs themselves are beaurocratic, management, cleaning, 'green' jobs that ARE TOTALLY UNECESSARY and infact cause the nhs/police force etc to underperform.

This ties in very nicely. If we didnt have these public sector jobs that are simply wasting billions of tax payers money to effectively make the nhs and police less efficient. Then our nhs and police force would actually become better. Labour has basically trapped everyone. They have relied on a continuously growing private sector and as a result they kept making more nad more useless public sector jobs in areas that were unecessary and infact make public services worse than if those jobs werent created. Whole departments set up in management of the nhs and police force, in the courts, in councils etc, all of this is pure waste and all of it slows down our services and makes them worse.

However now, what has happened is, we actually need to get rid of these public jobs to:

1. Improve efficiency in police and nhs etc.

2. Reduce the cost of nhs and police so we can save more money to pay back the huge debt.

But then of course it is very difficult to do this because we have a sh1t private sector now (brown's biggest total fuk up!) our private sector can no longer fund the cuts in the public sector therefore by making those cuts WHICH NEED TO BE DONE EVENTUALLY for the 2 points i made above, a government will have to get rid of all those public service jobs that are uneccessary and actually a burden on nhs and police etc. This is going to cause massive unemployment, but frankly unless it is done, the nhs and police will never ever get better regardless of how much money you through at it (and we have no money now anyway).

4. Joshua, i dont understand this. IT IS A FACT that the richest in the country have become richer and the poorest in the country have become poorer. The country has now an even bigger gap between rich and poor than previous.

All the i can see has happened is the working class man (myself) has been shafted by labour (who is supposed to represent me) and has been taking my money via taxes in order to prop up this huge and ever growing 'underclass'.

5. Agreed, i can understand why some people might be better off voting for certain political parties, however my initial statement still stands true.

If you are an immigrant that abuses the system (as opposed to one who comes to work hard and contribute), an assylum seeker, a dole scrounger or benefits scrounger then vote labour...because you will keep getting strong benefits.

How is this not true? Under labour these groups of people have had massive amounts of benefits given to them (hence the growth of the 'underclass' that i spoke of before). To deny this, is simply not true.

Now, it may be the case others have genuine reasons to vote for labour or other such politcal parties, i can understand this, but the above still stands true, because under labour these groups will continue to rape the system dry.

Like i said for myself, as an honest hard working low to middle income earner who was 'supposed' to be represented by labour, i am now voting for conservative, this is because:

1. I will be taxed less and get to keep more of my hard earned low income.

2. I will not have to pay stamp duty to the government as i want to buy my own home in the next 5 years and get on the property market, i work hard, i pay my taxes, why should i not be entitled to own a property for myself...or am i forced into paying extortionate rent in london with zero subsidy from the government simply because im an honest working man?

3. I will see a genuine number of immigrants reduced each year (due to the cap that will be enforced). I will see illegal immigrants deported.

4. I will benefit from the increased economic activity within the private sector, the lower taxes overall, means more economic activity and spending within the private sector which in turn means my business will flourish and hopefully i will be better off.

Those are the 4 main reasons why this working class honest man will be voting for the tories. In particular i feel labour has let me down!

Now... one thing i feel i need to add, regarding bnp as they seem to be a hot topic of discussion. My point of view:

I have witnessed this country (in london where i live) change, it has changed in a way that could be described as a 'seachange' by william shakespeare. Areas that used to be nice areas such as hendon broadway, wembley and harrow used to have good shops, good cleanliness, thriving business. Nowdays it is a different story entirely. As i sit on my train going to work, i witness the hordes of muslim women in hijab/somalians/people of african or arabic/asian race speaking a foreign language sitting on the train with me. I see these high streets degenerating, they no longer are clean streets, they no longer have nice shops, they have asian style halal meat shops instead of a nice shiney dixons. This has been the case in numerous areas and boroughs. HOW HAS THIS CHANGE COME ABOUT! The new population is no longer english speaking, hoardes of foreign languages every day are heard on teh trains, they are not on holiday, they are here but refuse to integrate, instead segregate in their own society which has run down our old nice high streets which have frankly become sh1t holes.

I hate to say it. But over the 13 years of labour in power, this has occured. The only way it could have occured is if these people have been given a helping hand, they have refused to integrate into society, they stay in segregated cultures. The whole areas around london are total sh1t holes now, and then people honestly wonder why others are considering voting bnp? It is out of a frustration vote, seeing towns and high streets turn into these dumps. High streets that were once flourishing are now grotty and dirty with crap shops, very low commerce and full of different languages, this WAS NOT the case 13 years ago.

When people say they are voting for the bnp and there are some that instantly criticise (rightly so imo), do they not see though what has caused this? Most bnp voters are not racist people, they have been sucked in by the silver forked tongue of the bnp which have been given a platform, a platform made high enough by labours 13 years of disasterous immigration and assylum policies which have quite frankly brought ruin to many boroughs, high streets and areas of london (i presume in the country as well but i will only speak for london as this is where im from).

I would never vote for bnp, but you have to sympathise with the honest, hard working british working class man (like myself) that has had labour totally fail him! Labour are supposed to stand for guys like me, this is who they are supposed to represent, what have they done? We just get taxed to high heaven, we recieve nothing from the police and there are shocking waiting lists on the nhs, when we get to the hospital it is flooded with non english speaking people being seen to (they cant all be on holiday from african/arabic/asian countries surely), they appear to be assylum seekers in traditional muslim prayer garments.

This is the sad reality of the situation we are now in. Our country was never like this before, yet now we have reached a point, a VERY REAL POINT where change must be applied, because if this does carry on for the next 5 years it will inevitably be way too late! If it isnt too late already that is.

The bnp vote is by desperate people. Honest hard working class people who are low-middle income and that have been let down badly by labour, they are voting out of frustration and anger because of what they see in everyday life.

Sure they have been confused by the forked snake tongue of griffin etc, BUT the frustration is what has caused this, the anger and resentment at labour has allowed the bnp a platform. THIS MUST END!


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

suliktribal said:


> BNP for me. Never voted before but I read their manifesto and all their ideas sounded good to me.
> 
> This country is in a state, and no other party has Britains best interests at heart. The rest all try to walk the line and be as PC as possible.
> 
> ...


Read the last part of my post above, concerning bnp and supporters, you fall into that category etnirely.

You are not a racist person, you are fed up of what has happened and continues to happen to this country. Most of us can see it as well (except the deluded and naive).

But, please do not be conned by the snake tongue of griffin etc co.

The only reason you are even thinking of listening to this lot are because of what you see and how you see this country right now. They have got into your head because labour have given them a platform due to 13 years of total disaster regarding immigration and assylum policies, as a result you now find yourself wanting to vote bnp.

All i can say is, please read their policies and do some real research on the members of that party, even nick griffin. They all have very dark secrets and pasts.

As for an alternative. Well, i can only speak for myself and my own opinions, others will differ though.

I am also fed up with how i see this country going but i will not vote bnp.

The party out of the main three which is going to put a definate cap on immigration is the tory party.

Both liberal and labour are refusing to cap immigration, however the conservatives are putting a cap on immigration and pledge to deport all illegal immigrants.

This is one of the reasons i am voting for the tories. It might not be as drastic as that of the bnp's immigration policies, but the tories are far more likely to get in and we will see real action against the terrible current immigration and assylum laws currently in place.

A vote for bnp is also a wasted vote. At least if you vote for the conservatives you get a cap on immigration and also the party that most experts are saying (and historically shows) are best qualified to help the economy.

It's your choice and your vote in the end, i know who im voting for, if you dont want to listen to the alternative then thats fine, but please dont vote bnp. Do some real research into the bnp rather than allowing what has happened in this country under labour fuel your hatred enough to vote for bnp in frustration and anger.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Great Post brit.I agree 100% with you.Almost.I dont believe in the premise of a wasted vote.If enough people actually voted for the party of thier choice, then we might get rid of the scourge of Tory & Labour goverment that have ruled for the past 65 years.

I presonally feel that the main parties will not do enough to cap immigration.They may make a few policies as a "jesture" to appease the concerned,however I believe more radical action is required.One day I believe and hope (maybe not in mine, or yours lifetime)that this country will return to what it once was.A society of , integrated, decent citizens, whos values are common, and condusive to living together.Not pockets of people who have no interest, in others and merely want to segregate, and build communites that are not in the interest of the greater good.For this to happen radical action is required.I dont feel the present "big 3" have the gall or passion to acomplish this.


----------



## kyrocera (Oct 13, 2004)

Using this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7541285/How-should-I-vote-in-the-General-Election-2010.html

It says BNP, but as ive never voted in my life I doubt ill start now.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Britbb said:


> Joshua, i have labelled your points from 1-5 and will try to answer each of them so that you can see my point of view in this debate.
> 
> I have gone to quite a lot of time to construct this post for you so that you can see some of my beliefs and reasonings clearly and then see exactly why i have taken my stance on the situation. Also a brief part at the end on the bnp. This is a long read, however i think it is worth it (i sure as hell wont be doing this again! and you seldom see in depth posts like this on a muscle forum regarding politics):
> 
> ...


WOW mate...what an amazing post and 100% spot on, I was gonna take it apart and find the bits I didnt agree with but there aren't any, cant believe someone thinks exactly as I do, one of the best non bodybuilding posts I've ever read on UKM


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

1 All parties will claim to stand for you, and will try to point out things which match your interests. Whether or not any of them actually do is another thing. Parties present a set of policies at the end of the day, and you are picking between the lesser of evils.

I can understand your frustration - that came across in your orginal post. I have heard many people who live in london do the same as you did with two jobs. That and the business of the place are two reasons I opted to live elsewhere.

You say that they have failed you, however the question in my mind would be who is the best person to represent you in the next parliament?

Redistribution of wealth is the political concept that there is a natural inclination for the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer, and it is a job of government to rebalance that natural tendency.

I don't know if it is motivated by anger - although in many cases it maybe. I suspect that it is simply practical to go after the biggest lumps of cash around. However, from a moral standpoint, there is a matter of where the natural drift of wealth will go over time. If unchecked one ends up with what happens in brazil with enormous disparity of wealth. Also I suspect that there is increased probability of crime and disorder as wealth gap increases whilst those people live in close proximity to each other.

There is another ideological argument regarding opportunity in life. Some people believe that everyones life chances are best equalised if the state redistributes all wealth on the death of someone, whereas others believe that it is an incentive to work hard if they can pass something onto their offspring when they die. I suspect that this issue would be one of the biggest changes to life chances.

2 I disagree with your interpretation of libdems policies on propping up the underclass - no tax on the first 10k increase incentive to be earning lower amounts. The point I was trying to make originally is that the tories may not be making tax breaks evenly across the board - people a lot wealthier that you are getting some pretty large tax breaks instead.

3 I believe that it has been higher historically actually.

Greece is a false argument as their situation (currency locked in with the euro, a greater militancy within the population against austerity measures, etc).

I agree that borrowing cannot keep on increasing.

I have heard the tory arguments on efficiency = tbh they are typical of their message of smaller government for a long time now.

4 I agree. The question is though is that would the rate of change in wealth distribution be greater under tory, lab, or libdem?

5 I don't generally classify people politically in terms of dole scroungers and certainly not as chavs. There are many characteristics that make up a person eg( there is more to Adam than building your body ). TBH what was slightly poignant for me was the loaded language that you used - dole scroungers or chavs.

Loaded language does get trundled out by the parties - right wing ones especially. This language is used to prey on the beliefs and emotions of people whilst actually requiring very little if they get into power. For example the tories have said that they will clamp down on benefit cheats by making very harsh penalties for people convicted twice of benefit fraud and even more so for three times. What they didn't say was that 67 people would have been affected by these measures - insignificant in effect but makes them sound tough, thus appealing to people who are angered that they should be seeing more benefit for their efforts.

I suspect that the immigration cap is just dramatic language too - there will be limiting mechanism in place under all main party proposals, yet none of them actually state the numbers or even a number range.

Personally, immigration aside, I have greater concerns with bogus asylum claimants - why have they not applied to the first country they have gone to as required? There should be virtually none. This does not need a new law just suitable enforcement.

J


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Joshua said:


> ...
> 
> there is a natural inclination for the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer, and it is a job of government to rebalance that natural tendency...


There is not a natural inclination for the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer - unless the rich and powerful have special advantages conferred by government, which still happens in many countries.

In fact everything about supply and demand means that as the rich get richer so do the poor, and this is borne out by Britain's history, especially in the 19th century, after reforms eliminated many privileges of the politcally powerful.

The real factors reducing wages and jobs are oppressive rules on starting and running businesses, and excessive overheads, chiefly in central and local taxes.

There would be many more jobs were it as easy to start and run a company as it was 150 years ago. Ministers ignore the fact that people do not start businesses to employ people: employment is a side-effect of production, but thriving businesses always rely on many people.

Now that we are all so well informed and self-determining, we need carefully to remove employers' responsibilies to and for employees and shift them back to the employees themselves - ie. abolish PAYE and company NI contributions, give every employee a state-vetted individual contract of employment, etc.

This will give much greater practical economic power to ordinary people, and make them much more politically aware and critical of government policy.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Forgot to say, too, that redistribution of wealth has a very poor track record: the super-rich have never paid more than a small proportion of the overall tax-take even when taxed very hard.

And most of the extra tax take has just made HUGE government even more possible.

Even with the progressive tax régimes since WW2 tax has invariably fallen hardest on the poorest.

We have far too many government sector unproductive people and quangos.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> There is not a natural inclination for the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer - unless the rich and powerful have special advantages conferred by government, which still happens in many countries.
> 
> In fact everything about supply and demand means that as the rich get richer so do the poor, and this is borne out by Britain's history, especially in the 19th century, after reforms eliminated many privileges of the politcally powerful.
> 
> ...


I agree somewhat with your comments on the rich getting richer and the poor getting richer too. My comments were ambiguous as they did not refer to standard of living (where the poor have gotten richer) or on proportion of ownership (where the richest have increased their share of ownership as mentioned in my earlier post).

I disagree that the advantages have to be conferred by government. There are many inequalities in the playing field. A person born to a doctor and lawyer parents will have a higher probability of being a high earner than a orphaned child brought up in the care system, inspite of government provision being made to support the child. Educational receptiveness, access to contacts & resources, expectations and nods and winks in the right places all make a difference.

Although this point relates to social mobility, it is an effective surrogate for that of intergenerational wealth movements.

There is also a difference between explicit advantage conferred by the state and redressing the implicit advantage conferred by nature and nurture. eg Complex tax codes are better operated by those who are smarter, have more time on their hands or have greater wealth to justify the employment of tax consultants.

I am of firm belief that we are currently in a massive global industrial and trade restructuring exercise, and I suspect that this will see more part time, self employed individuals in multiple contracts rather than the traditional employment pattens. The move to from full to part time is just the beginning IMO. This may well have similar effects to what you are talking of wrt responsibilities moving from the employer. I doubt whether they will be state vetted contracts, moreso open source standard conditions of contract accepted for each of the different sectors.

J


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> There is not a natural inclination for the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer - unless the rich and powerful have special advantages conferred by government, which still happens in many countries.
> 
> In fact everything about supply and demand means that as the rich get richer so do the poor, and this is borne out by Britain's history, especially in the 19th century, after reforms eliminated many privileges of the politcally powerful.
> 
> ...


An argument very close to my heart, VAT, paye, cis, income, ni, they are one almighty

unforgiving set of w4nkers who themselves (the civil servants) don't actually

have a fecking clue about how business works, I'd shoot the fecking lot of them:cursing:

and unfortunately it won't change whoever gets in.

I've had the chance to start my business again and tbh I can't be ar5ed, the

red tape is crippling, even for a small business

One example, my taxes for employees I had were always payed, somehow the

d1cks have managed to misplace £50 k of this money and now I have to pay

my accountants to find there mistake, fvck knows what its going to cost me

probably a few k which I haven't got, its madness:cursing: :cursing: :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:

Like I said, fvckers want shooting

Up the Tooting Popular Front, smithy for PM:laugh:


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

tel3563 said:


> An argument very close to my heart, VAT, paye, cis, income, ni, they are one almighty
> 
> unforgiving set of w4nkers who themselves (the civil servants) don't actually
> 
> ...


Agree with all that old man...I lost my business 2 weeks ago and dealing with all the fvckin leeches who want a piece of me has been a fvckin nightmare...and like you say I find myself being adviced by idiots half my age who have no fvckin clue about business telling me where I went wrong.....

one guy from the bank took about 45 mins to tell me all my mistakes...in front of two of his colleagues.....he must have been about 12 years old and talked to me like a naughty child, I went to see if they would extend the overdraught...after humilating me he refused my request...I was literally shaking with rage for being treated like that....how can a bank advice anyone on business matters after the fvck up they made.

same goes for paye, tax ect...its just a never ending nightmare of red tape.

I could go on for ever but this has nowt to do with the thread so I wont

:cursing: :cursing: :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Joshua said:


> ...
> 
> I disagree that the advantages have to be conferred by government.


Please note, Joshua, that I actualy didn't say that.

Attempts to confer advantages by government have a doubtful track record, but disadvantages conferred by governments are very effective!

There was - quite rightly - a huge number of law changes in the 19th century to remove unfair advantages from the rich and powerful in the Civil Service, the Military, the Magistracy and central and local government, not that it made much immediate difference.

Because today's parliaments and governments tend to be urban and business, a lot of tax law is disadvantageous to people on fixed incomes, like farmers and landowners and unskilled workers, who have no recourse to economic changes and whose return on their capital or labour is low because they have no leverage.


----------



## DanB (Dec 28, 2009)

tel3563 said:


> I am by no means a possible bnp voter but believe in the right for people to vote
> 
> without prejuidice from other people.
> 
> Please explain why you'd have to be intelligent to vote for anyone but the bnp?


That doesn't make any form of grammatical sense mate, so i'm not really sure what you're asking?

I'm the most liberal guy in the world, and a massive human rights advocate, so i fully support the right for people to vote for whoever they want.

I'm just saying that if you vote BNP you're an ignorant ****. Its the millions of benefit scrounging british that are the problem, not the immigrants.

People complain about asylum seekers and whatnot, but where is the evidence for this? Why do people assume that being born inside an imaginary boundary gives you a rightful entitlement to property and job?

Its this self-centered arrogance that many on here seem to have that ****es me off.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FOR BRITAIN IS THE EU!


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

I will be voting for Labour.

Looking at the Poll results I do not believe that 25% of this board will be voting the BNP, the poll has been spoiled.


----------



## KRS (Nov 27, 2008)

Just seen this on the news, Gordon forgot he was still on air :lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649042.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649174.stm

For those that vote Labour because your dad's dad's dad voted Labour PMSL:lol:


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

If the labour party get in I shall either:

a. kill myself

b. kill someone else

c. have a nice cup of tea and a sit down

havent decided which one yet


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

KRS said:


> Just seen this on the news, Gordon forgot he was still on air :lol:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649042.stm
> 
> ...


Look at that conservative [email protected] trying to make brown look as bad as poss. If he kept putting his hand on me like that he would get it back crippled.


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

DanB said:


> I'm just saying that if you vote BNP you're an ignorant ****. Its the millions of benefit scrounging british that are the problem, not the immigrants.


You're the ignorant one, immigrants not a problem? LOL.


----------



## JAY-EL (Oct 20, 2008)

This is country is fcuked thanks to Labour and there human rights bollocks, equal oportunities and open door policy!

Will be definately be voting Conservative , Im not posh or upper class just an average law abiding bloke who`s worked all my adult life and fought for this country and want the best for my little girl when she grows up,is that to much to ask!

Under Labour its the scrote`s and free loaders and criminals that benefit , under Conservatives they`ll look after those that work hard and not give a fcuk about those that don`t .Hopefully they`ll scrap the benefit system, close the borders, bring the troops home and start sorting the sh1t out in this country !


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

JAY-EL said:


> This is country is fcuked thanks to Labour and there human rights bollocks, equal oportunities and open door policy!
> 
> Will be definately be voting Conservative , Im not posh or upper class just an average law abiding bloke who`s worked all my adult life and fought for this country and want the best for my little girl when she grows up,is that to much to ask!
> 
> Under Labour its the scrote`s and free loaders and criminals that benefit , under Conservatives they`ll look after those that work hard and not give a fcuk about those that don`t .Hopefully they`ll scrap the benefit system, close the borders, bring the troops home and start sorting the sh1t out in this country !


Well the Tories will wreck my life by cutting the child tax credit system , will probably lose my house, leaving me, the wife and the 2 kids homeless, and I'm just like you, worked hard all my life.

No Tories for me.


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

KRS said:


> Just seen this on the news, Gordon forgot he was still on air :lol:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649042.stm
> 
> ...


I think everyone at some point will have said some not so nice things about someone they have just walked away from, myself included.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dezw said:


> Well the Tories will wreck my life by cutting the child tax credit system , will probably lose my house, leaving me, the wife and the 2 kids homeless, and I'm just like you, worked hard all my life.
> 
> No Tories for me.


AFAIK the Tories have said they won't cut child tax credits except to those with already comfortable incomes - which is sensible and just.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dezw said:


> I think everyone at some point will have said some not so nice things about someone they have just walked away from, myself included.


Yes but it's inexcusable in a Prime Minister - to be so inept - and so wrong.

She clearly isn't a bigot and not stupid - and she's one of his potential supporters.

"I should never have been put with that woman. Whose idea was that?"

No Tory toff would ever be so patronizing.

Tells you a lot about what New Labour really think about working people. They're really only interested in clinging to power...


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Yes but it's inexcusable in a Prime Minister - to be so inept - and so wrong.
> 
> She clearly isn't a bigot and not stupid - and she's one of his potential supporters.
> 
> Tells you a lot about what New Labour really think about working people. They're really only interested in clinging to power...


Gordon Brown is not the labour party, the biggest mistake they've made this

election is keeping him as leader, he is clearly not a natural and admits to being

shy ffs??

Party politics shouldn't be about personalities, it should be about politics:whistling:

They're all the same anyway, people should concentrate on local elections, they

can actually do something for you at a local level

How many of the fiddling fvckers were thieving on there expenses, its a full on

joke that we let these cretins do anything for us tbh


----------



## JAY-EL (Oct 20, 2008)

Dezw said:


> Well the Tories will wreck my life by cutting the child tax credit system , will probably lose my house, leaving me, the wife and the 2 kids homeless, and I'm just like you, worked hard all my life.
> 
> No Tories for me.


Thats rubbish mate , you`ll be better off in a Tory goverment!

Less scrote`s and imigrants on benefits would mean better life for all!


----------



## Evoann (Apr 22, 2010)

Lib Dems for me

I know all politicians lie..

But for me Nick Clegg seems to be the only one that sounds like he means what he say's

also body language is a big thing for me...

And i think that He came across extremly well in the live TV debates


----------



## R84 (May 10, 2009)

I don't know if there are any of you out there like me, but for the first time ever I am genuinely confused about how to vote (perhaps even to the point of apathy).

Anyway, I just tried this out and found the results quite interesting:

http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

R84 said:


> I don't know if there are any of you out there like me, but for the first time ever I am genuinely confused about how to vote (perhaps even to the point of apathy).
> 
> Anyway, I just tried this out and found the results quite interesting:
> 
> http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/


 :lol:

Can't help feeling that this isn't as independent as it makes out:rolleye:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> ...
> 
> Party politics shouldn't be about personalities, it should be about politics:whistling:
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking about personalities when I called GB inept. I was referring to his abilities - or rather inabilities as a Prime Minister. They're not the same thing at all.

Some previous Prime Ministers have been shy, distant, taciturn - but nevertheless good, decent and diligent. Others, though friendly and personable, like Tony Blair, no wise person would trust for a moment. Brown is revealed as shy, cynical and inept.

Even so, personality has always been a part of politics. Indeed, constituencies still choose their candidates for their impeccable county or Union and family credentials...


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

JAY-EL said:


> This is country is fcuked thanks to Labour and there human rights bollocks, equal oportunities and open door policy!
> 
> Will be definately be voting Conservative , Im not posh or upper class just an average law abiding bloke who`s worked all my adult life and fought for this country and want the best for my little girl when she grows up,is that to much to ask!
> 
> Under Labour its the scrote`s and free loaders and criminals that benefit , under Conservatives they`ll look after those that work hard and not give a fcuk about those that don`t .Hopefully *they`ll scrap the benefit system, close the borders, bring the troops home and start sorting the sh1t out in this country* !


If any of that had a chance of happening they'd get my vote too, unfortunately

there's not a chance, nothing will change.

What would happen if one party actually said no more benefits for anyone under

the age of 25, and I mean anyone, plus no housing or benefits for any immigrants who haven't worked for more that 10 years in this country???

What would actually happen??

When was the benefits system introduced and what was its purpose??


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

BRING ON THE BRANSTON


----------



## Aron (Mar 29, 2010)

deeppurple said:


> BRING ON THE BRANSTON


?????


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Forgot to say, too, that redistribution of wealth has a very poor track record: the super-rich have never paid more than a small proportion of the overall tax-take even when taxed very hard.
> 
> And most of the extra tax take has just made HUGE government even more possible.
> 
> ...


Completely agree, more succinct then me


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> I wasn't talking about personalities when I called GB inept. I was referring to his abilities - or rather inabilities as a Prime Minister. They're not the same thing at all.
> 
> Some previous Prime Ministers have been shy, distant, taciturn - but nevertheless good, decent and diligent. Others, though friendly and personable, like Tony Blair, no wise person would trust for a moment. Brown is revealed as shy, cynical and inept.
> 
> Even so, personality has always been a part of politics. Indeed, constituencies still choose their candidates for their impeccable county or Union and family credentials...


Prodiver again complete agreement to hear - LMAO about Blair, so so true, yet most did!!


----------



## asmustard (Sep 13, 2009)

ive been thinking about this for a while, and now ive decided that i will vote for whoever posts the least amount of sh1t through my letter box!!!! another 3 leaflets today :cursing:


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

After seeing Gordon Braan slaggin of that old dear.. i'm going to vote for him now lol

Seriously


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Dalton1988 said:


> Why not to vote for Cameron:
> 
> 
> Immediate cuts will destroy economic recovery,
> ...


The last bit is complete tripe and doesn't even deserve an answer


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

I would vote for any party that would put a stop to benefit spongers!


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

nitrogen said:


> I would vote for any party that would put a stop to benefit spongers!


x2

i think now if you aint registered to vote its too late. i might be wrong though


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> There is not a natural inclination for the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer - *unless the rich and powerful have special advantages conferred by government*, which still happens in many countries...





Prodiver said:


> Please note, Joshua, that I actualy didn't say that.
> 
> Attempts to confer advantages by government have a doubtful track record, but disadvantages conferred by governments are very effective!
> 
> ...


My apologies - I read your earlier post as you were suggesting that for a natural centralisation of wealth in the hands of the richest, it required government/state commissioning benefit to those people. My response was based on such an interpretation.

I agree with what you are saying on advantages & disadvantages - in many respects they are two sides of the same coin. Trying to spin explicit advantage to a particular group is undoubtedly more difficult to gain a popular mandate for.

Although I would agree that if there is such advantages conferred then this would certainly be a factor, I believe that it is not the only one. In many ways I believe there are many natural factors as well as artificial ones eg( legislation ) that can provide bias in the movement of wealth in a society. Quite what the extent of the role of government is in countering such factors is a judgement call, however I do believe that there are quite severe consequences for all when such biases are left unfettered.

That aside, I agree with your posts, and as usual ypu have given me a number of interesting lines to investigate further. Many thanks Pat.

J


----------



## ed220 (Mar 7, 2010)

I am voting for UKIP. This may be one of the last elections where we get a chance to secure our own democracy and own national soverenty. Over the coming years the EU will consolidate its power, its commision who is accountable to nobody, continue to make laws. Surely, elections in the future will be meaningless as as our own parliament will be accountable to the EU and its totally un-democratic commision. So vote UKIP, and even join UKIP, as our democracy is at risk.


----------



## DanB (Dec 28, 2009)

tel3563 said:


> If any of that had a chance of happening they'd get my vote too, unfortunately
> 
> there's not a chance, nothing will change.
> 
> ...


Mate you wanna look into the UK Libertarian Party for those sort of policies. They wanna massively downscale the government, end welfare policies, bring troops home, leave EU etc.

www.lpuk.org


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

BRING ON THE BRANSTON


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

I see David Cameron failed to answer the important questions last night during the televised question time. If he can't answer simple questions put to him then he's never going to get my vote


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Fair enough we're a democarcy, but BNP second on the poll...... thank Christ there aren't 60 million BBers in Britain!


----------



## dazsmith69 (Oct 29, 2009)

ed220 said:


> I am voting for UKIP. This may be one of the last elections where we get a chance to secure our own democracy and own national soverenty. Over the coming years the EU will consolidate its power, its commision who is accountable to nobody, continue to make laws. Surely, elections in the future will be meaningless as as our own parliament will be accountable to the EU and its totally un-democratic commision. So vote UKIP, and even join UKIP, as our democracy is at risk.


Dam right!

theres so many people who havent heard of them its tragic.

They'd sort this shambles out


----------



## ed220 (Mar 7, 2010)

spaynter said:


> Fair enough we're a democarcy, but BNP second on the poll...... thank Christ there aren't 60 million BBers in Britain!


Correct. The BNP are a racist, facist party. Do I believe everyone on here who say they are going to vote for the BNP agree with their extriemest views - no. Do I believe people want to vote for politicians who make laws for Britain in the interest of Britain and who are accountable to the British people, then yes. So dont waste your vote on the BNP. Protest against the political class and their utter ignorance of ignoring the British people by voting for democracy, by voting UKIP.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

GunnaGetBig said:


> I see David Cameron failed to answer the important questions last night during the televised question time. If he can't answer simple questions put to him then he's never going to get my vote


What debate did you watch lol?

Cameron walked that debate. All the polls put cam in the lead as well.

What you are talking about is when clegg (who was pathetic i thought and had absolutely zero policies as the liberals hardly have any anyway) asked him a question saying 'yes or no', cameron answered it and then clegg refuses to answer camerons question back.

I thought clegg showed himself up, he will appeal to naive voters and students though, constantly saying 'fair', 'fairer', 'equality' HAHAHA high taxes, massive inheritance taxes, no nuclear development and the worst policies on immigration of all three parties = FAIL.

Cameron spoke the most on:

1. Lower taxes to help the working class man, stimulate the private sector (which is what we need to get economy going)

2. Cutting the beaurocracy and waste.

3. Cutting benefits for scroungers who refuse to work, for british people who refuse to accept a job and stay on benefits even when they are offered work...he said they will even be trained up for the job and given work rather than stay on benefits and bleed the country dry.

4. Only party of the big three to put a cap on immigration. No other of the main parties is capping immigration!

5. He has the countries biggest business leaders all backing him.

Where did he fail exactly?

The bottom line is this, this is what it boils down to:

The tories are easily the best party to run the country, toughen up the benefits system, get the economy back again, cut beurocracy and waste. Yet the same people who are totally prejudice against them, despite the policies that their party have being superior and making much more sense, its just the same old hatred for cameron.

'He's a public school boy, hes a toff, blah blah'...he p1ssed all over the others in that debate (according to all polls as well).

People need to stop voting with their prejudice and actually vote for who has the best policies, when you compare the tories policies with the other party's they destroy them.

But sadly (and i can see it on here and other forums) there are members that regardless whoever might be going for pm or whatever the tories write in their manifesto would simply just never vote tory over old prejudice's.

It's a shame i think, because frankly its pretty blatantly obvious what this country needs, we moan about immigration, we moan about waste, we moan about scroungers, we moan about high taxes and the working class being raped by government, yet when a party comes along to help the working class and to get rid of all the sh1t and actually put right the wrongs in this country...they are put down by some due to prejudice.

As for clegg, he is worse than brown imo.

Here is my summation of the three leaders and their 3 parties:

1. Brown = not v stylish but good substance, at least has experience

Labour manifesto = Some parts good, but will not work helping us to recover the economy.

2. Cameron = Quite stylish and good substance, less experience than brown but speaks sense.

Tories = Best manifesto, imigration cap, lower taxes for working class man, cutting waste, getting rid of scroungers. Making cuts but less cuts than the liberals although pledging to remove waste.

3. Clegg = stylish good speaker but lacks any substance at all.

Liberals = lack total substance in their manifesto and trying to win over naive student votes with the whole anti nuclear policies etc which frankly are totally naive and jeapordise this country's security. Huge cuts in the economy and numbers didnt quite add up either.

Thats the way i see it. I actually thought clegg showed himsefl up, just playing for the public by saying things like 'here they go, the same two parties bickering again' blah blah, so many times... ERRR HELLO...IT'S A DEBATE LOL, CLEGG YOU GOT IGNORED COS YOUR POLICIES ARE A LOAD OF RUBBISH SO THE OTHER TWO JUST IGNORED YOU!

I think people need to seriously get rid of prejudices and actually vote for who will run this country the best, who will sort out immigration, who will sort out benefits and who will sort out the private sector of the economy as well as keeping our security safe. To me it's simple, i voted labour last time, this time im switching to tory. This working class man is voting TORY!

PS...Why are labour giving child benefit and tax credit to PEOPLE WHO EARN 50 THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR?

This is madness. Why should people on 50k a year be recieving child tax credits?

No wonder our benefits given out is greater than income tax and national insurance put together these days. Theyve messed up the system so much, bleeding the country dry.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

Dave 0511 said:


> if thats your top priority to come out of these elections, not banning supplements, then you either have a very easy life or have your priorities screwed up.
> 
> There are more important things to care about than that. No party is going to suddenly allow gear to be sold in supplements shops, so what does it matter.


Who the fuk are you to tell people what is important to them, or what their priorities are? Maybe tuna_man's live does revolve around bodybuilding, and getting stacked? Maybe this is more important to him than the economy, public or private sector job stimulus initiative, child tax credits or European tax harmonisation. Maybe he has an easy life, maybe he has a crap life where his only lifeline to sanity is training, who knows except tuna_man?

Not everyone shares the same priorities as you in life. You could argue that if you are into growing muscle you have an easy life or your priorities screwed up, as you could be earning money, or spending time with your friends and family instead.

Having freedom to choose what your goals are, and priorities are a fundamental component of self determination. If your goal was to help tuna man ensure he had the right priorities to maximise his happiness then great, but they are his to choose.

I doubt whether there is much practical difference between the parties on bodybuilding matters.

As for parties that would make AAS available over the counter, I suspect the only parties that would head in that direction would be Libertarian. Out of the 3 main parties, I would suspect that LibDem would offer the least interference with your consumption, as they have subscribed to a finer granularity evidence based approach when it comes to enforcement, meaning that AAS would be of very low priority to you. Conservative would probably be the toughest of the 3 considering their reclassification of AAS in the 1990, but more relevantly would be their recent stance that scientific evidence should be only one factor in their determination of drugs policy. There are likely to be upcoming social and international pressures with 2012 and criminalisation of AAS users would be welcomed by WADA.

J


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

Good post from Britbb.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

> What debate did you watch lol?
> 
> Cameron walked that debate. All the polls put cam in the lead as well.


This is one of the things about election time which is so fascinating. Opinions on interpretation of comparisons are a great demonstration of confirmation bias.

If a labour supporter watches the presentation, they will tend to see Brown do ok to great, and Cameron do terrible to ok, whereas a tory supporter will see Cameron do well and brown do poorly.

A similar situation occurred when Griffin (of BNP acclaim) went on tv. Those who already had subscribed to his policies would see him as being persecuted, whereas those who thought of him as a dangerous fascist saw him as looking shifty and being exposed.

IMO all the candidates squirmed under the really tough questions put to them, and failed to answer them.

Confirmation bias is the same phenomenon that causes fat people to focus upon the scientific evidence that a drug will make them slim, whilst disregarding the evidence that the substance may kill. It is also the same phenomenon that causes lads to see a south american tree bark as leading to massive muscle gains, whilst disregarding that the study was in octopus suckers in a test tube.

Confirmation bias is a completely normal and natural phenomenon though, but awareness of it does at lest give one a chance to mitigate it, and increase ones chances at getting at the truth.

J


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

J, I agree with your post about confirmed bias. However, the Nick Griffin on QuestionTime issue was different. I am very much opposed to BNP policy and Nick Griffin himself, but he was persecuted in that program. It was a very poor show by the BBC and it was not how the debate should have been conducted at all.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

spaynter said:


> Fair enough we're a democarcy, but BNP second on the poll...... thank Christ there aren't 60 million BBers in Britain!


ha ha....made me laugh :lol:


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

rdfp22 said:


> J, I agree with your post about confirmed bias. However, the Nick Griffin on QuestionTime issue was different. I am very much opposed to BNP policy and Nick Griffin himself, but he was persecuted in that program. It was a very poor show by the BBC and it was not how the debate should have been conducted at all.


Yes I agree that show was a which hunt...absolutely no balance at all....I cant stand the man but they invited him so they should have let him speak....when bigots like him are allowed to talk they soon expose themselves for what they are.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Joshua said:


> This is one of the things about election time which is so fascinating. Opinions on interpretation of comparisons are a great demonstration of confirmation bias.
> 
> If a labour supporter watches the presentation, they will tend to see Brown do ok to great, and Cameron do terrible to ok, whereas a tory supporter will see Cameron do well and brown do poorly.
> 
> ...


You also have to take into account that the polls all put cameron ahead in that debate joshua.

So it was not just my opinion versus someone elses... but instead it was the opinion of all the polls (cameron came out on top of the debate) which is a wide selection of people. Therefore according to the polls, cameron was the winner however you are right as the polls had clegg in second and brown in third. Therefore it shows that some people still thought brown or clegg performed best, otherwise they wouldnt have had any votes.

I laughed in the gym yesterday. I sat down to watch the debate, as soon as i sat down, the first person on screen was cameron, just as he was on screen a spinning class teacher looked at him and said 'i hate that man'...

So i said, why? Why do you hate him? So he looked at me and said 'why, are you gonna vote tory?'

I said to him, yes most probably, because they have the best policies for me, a working class honest man.

So, why do you hate cameron.

He looked at me blank, didnt give me an answer.

This seems to be from a lot of people, this irrational sort of hatred against the guy, even though he actually speaks a lot of sense, he has people hating him.

Now, of course i dont know this, but i think it is probably due to his posh accent.

Sad really... we live in a day and age where people will judge someone if they have a posh accent. Then we wonder why this country is a total sh1t hole right now.

... And to be fair, come to the outher parts of london, come to many areas of london and you will see how much of a fuking sh1t hole this country has become and how run down it has become in the last 13 years!

Then people wonder why the bnp are getting so much more popular these days lol. WAKE UP! Its about time people woke up and saw the damage labour have done.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Britbb said:


> Now, of course i dont know this, but i think it is probably due to his posh accent.
> 
> Sad really... we live in a day and age where people will judge someone if they have a posh accent. Then we wonder why this country is a total sh1t hole right now.


you hit the nail on the head there...if you speak well and are clearly well educated you become an instant target for all the fvckin envious cvnts in this country who think that well spoken and eductaed equals evil....much better to have some foul mouthed scumbag like John Prescot as a minister...what a wonderful example to us all he was

one of the things I hate most about this country is the hatred for success, I just dont get it, people seem to hero worship the lowest of the low, its all fvcking wrong :cursing: :cursing:


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

I don't like cameron, so what??

The fact he rode a bike to work "to be greener" and then let his bodyguards drive after him

and all the fecking reporters follow him in umpteen cars sums the guy up

Then again I don't like any politicians


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

BRING ON THE BRANSTON


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

tel3563 said:


> I don't like cameron, so what??
> 
> The fact he rode a bike to work "to be greener" and then let his bodyguards drive after him
> 
> ...


The fact that he wants to cap immigration and is the only one out of the big three parties to do that...

Thought youd be agreeing with it?

Or low taxes to stimulate private sector of economy to bring eceonomy back on track?

Or scrapping child tax credit for people on over 50k a year because they dont need benefits given to them if they earn that much.

Or Making sure that if scroungers are offered a job AND offered training for that job, if they reject that job then THEY GET THEIR BENEFITS REMOVED!

Wouldve thought youd be all for these ideas tel?

To me they just seem like common sense, what this country needs.

You dont vote for a leader, you vote for who has the manifesto that covers what you want.

In other words you vote for your mp for your constituency or for a party.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

He never actually said what the cap would be, and in all honesty we can't stop the EEC

feckers coming here anyway, so its sort of p1ssing into the wind really

I'm just cynical regarding all the parties, labour are just grasping at staying in power, tories

are desperate to get power and lib dems are just desperate 

Politics is in a very cynical state, if I thought for one minute somebody would totally

re invent the benefits system, i'd vote for them.

I'm still undecided, I was kinda saying the other day doesn't matter about leaders, but in

todays media led society its does, more than it should.


----------



## jordi (Dec 17, 2009)

Britbb said:


> *The fact that he wants to cap immigration and is the only one out of the big three parties to do that...*
> 
> SNIP


Have they stated a figure for the cap? And is it in conjunction with a 'merit' system?


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

Just spent a long time reading through this, some good points, some crap points.

As much as i hate immigration, i cannot vote BNP for the plain fact their policies are not doable even in the slightest.....the EU has caused us more trouble and strife than foreign immigrants, this country has gone downhill, from that point of view, since we re-housed Kosavans that had a tendency to not go back, aswell as when Poland joined the EU and flooded the country..literally.

The EU is the main cause IMO for over populating this Island, and god help us when Turkey join because it will/possibly get even worse.....we need to stand firm against the EU and only take in people who benefit this country, speak the language, and have valuable skill's....anyone who doesn't adhere to a very strict point system....can suck on my fat one....which wouldn't be nice.

As for the Parties, Clegg makes my skin crawl, especially the way he has played the Tories and Labour off against each other in the televised debates, Brown is clueless, absolutely horrible man, just does not connect with real people, he literally cannot communicate on a personal level.

Cameron, well, he's saying all the right things, and he does "sound" sincere, whether he is, is anyone's guess...a few policies are flawed but he has some idea's and thoughts that have certainly grabbed my attention.

Where I live, 10 years ago you would be lynched for even mentioning the tories in a polite manner, Maggie destroyed our communities, the closing of the pits etc etc - but times change and things move on, im ever so tempted to vote for Cameron, and I will definetely vote, men and women fought and died in ww1 and ww2 so we could have freedom of speech and choice, IMO, not voting is in a way dishonouring them.

Immigration seems the thing everyone is worried about, me included, but id happily pay more tax if it led to immigration being massively levelled off, the NHS and education improved, it all stems from the heavy burden on public services that the EU and mass immigration has heaped upon us.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Five-O said:


> Just spent a long time reading through this, some good points, some crap points.
> 
> As much as i hate immigration, i cannot vote BNP for the plain fact their policies are not doable even in the slightest.....the EU has caused us more trouble and strife than foreign immigrants, this country has gone downhill, from that point of view, since we re-housed Kosavans that had a tendency to not go back, aswell as when Poland joined the EU and flooded the country..literally.
> 
> ...


I'm ringing the local CIU as we speak Jimmy, expect a visit from the men in flat caps


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

tel3563 said:


> He never actually said what the cap would be, and in all honesty we can't stop the EEC
> 
> feckers coming here anyway, so its sort of p1ssing into the wind really
> 
> ...


He said though that cap would be 70 thousand as opposed to labours 120 thousand.

He also said that the new eu countries (ie poland etc) and other countries that are just joining will not be allowed to instantly come here straight away, they will have to have an adjustment time (or we'll just end up with a load of bosnians and serbs over here as well).

None of the other two parties committed to anything like this at all, refuse to put a cap on immigration.

Infact liberals are the worst, clegg was saying how any illegal immigrant who has been here for 10 years or more, will be given citizenship. WHAT!!!??? So stupid!

There are things that i actually like in all 3 parties. There are things that i dislike in all 3 parties. BUT, i agree mostly with what the tories offer and feel that they are most definately the best to get the free market up running again and private sector jobs increase.

Like i said, i voted labour before, now its got to be tories. As for cameron, well i dont think hes wonderful at all, i dont think any of the three leaders are wonderful. Im just looking at the parties and trying to evaluate my decission on the party and the ideas they have in their manifesto and the tories are way ahead in that department as far as im concerned.

I LOVE the idea that if someone on benefits is offered a job, and even offered to be trained up for that job for free as well, YET REFUSES THAT JOB OFFER INSTEAD TO SCROUNGE...then the tories will remove their benefits.

I think this is exactly what is needed to clean up all the scrounging and abuse of the system. I would have thought that many others would agree as well.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Five-O said:


> Just spent a long time reading through this, some good points, some crap points.
> 
> As much as i hate immigration, i cannot vote BNP for the plain fact their policies are not doable even in the slightest.....the EU has caused us more trouble and strife than foreign immigrants, this country has gone downhill, from that point of view, since we re-housed Kosavans that had a tendency to not go back, aswell as when Poland joined the EU and flooded the country..literally.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with you mate.

As far as i can see, it is the tories who are addressing all the issues i want addressed.

Immigration, benefits fraud/scrounging, lower taxation, increase private sector of economy, remove waste in nhs and police.

At least they are the only party thats mentioning these things, they are right on the money with regards to what people want.

Now...whether or not they can actually do this, is another story entirely lol. But at least they have plans and ideas for it and they know what needs to be done to make this country better again.

The other parties are totally ignoring these ideas, or coming out with pathetic policies instead.

I have to say, for someone who has voted labour previously, i am actually not gonna shrug my head and say 'ooooh i dont know who to vote for, theyre all as bad as each other' blah blah.

Im having the balls to say im voting tory, because i believe they are best for the working class of this country and for those who want to help themselves via hard honest work.

I know its considered socially unacceptable to say youre voting tory, but i couldnt give a fuk tbh.

The way i see it, frankly from the other two parties they are chatting a load of crap.

Infact, i give labour some credit as their manifesto isnt too bad although i feel they would ruin this country totally by not sorting out the public sector and not increasing private sector in economy. But at least they have some backbone.

However the liberals actually remind me in a way to the bnp. Except for a different reason.

The bnp focus entirely on immigration and stigma, then the rest of their policy is a load of rubbish. Whereas the liberals focus entirely on 1 or 2 policies that are garunteed vote winers from various sections of society like the no tax under 10k, or the anti nuclear policies etc popular with naive students et al.

Yet just like the bnp, coming strong on 1 or 2 things, the rest of their policy is absolute crap.

Its just that they have clegg, who can put on a nice smiley face and try to pretend he is the 'new party', when in actual fact they are the same rubbish as before, just with a shiney new pr front to them.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Britbb said:


> He said though that cap would be 70 thousand as opposed to labours 120 thousand.
> 
> He also said that the new eu countries (ie poland etc) and other countries that are just joining will not be allowed to instantly come here straight away, they will have to have an adjustment time (or we'll just end up with a load of bosnians and serbs over here as well).
> 
> ...


What about the 1 million poles that are here now??

I see where your coming from but my cynisism gets the better of me and I distrust

all of them.

The biggest issue in my agenda is too many benefits paid to scroungers and

the number of pregnant kids, and there scummy partners, that are given automatic

housing and then we pick up the bill, oh plus there benefits as well:rolleyes:

This country is down the tubes and it will NEVER get resolved, too many

issues

have gone too far, and its not all labours fault, a lot of this was started by the

tories back in there day.

JMO


----------



## Threepwood (Nov 12, 2009)

UKIP


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

tel3563 said:


> I'm ringing the local CIU as we speak Jimmy, expect a visit from the men in flat caps


go on Tel my son! :thumb:


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

Britbb said:


> Totally agree with you mate.
> 
> As far as i can see, it is the tories who are addressing all the issues i want addressed.
> 
> ...


As I say, Im from a prt of the country that has and probably always will be Labour, but I think Cameron has my vote, ive just more faith in his idea's and he does seem to genuinley want to change the UK for the better, i cannot believe how Brown has basically tried to win an election campaign based on all the screw up's Labour have made since they got power....unbelievable.

Got to say though, i bet Blair is laughing his t1ts off, because that cretin has deffo got some explaining to do, he got out at the right time, and is now laughing all the way to the bank :innocent: :thumb:


----------



## Five-O (May 21, 2006)

Britbb said:


> Totally agree with you mate.
> 
> As far as i can see, it is the tories who are addressing all the issues i want addressed.
> 
> ...


and for the record bud I can't but not agree, good post, common sense and hits the button :beer:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Reading through this thread gives an unavoidable impression of voter cynicism: "they're all the same; they're all greedy for power" etc.

And the fact is that whoever wins the election will receive a poisoned chalice: they will have to increase taxes enormously and probably won't even be able to protect the front-line servides they all claim they will.

Some suggest that the last thing the Tories ought to do is win if they want to survive; better to let Labour win and for the Tories pick up the pieces when Labour fails and there's public unrest within a year ot two...

So, can I point members back to the fact that voting for a Party or preferred Prime Minister is the antithesis of democracy. You may agree with some of a Party's policies, but not others, and whatever they put in their manifestos, they can rarely achieve their goals.

What's by far most important is to vote for a candidate that will most diligently represent you - not simply your preferred policies - and your fellow constituents.

And to break the power of the old Parties, consider voting for Independent (not UKIP!) candidates, who will not be cowed by the whip system in Parliament.

If voting honestly this way results in a hung Parliament it won't matter: then Parties must thrash out acceptable and practicable policies that Parliament will pass.


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

I had a huge post written out about how i feel about it, then the wee fella pressed the reset button and pc powered down and i lost the lot:cursing:

I haven't the time to re-write it all out, but Prodiver, i agree that no matter who wins, they are not *capable* of seeing through their policies the way they claim they will. Even now, after lots of research i am still undecided!

I know what their manifesto's say, i just don't trust ANY of them. I'll be honest, if there was a party who i believed i could trust to do their what they say they will(or even just to try their best!!!) then i'd vote em. Sadly there isn't imo.

Tbh, i think if someone wants to be a politician they should be taken out and shot!(clearly they are a wrong 'un) :laugh:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Mrs Weeman said:


> ...
> 
> I know what their manifesto's say, i just don't trust ANY of them. I'll be honest, if there was a party who i believed i could trust to do their what they say they will(or even just to try their best!!!) then i'd vote em. Sadly there isn't imo...


So why even consider voting for a Party!?

Go to the hustings - in the best Scottish and British tradition! - and then vote for the candidate - the individual - who will most diligently represent you and your fellow constituents - not simply promise attractive policies.

Consider voting for a Independent.

And if you consider no candidate is worthy, vote "none of the above", or spoil your ballot paper.


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

I'm considering spoiling my paper tbh:eek:


----------



## Keen (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm voting SNP, if I lived in England i'd probably vote LidDem, Tories would be my absolute last choice.


----------



## Testoholic (Jun 13, 2009)

im switching my vote, after the sexual assult of an 18year old girl in our town by 3 polish men, whichever party gets these type of ppl out!!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Mrs Weeman said:


> I'm considering spoiling my paper tbh:eek:


Does this mean you've sussed out all the candidates and all are crap?

Which may very well be the case!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Testaholic said:


> im switching my vote, after the sexual assult of an 18year old girl in our town by 3 polish men, whichever party gets these type of ppl out!!


And which Party would that be - that can break EU rules?

And don't some Brits commit sexual assault? Should we send them to Poland?


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

They are all a bunch of whinging, lying, fat, childish, middle aged men. So none. Was going to vote, not now after the last 2 weeks of seeing them argue like a bunch of kids on TV.


----------



## Testoholic (Jun 13, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> And which Party would that be - that can break EU rules?


im not saying all polish people lol, i should have been clearer, skilled/traded men/women by all means yes are welcome, but these 3 men were unskilled, only one spoke english and one had a previous conviction!!!...why are they getting in??????????


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Does this mean you've sussed out all the candidates and all are crap?
> 
> Which may very well be the case!


Well i can't seem to find ONE that *i* find trustworthy:whistling:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Testaholic said:


> im not saying all polish people lol, i should have been clearer, skilled/traded men/women by all means yes are welcome, but these 3 men were unskilled, only one spoke english and one had a previous conviction!!!...why are they getting in??????????


Because of free movement of EU citizens within the Union, no matter what their record - same goes for UK citizens.

Question is, do you think Britain would be better off out of the EU?

Some consider the arguments for being in are very unconvincing: that our trade and political relations with the US and the Commonwealth would be better if we were out, and our trade with Europe actually unaffected.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Mrs Weeman said:


> Well i can't seem to find ONE that *i* find *trustworthy* :whistling:


Fair enough! - that's the best reason to spoil your ballot paper accordingly. :thumb:


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

I think we should get out of the EU, should NEVER have joined in the first place imo!


----------



## Testoholic (Jun 13, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Because of free movement of EU citizens within the Union, no matter what their record - same goes for UK citizens.
> 
> Question is, do you think Britain would be better off out of the EU?
> 
> Some consider the arguments for being in are very unconvincing: that our trade and political relations with the US and the Commonwealth would be better if we were out, and our trade with Europe actually unaffected.


so what are you suggesting?


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Keen said:


> I'm voting SNP, if I lived in England i'd probably vote LidDem, Tories would be my absolute last choice.


Just out of interest, i know in scotland the tory party seem to be terribly unpopular.

Can i ask why you dont like them so much?

Because, when i examine the actual policies of the tories (and you say you would prob vote lib dem if u were in england) if i examine and compare policies between the two, lets see what we get:

1. Tories want to lower taxes for everyone.

Lib dems want to increase taxes for everyone except scrap taxes for those who earn under 10k per year.

2. Tories want a strong trident updated nuclear detterant.

Lib dems dont know what they want yet.

3. Tories have the backing of over 100 of the biggest private sector firms with regards to economy.

Lib dems have nothing, they are behind labour with regards to economy.

4. Tories pledge to put a cap on immigration.

Lib dems say no cap and also say that any illegal immigrants who have been here over a 'quarentine' period will be welcome to stay as opposed to be deported.

5. Tories want to cut child tax break allowance by 400m, by cutting it to the wealthiest families claiming for tax credits ie those who earn over 50k per year.

Lib dems want to cut by 1.2 billion! Cutting child tax credits to everyone regardless of income.

6. Tories pledge to clean up the benefits system, they have a new policy whereby those unemployed and claiming benefit will be offered a suitable job and even offered free training for that job, if they reject the job and training then they lose their rights to claim benefits (in other words, they stop scrounging and get nothing).

Lib dems will increase benefits.

7. Tories pledge to remove beaurocracy and waste in nhs, government and police force.

Havent heard what lib dems policies are at all as they havent mentioned anything on this.

8. Tories want to stimulate the private sector of commerce so that the economy grows back.

Lib dems (clegg) again have failed to mention anything about any of this.

9. Tories want us to distance ourselves from europe and regain the power, whilst remaining allies but not having europe run us.

Lib dems want to be part of the euro and join the euro.

...

Ok, so ive written out some differences here.

Now. What is it exactly you dislike about the tories? You dont like the fact they want to clean up the benefits system and stop scrounging?

You dont like the fact that people who earn over 50k per year will not be allowed tax credits for children (even though they can clearly afford it).

You dont like the fact that tories will be far stronger on immigration?

You dont like the fact that tories want a strong nuclear detterant?

You dont like the fact that the tories get the backing of the biggest private sector businesses in the country to bring back the economy?

You see. To me, i can not for the life of me understand how one could 'hate' the tories so much when they have some damn good policies that just look like complete common sense.

Unless of course we go straight back to the 'ol prejudice, which frankly im sick of seeing or hearing. Where 'ya cant vote tory cos der rich toffs innit' and because cameron speaks with a posh accent. GROW UP!!

What the fuk has labour done to this economy except totally wreck it and keep it reliant on public services and bankrupt the country?

The fact it seems socially acceptable for people to hate someoene because they are rich or successful is just sickening in my opinion and really sums up why so many people are on benefits in the first place in this country.

This attitude that you cant vote for someone because they are well educated and speak good english grammar, they are 'too middle class'. Is just so tiresome these days. VOTE FOR WHO HAS THE BEST POLICIES!!!

I am a working class man, low income, brought up in an estate in greater london, im voting tory. Ive put aside any prejudice about some guy because hes from a wealthy background or he speaks with a 'posh' accent and im looking at who is best to run the country. To me its a clear choice.

It all stems from the old unions and the thatcher era. But what people dont realise is that labour are far worse for the working class man than the tories, higher taxes = we keep less of our hard earned income.

And im not saying that this is the reason why you hate the tories, but im sure that it is why some people hate cameron and his party. It is just like a rich spoilt princess saying 'i hate all the working class' and looking down her nose at them. It is exactly the same type of prejudice. Yet one seems socially acceptable (hatred of succesful and rich people) and the other totally unacceptable (hatred of poor people)...when in actual fact (and this is what ive come to realise) myself as a working class man, i do not 'hate the rich' and resent them, I WANT TO LEARN FROM THEM, BECAUSE I WANT TO BECOME RICH MYSELF AND BETTER MYSELF!

And i want to be able to be given the chances to do this on my own, by hard work! Not relying on government hand outs and not scrounging!

Oh, one last thing...look this up if you dont believe me. For all those that actually have this attitude towards the tories... LOL... YOU NEED TO LOOK INTO NICK CLEGG'S BACKGROUND 

Grandson of a baroness and the CEO of a major bank. Lol. People speak of cameron being from a wealthy aristocratic family (he is), except clegg is from an even wealthier one


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

britbb.

some very good info there, i learned 2 things in that post.

nice one


----------



## Robbyg (Feb 25, 2008)

Exellent post again


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

I'm confused as fcuk Adam, I don't know what to do lol! I think Nick Clegg's probably the best debater but it seems silly to elect someone based on that. I did think Cameron's policies sounded good on thursday. I think I need to re-watch all the election debates and read the manifestos. TBH whoever can keep islamic extremists from taking down the country from the inside out has my vote. Maybe that's BNP lol


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Britbb said:


> 1. Tories want to lower taxes for everyone.
> 
> Lib dems want to increase taxes for everyone except scrap taxes for those who earn under 10k per year.


Just to clarify this point that's not how the UK Tax system works.

The Lib Dem pledge to remove tax on the first £10K will benefit everyone in the regardless of whether they earn £5k or £60k. The tax increase the Lib Dems propose is for people who earn > £100K - ie in their opinion the most comfortable in society. Most people in the UK fit happily into the £0-£99999 wage bracket and so most people would benefit from this change.

The Tories haven't proposed a tax cut for anyone except the abolition of Inheritance tax which will benefit only the richest few in society though they have committed to stop the national insurance rise proposed by Labour.


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

I'm interested to see a reply from lostgeordie to brittbb's post.

Its seems pretty clear (I think) that BrittBB is supporting the conservatives and lostgeordie is supporting labour (unless i've read things wrong) 

Britt BB has given his eloquent yet slightly one eyed opinion of the situation.

Would lostgeordie care to put labours side of things?

Would be very interesting


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

A sort of working man's election debate


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

BritBB's post is a contrast of Tory polices vs Lib Dem policies, not Labour policies... or did you mean I should try and contrast Labour Policies vs Lib Dem policies also?


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Nope.

I think he's discounted labour as a party who can win and therefore compared lib dem Vs tory.

As you appear to be more of an advocate of labour, which is the nearest party (at least traditionally) to a socialist party (which I think you would have an allegiance to), it would be intersting to take your educated take on the arguments for a labour vote as opposed to tory (or lib dem if you like).

Both sides of the story put eloquently.


----------



## jordi (Dec 17, 2009)

Britbb said:


> Just out of interest, i know in scotland the tory party seem to be terribly unpopular.
> 
> Can i ask why you dont like them so much?
> 
> ...


@Phys Sam

I think Britbb's post was in response to Keen's post and not just a dismissal of Labour. Unless I'm totally mistaken.


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Sadly, at some point we will need the Tories because they are heavy-handed enough to do the things others are scared to mention, ie immigration policy, tax relief.

One stint though, this time, not 15 years.

Their bad points I think; the wealth of individuals is irrelevant so long as the Nation registers as wealthy. Sell infrastructure for a quick buck. Deaf to suggestion or public outcry. Corporate mentality. Ignorant drugs policy. Police-state.

I still prefer Labour but will give the LDs a go, just once I think they should be given the baton. Their political reform (voting count etc) is what I want to see.


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

Britbb said:


> You also have to take into account that the polls all put cameron ahead in that debate joshua.
> 
> So it was not just my opinion versus someone elses... but instead it was the opinion of all the polls (cameron came out on top of the debate) which is a wide selection of people. Therefore according to the polls, cameron was the winner however you are right as the polls had clegg in second and brown in third. Therefore it shows that some people still thought brown or clegg performed best, otherwise they wouldnt have had any votes.
> 
> ...





Britbb said:


> I totally agree with you here.
> 
> We are in the worse position financially we have ever been in history.
> 
> ...





Lostgeordie said:


> They strive for wealth at the expense of those who need it most. The overall wealth increases under a Tory government as does the gap between rich and poor.
> 
> I cannot in good conscience vote for a party who will make life worse for those really on the breadline (not those of us who moan that our disposable income is decreasing who are actually quite well off because we HAVE disposable income)
> 
> I'm actually quite pleased to see the Tories in 3rd place on this straw poll... but a bit scared to see the BNP as high as they are. I guess that's to be expected when immigration is such a hot topic amidst a recession.


@jordi - if you read the whole thread through and not just that one post, there is an underlying sense of these guys having opposing views.

Now actually, lostgeordie does at one point say lib dems fit more with his personal views, however they have no chance where he lives, and he can't bring himself to vote tory.

Now that aside, It would appear that he is the only poster who has got anywhere close to forming reasoned argument as to why we should consider not voting tory.

I for one (probably the only one  ) would like to hear an opposing view to BrittBB's - just out of interest.


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

Okay well that's pretty easy - the Lib Dems have a lot of policies I agree with as well as Labour so I will reply directly to the above post. It's very easy to put whatever spin you like on this stuff.

1. Tories want to lower taxes for richest in Britain by abolishing the inheritance tax, they also oppose the Labour Tax rise believing that they can pay for all of the services they intend to maintain by making savings in Whitehall.

Lib Dems want to lower taxes for everyone in Britain who earns less than £100K, paying for it by raising taxes for those with 6 figure salaries and taxing the banking system. They will also introduce a mansion tax for houses worth £2 million or more

2. Tories want a strong trident updated nuclear deterrent at a cost of £100 billion

Lib dems believe that Trident is outdated and that the world has changed since the cold war. Committing that sort of money to a system that was designed to flatten Russian cities seems ludicrous to me.

3. Tories have the backing of over 100 of the biggest private sector firms with regards to economy who would directly benefit financially from the Tory "Less Government" approach. Self interest in the business community is endemic in politics. That's why the trade unions support Labour...

Lib dems have a manifesto more detailed than any of the other parties, including Labour, though it's fair to say that none of the parties have been up front about the depth of the cuts that will be needed to reduce the deficit - possibly because they just don't know.

4. Tories pledge to put a cap on immigration from outside the EU. They cannot put a cap on immigration from inside the EU which accounts for 80% of our immigration.

Lib dems say no cap because it's just not sensible and also say that any illegal immigrants who have been here over a 'quarantine' period will be welcome to stay as long as they speak English and do community service to compensate for their initial illegal entry. The Tories have no plans to deal with these people who are often stuck in the underbelly of society and are involved in criminal activity.

5. Tories want to cut child tax break allowance by 400m, by cutting it to the wealthiest families claiming for tax credits ie those who earn over 50k per year.

Lib dems want to restrict Tax credits to those who need them most rather than those people who want a little more disposable income to spend each month.

6. Tories pledge to clean up the benefits system, they have a new policy whereby those unemployed and claiming benefit will be offered a suitable job and even offered free training for that job, if they reject the job and training then they lose their rights to claim benefits (in other words, they stop scrounging and get nothing).

Lib dems believe that the benefits system is being abused and it needs to be changed to be fairer to those people who genuinely need those benefits. They have committed to reduce the number of NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) in a similar manner.

7. Tories pledge to remove bureaucracy and waste in nhs, government and police force while also cutting spending to the police.

Lib Dems also want to remove waste out of the system but they aren't naive enough to think they can bank on these savings and have costed much of their spending plans elsewhere.

8. Tories want to stimulate the private sector of commerce so that the economy grows while taking £6 billion out of the economy in the first year to make sure that the very richest in society are taken care of.

Lib dems want to move us back into "Building things" rather than gambling on the financial markets.

9. Tories want us to distance ourselves from europe and regain the power, whilst remaining allies but not having europe run us, which cannot be done. When part of a larger community if you start to opt out of the measures you also start to opt out of the benefits.

Lib dems have pledged to hold a referendum on entry into the euro if and when the financial stimulus for the decision is there. Lib Dems are committed to working within europe and realise that our partnership in Europe is crucial to our financial recovery.

-------------------------------------

Do I think that it's a 2 horse race? No, I honestly don't, our electoral system is so flawed that even based on today's polls which have the Tories 6 points clear of Labour, they will have the 2 parties will have the same number of seats. I think the political system needs to be reformed and all 3 parties have policies on this.

It has also been said that if anyone wins this election outright they will be kept out of power for a generation due to the deep cuts they will have to make in order to reduce the deficit.

I'm not telling you to vote Labour or Lib Dem or even Tory. All I suggest is that you make sure you understand their policies before you make your decision. Partly the burden of responsibility is on them to communicate clearly and honestly but we have our own responsibility to make sure we understand them. Sadly this is something Mr Brown is not good at and it is costing Labour.

Given the recent surge of support for the Lib Dems in my own constituency I may well be voting Lib Dems because it is my firm belief that the Tories will endanger the economic recovery and make things harder for the very worst in society. Plus Chris Grayling's homophobic remarks make we worry about what's under the surface of their policies.

Whether I vote Labour or Lib Dem it will be on the basis that either of these parties will better represent my views in parliament than the Tories will.


----------



## jordi (Dec 17, 2009)

@Phys Sam

Nope, you're not alone. I like to hear from all sides as well.

Being an exiled Geordie myself, here are my feelings toward the Conservatives.

Entire communities destroyed, villages unemployed *like that* and they didn't give a f***in s**t. It isn't so long ago that we have forgotten, I certainly doubt many have forgiven. The closures of the pits and shipyards may well have been inevitable but they could have been handled much better, we (my family) felt abandoned, used, abused and left to hang. THAT is why I'd never vote Conservative, they may not be the same people but they are the same party with the same political beliefs.

If a group of people ripped your heart from your chest when they wanted nothing from you, then returned with honey dripping from their tongues when you were useful to them, would you trust them? Could you?

Not me. I'm not so naive to believe that there is a massive difference between the main parties but I'm not going to vote for one that nearly destroyed me regardless how sweet their lies!


----------



## phys sam (Jan 11, 2008)

thanks for the effort lostgeordie - just what I was after.

It is interesting that in the race for votes by all parties, so many issues just don't get raised.

I can picture mandelson (and the other parties equivalents) standing just off stage smiling having given the candidates there two or three sentences to repeat ad nauseum.

I mean how many times could brown tell us that the tories will help the rich and cut taxes.

How many times could Clegg get 'old parties' into his speech?

How many times could cameron say 'tax on jobs'?

What about other issues and the fact that all parties had over 70% of the necessary cuts to explain - well no one wanted to talk about that.

Even in the interactive question time afterwards, Ed Balls and liam fox avoid question after question. If I hear 'the real question is' one more time I could scream!

The real question is the question you were asked directly [email protected]!

The sad truth is, none of them can actually tell us the truth (except vince cable who somehow has taken on the role of the messiah - marvelous chap, but we'll probably discover that he's also been a very naughty boy and counted the same savings twice  )

....and at the end of the day....a large percentage of people won't vote.....an equally large number of voters won't vote for:

cameron - because his heads a funny shape and far go too shiny

brown - because he does that funny sucking in bottom lip thing

clegg - because he has german ancestry and after all we won the war (at least that's what the mail said).

As a final point, it's interesting to see that the Times is supporting cameron now and that the old labour friendly guardian has switched allegiances to go for Clegg.

Hmmm


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

It amazes me that any autonomous, thinking person can belong to a political party - or vote for one!

I could never be a member of one - it would be a denial of my intelligence, choice and independence.

Of course I may approve of some policies advanced by a particular Party - but I'm thoroughly against others. So voting for a Party is unthinkable.

The idea that, on balance, a particular Party embodies the welfare of UK citizens better than another is simply laughable. No party today can afford to be truly partisan once in government. If anything, socialist policies, which ought to be fair and unifying, have historically caused more poverty and division than patrician policies.

So all this talk of voting Labour, or Conservative, or Lib Dem or whatever, or for Brown, Cameron or Clegg is just a form of self-delusional masturbation. None will in fact be able to deliver what they promise.

What we really need is for many more Independent MPs in Parliament who will defy any Whip, keep Parties and caucuses in check and force any Government to consider and argue their policies very carefully for the benefit of the country, not themselves and their supporters.

If you vote for the candidate that most ably represents you - not your favoured policies and not primarily for a Party - we may get a so-called "hung Parliament" - but this will encourage government for the benefit of the nation, not the Parties.


----------



## ed220 (Mar 7, 2010)

tel3563 said:


> He never actually said what the cap would be, and in all honesty *we can't stop the EEC *
> 
> *
> feckers coming here anyway*, so its sort of p1ssing into the wind really
> ...


UKIP is the party that would definitally be able to sort the two issues above. They would be able to control immigration from the EU due to pulling out from it which will put europeans in the same category will people from the rest of the world, along with a 5 year freeze on permenant settlement. The benefit system would be re-invented with their 'workfare not wellfare' policy whch saves the taxpayer aroun £8 Bn.


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

BRING ON THE BRANSTON


----------



## jordi (Dec 17, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> It amazes me that any autonomous, thinking person can belong to a political party - or vote for one!
> 
> I could never be a member of one - it would be a denial of my intelligence, choice and independence.
> 
> ...


*My favourite kind!!!* :lol: :lol: :lol:

In all seriousness though having looked into my local candidates online (as I'm overseas) they all toe their party line. Only with a face-to-face interview of some length with each candidate would I be able to discern any correlation between their beliefs, values and according votes on issues with my own. This simply doesn't happen and so I'm left with a choice to:

a) protest vote (nota)

B) not vote

c) vote according to the party the candidates represent as opposed to the candidates themselves

This is compounded by the fact I can look on theyworkforyou.whatever and see how my previous representative looked after my interests with no comparison as to how a new candidate would. I.e. - my MP attended x amount of votes which is above average and replied to x amount of queries which is below average, which is all fine and well if I'm playing constituency Top-Trumps but not much use really as a comparison tool for voting (except to say she at least was average in most things). :confused1:

(btw I'm ever so slightly inebriated so any mistakes in the above may be blamed solely on the abuse of alcohol, ta)! :beer:


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

AlasTTTair said:


> I'm confused as fcuk Adam, I don't know what to do lol! I think Nick Clegg's probably the best debater but it seems silly to elect someone based on that. I did think Cameron's policies sounded good on thursday. I think I need to re-watch all the election debates and read the manifestos. TBH whoever can keep islamic extremists from taking down the country from the inside out has my vote. Maybe that's BNP lol


Actually mate i totally agree with you.

Clegg is the best speaker. At first he definatly had me thinking, pondering on who the hell to vote for, infact he opened up the whole lib dem party as a realistic option. He is a great party speaker.

But as the debates went on, he just seems to lack any substance at all. Even brown has substance. I will give fair dues to brown because he does have substance and on things like foreign policy, terrorism etc the guy has much more experience than the other two, hes been at eth forefront and he is definately no fool.

But...i have to vote for who i think will run the country the best and also who is best for me. So realistically whilst clegg is a good speaker, the lib dems have the worst policies of all three.

The tories seem to have some really damn good policies. Thats why they get my vote:

1. Lower taxes, to help private sector and working class man

2. Immigration cap

3. If people claiming benefits are offered a job and free training yet refuse that job, then they lose entitlement to their benefits (so they should)!

4. Take back some power from europe whilst still remaining allies.

5. Strong nuclear detterent via the new trident upgrade

6. Cut down on government waste and beurocracy.

7. Clean up the nhs and police force by removing the totally wasteful public sector jobs that create huge innefficiency and beaurocracy and make the nhs and police force worse than what they should be.

8. Getting rid of stamp duty for first time home buyers.

These to me are the main reasons why i want to vote for the tories.

I have set up my own small business and it suffered during the recession, i was lucky to keep it running, i work v hard and pay high taxes and am not entitled to any help whatsoever. Labour have failed me totally.

When i look at the above policies, i just think 'COMMON SENSE', yet they are the only party that seems to be doing these.

The rest just keep messing around with the same old sh1t.

Im actually pretty certain that if the name 'conservative' was changed. That if there was a brand new party that had the tory manifesto and it was lead by someone who didnt have a 'posh accent', then this party with this manifesto would totally clean up and sweep the election.

Im convinced that it is only people's bitter prejudice's against the tories that stop them voting for them. As far as i can see, labour have fukd everything up in this country and ruined life for the working class man who they are supposed to represent. Theyve done such a bad job that it has caused the bnp to gain 10x more popularity since previous. It's time for this crap to come to an end, for good hopefully.


----------



## jordi (Dec 17, 2009)

Britbb said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Im actually pretty certain that if the name 'conservative' was changed. That if there was a brand new party that had the tory manifesto *and it was lead by someone who didnt have a 'posh accent'*, then this party with this manifesto would totally clean up and sweep the election.
> 
> ...


Sorry to paraphrase you, I just don't want to post a massive repeat of everything you said just to address one or two points.

I won't vote Conservative for reasons given above, it matters not one jot what the accent of the person leading the party is. It matters not his race, religion, creed or calling; if he represents the Conservative party, with it's current allegiances and policies I would not vote for it. If they changed their name to the Happy Caring Tough Love Party but kept their views I would not vote for it.

I'm not trying to get into an argument here Britbb as I like reading your thoughts but the whole 'people won't vote for him if he's posh' argument is slightly condescending don't you think? Or are poor (non-posh) people too stupid to look beneath the surface?


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

jordi said:


> @Phys Sam
> 
> Nope, you're not alone. I like to hear from all sides as well.
> 
> ...


And that is exactly why...

If the tories simply changed their name and put a new leader in.

Yet used the same manifesto they have.

Ie if a brand new party came in, with a decent likeable leader which had exactly the same current policies as the tories...

They would sweep this election.

People vote for old prejudice's and stereotypes. It's simple.

Instead of voting for who has the best policies.

The sad fact is, that as much as many areas of the country were crippled under the thatcher years due to privatisation and due to our industry crumbling. It was going to happen whoever was in power.

It was inevitably going to happen because on a glabal scale, we were far too innefficient, thats the sad fact. Why would businesses buy our coal when they can get it far cheaper in china? That is the way the world went and as a result it was inevitable that british industry would shut down sooner or later.

Thatcher pulled the plug, rather than continue propping it up via more and more loans.

Gordon brown and labour on the other hand, have created more and more useless public sector jobs that the private sector can no longer prop up, and are continuously borrowing more and more to keep those public sector jobs hence why we have our biggest national debt right now.

Thatcher thought essentially why back up an industry that is going to crumble...brown is flogging a dead horse that he and is party created! The difference is that browns dead horse actually causes much more inefficiency in nhs and police than anything else!

What thatcher got wrong was the redevelopment of the areas hit hardest by privatisation. That was the tories fault, they should have had a plan to retrain and re develop the areas.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

jordi said:


> Sorry to paraphrase you, I just don't want to post a massive repeat of everything you said just to address one or two points.
> 
> I won't vote Conservative for reasons given above, it matters not one jot what the accent of the person leading the party is. It matters not his race, religion, creed or calling; if he represents the Conservative party, with it's current allegiances and policies I would not vote for it. If they changed their name to the Happy Caring Tough Love Party but kept their views I would not vote for it.
> 
> I'm not trying to get into an argument here Britbb as I like reading your thoughts but the whole 'people won't vote for him if he's posh' argument is slightly condescending don't you think? Or are poor (non-posh) people too stupid to look beneath the surface?


No i totally agree with you and i can see your point.

Fella, i am one of those 'poor, non-posh' people you speak of as well.

Dont forget, you're talking to a lad who grew up in a sh1t council estate in north london here, the difference between me and the other idiots on the estate is that i believe in helping myself, tried to study hard and also have good values.

But i totally understand your viewpoint, the tories back under thatcher ruined the area u lived in. Although sadly it was inevitable due to the global markets going the way they did...the tories did not help retrain or back up the areas that were hit hardest, this was their big mistake and as a result those areas were left deprived.

But what im saying is. If a brand new party emerged and it used the new tory manifesto with the points ive mentioned that are extremely beneficial to the working class. Then they would sweep the election.

Or to put it simply:

If you just read each manifesto and each party idea without knowing which party they actually belonged to (so absolutely no discrimination can be used) i have a sneaky feeling that with things like:

1. cap on immigration

2. people who refuse work and refuse to be trained up for a job they are offered will lose their benefits

3. more power to uk and less to europe

4. lower taxes for working class families

5. reducation of waste and beaurocracy in police force and nhs

Im pretty sure that this party would easily get the majority of the votes.

It's only when people then read 'TORY PARTY' next to it...thats when they refuse to vote for them.

If i were to create a new party, id probably use most of the tory manifesto and also one of the lib dems policies (which i think is a very good idea) that is not taxing anyone who earns less than 10k, and probably least of all would be labours policies on the economy as i think they would be a disaster.

The 'common sense' party! :thumb:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

I repeat: whyever are you all still batting on about voting for a Party!?

Actually I know why: because Parties and the media to their own advantage perpetuate the lie that our political system can only operate through parties, and real intormation on our Constitution is not properly taught in schools.

All parties' stated policies are irrelevant: none will truthfully be able to deliver what they promise.

You need to judge which - or none - of your candidates will most diligently represent all his constituents, not the one whose promises or policies you find most seductive.

This is what an MP is sworn to do above all else - not toe a Party line, not serve primarily his Party and supporters - but represent all his constituents.

Representing them does not mean foisting on them a Party's policies - it means listening to them regularly, being about the constituency more than in Westminster, and speaking on their behalf in the Commons to affect Government policy!

You may think your Labour candidate, or Tory candidate, etc. will best represent all his constituents. But this is just not credible, as virtually no Party MPs ever defy their Whips even when their constituents rally against Government policy (for instance over airport runways, hospital closures, etc.).

It is only by electing more Independent MPs that Government will become more responsive to the people, and not just make sedutive promises at election time.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> I repeat: whyever are you all still batting on about voting for a Party!?
> 
> Actually I know why: because Parties and the media to their own advantage perpetuate the lie that our political system can only operate through parties, and real intormation on our Constitution is not properly taught in schools.
> 
> ...


I agree with that so much. The big problem with party politics being the pressure for Party MPs to tow the party line, and that when a backbencher consistently doesn't and votes to their conscience or for their constituency over the party line they eventually get 'the whip removed' which effectively means they no longer are allowed to influence party policy at all and often get blocked on constituency issues as a punishment.

It sucks, especially as so many of them sacrifice constituency representation in order to keep in with the front bench and leadership of their party. To my mind there is A LOT wrong with the political system here in the UK, from the 'first past the post' system to the way parliament and party politics works in general. I think it's far less democratic than it at a glance appears or claims to be.


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> I repeat: whyever are you all still batting on about voting for a Party!?
> 
> Actually I know why: because Parties and the media to their own advantage perpetuate the lie that our political system can only operate through parties, and real intormation on our Constitution is not properly taught in schools.
> 
> ...


Well to be honest, the reason im looking at what each party has to offer is simple.

I believe that this country is in a total mess right now.

I would love to see in my constituency the scroungers and benefit fraudsters have to get jobs or have their benefits removed.

I would also love to see myself paying a lower tax rate.

The mp 'who represents most the people in my constituency' might not necessarily be the one that i feel will do the most to making this country a better place to live in, again.

I am looking at specific parties because each one is pledging different policies. I am looking to see what party pledges things that i believe are the most important.

For instance...it is not upto my constituency's mp to declare a whole cap on immigration. However i feel it is necessary for this country (and my constituency) to become a better place. Therefore im gonna be much more impressed with the party that offers this.

I do agree though, but sadly most people are just not engaged in politics to bother looking at their individual mp's let alone listen to them speak. I have watched commons on tv a few times, but all i see are the ministers or those in government or shadow government debating...my mp for my constituency isnt even shown.

Of course it would be a great place if each individual constituency had individual debates and we could know about each one. However it's just not possible without tons of money being spent.

So instead, i get a few leaflets through my door, have even had a bnp leaflet through the door. If i were to vote for the person who i feel would run my constituency and represent it the best, it would be based on a little slip of paper that comes through the door.

When in actual fact, things like the economy, which will affect me and the other people in my constituency far more than a local mp could, are only going to be addressed by the party's policy rather than the specific mp.

So...i read each of the candidates slips of paper, read them, find out about them. Then i go to see which party has the best ideas to bring the country forward.

Then i vote.

Thats how i do it.

Paddy, why does there have to be a certain way people must vote?

Surely it's their choice?

If someone doesnt want to vote for their constituencies conservative representative because he happens to have a party leader (cameron) who talks with a posh accent.

Or if someone doesnt want to vote for their constituencies labour representative because he believes the labour manifesto on public sector and private sector is all wrong.

Or is someone doesnt want to vote for the lib dem candidate in their constituency because they think clegg lacks any real conviction...

Surely thats upto them? It's their vote.

Everyone votes for a different reason.

For instance...if you were a dole scrounger yourself and wanted to carry on scrounging, then even if the tory mp for your constituency was probably the best to represent the people of the constiuency the best...you are hardly gonna vote for him/her because they will take away your benefits for scrounging.

Just shows that everyone votes for different reasons...some even vote tactically just to try to stop another party getting a seat.

Neither is right or wrong.

I agree that if everyone in the country did this, if everyone voted for who was actually best to run their constituency the fairest for the people in it and studied each candidate, then the people would get a lot more out of their government. But with the way the media is, i very much doubt that it will ever be like this again.

Anyway, why would each party have pledges and a manifesto if it was just about constituency candidates?

We have that for our council elections and local elections... What im looking for, is who will actually turn this country around, not just my constituency.

Does this mean im wrong and not allowed to vote based on this principle?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Britbb - Adam - I've no doubt whatsoever that this country is indeed in a real mess!

The question is, what is the best solution?

I have no doubt that none of the Parties has any real grip on the solution precisely because they all approach it from an exisiting doctrinaire, self-interested Labour, Tory or whatever standpoint, and not a pragmatic one focused on the benefit of the people and worked out in the Commons.

People know this instinctively, but express it simply in terms of "they're all the same". Party politics is why current turnouts are so low.

All the Parties offer seductive policies in their manifestos at election time, but history shows they never do deliver, so there's no point in reading their transparently absurd literature.

Until the 60s policy manifestos simply didn't exist: election pamphlets concentrated on the personal philosophy, character and track record of candidates to show why they would be solid, diligent representatives of their constituents.

Candidates used to "do the stump": speak and answer questions at halls all over their constituencies, not just flit through areas behind speaker-vans, glad-hand a few selected folk and rely on being the [insert Party here] candidate.

And in days when transport was far more difficult for most than today, the halls were filled with a mixture of all classes. Britons were (in)famous for their political awareness and participation, and there was much argument and heckling.

People wanted to see the candidates in action and they liked best those whose lives, local interests and character were most relevant to them. MPs who only did Saturday surgeries and were not regularly seen around their constituency were not likely to be re-elected. There were many excellent Independent MPs before the 60s.

So to achieve that pragmatic approach to the country's problems we have only to return to our true Constitution and vote *not* for a (by definition) partsian Party, but for the candidate who will most ably and diligently represent all his constituents.

Once in Parliament there would again be cabals, caucuses and alliances of MPs advocating and persuading about certain policies. That's fine as it's how pragmatic policies are thrashed out. But an MP would still above all be his constituents' representative, not a Party puppet.

As I said before, you may think that your Tory candidate will represent all his constituents best. But as I've explained above, no Party candidate is likely to do so.

Of course people must vote according to their consciences. So if they're persauded by this explanataion, they may well vote for an Independent, or choose to spoil their ballot paper with "none of the above".

I think you may see from the above that proportional representation is irrelevant and unnecessary if Party politics is not allowed to be the most important factor: our current majority vote system is perfect for electing fairly an autonomous MP to represent all his constituents.


----------



## welshman (May 22, 2008)

For those guys not voting at all, did you know that by not voting your vote automatically goes to the party in power. So by not voting your actually voting labour!!!!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

welshman said:


> For those guys not voting at all, did you know that by not voting your vote automatically goes to the party in power. So by not voting your actually voting labour!!!!


This is simply not so.

It may be that unless enough vote for a different party, the current party will be returned to power.

But no voter is required to vote for a candidate whom they believe won't represent them. To do so would be to aid hypocrisy.

If you don't rate any of the candidates, don't vote for them.

And remember, voting for a Party is the negation of democracy!


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

welshman said:


> For those guys not voting at all, did you know that by not voting your vote automatically goes to the party in power. So by not voting your actually voting labour!!!!


ROFL - I hope this is a joke... I mean I've heard some pretty ridiculous misunderstandings of our "democratic" system but this is awesome...

Please be joking! :laugh:

In case any of you first time voters read this and take it seriously it's absolutely not true - if you vote for party X your vote counts for Party X - if you choose not to vote then the only thing it will affect is the turnout proportion of eligible voters stat which indicates the apathy of the electorate. Traditionally if a very low turnout has occurred then it, in itself, is considered a political statement.


----------



## welshman (May 22, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> ROFL - I hope this is a joke... I mean I've heard some pretty ridiculous misunderstandings of our "democratic" system but this is awesome...
> 
> Please be joking! :laugh:
> 
> In case any of you first time voters read this and take it seriously it's absolutely not true - if you vote for party X your vote counts for Party X - if you choose not to vote then the only thing it will affect is the turnout proportion of eligible voters stat which indicates the apathy of the electorate. Traditionally if a very low turnout has occurred then it, in itself, is considered a political statement.


Ok, might have over simplified it a bit and only true in certain circumstances (mostly at local government level from what I can remember), there was an article on the .gov.uk website but can't find it anymore.

I'm always happy to be proved wrong however if someone has evidence to the contrary


----------



## Lostgeordie (Aug 2, 2006)

welshman said:


> Ok, might have over simplified it a bit and only true in certain circumstances (mostly at local government level from what I can remember), there was an article on the .gov.uk website but can't find it anymore.
> 
> I'm always happy to be proved wrong however if someone has evidence to the contrary :innocent:


It could only ever be true in the event of a "vote of no confidence".

Sorry Welshman your statement was just incorrect - but at least you know now!


----------



## welshman (May 22, 2008)

Lostgeordie said:


> It could only ever be true in the event of a "vote of no confidence".
> 
> Sorry Welshman your statement was just incorrect - but at least you know now!


I've just spent the last half hour trying to find somthing to back my statement up and cant so please ignore my comment as its probably bollox anyway :innocent:

Like I said always happy to be proven wrong now and again :thumbup1:


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

Cheers for that response Adam, I think I know what I'm gonna do


----------



## Britbb (Sep 7, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Britbb - Adam - I've no doubt whatsoever that this country is indeed in a real mess!
> 
> The question is, what is the best solution?
> 
> ...


I actually agree with most of everything you said there mate.

Infact it's true. If the public were as engaged as they used to be, like you said going to meetings, watching the local mp's debate, then it would probably be a lot more likely that each individual mp that was elected for their constituency was the correct one for the job, resulting in a better government for all, representing more of the people they are supposed to represent.

But things like transport, cars, sky tv, television etc have changed the way people act nowdays...it's simply 'i cant be bothered to do that'...

Hence why they will sit and watch the leaders debate, rather than their own constituencies candidates.

It's not even that they wont go to watch their own candidates, the entire system is now set up that we are expected to follow a three party system (essentially), v simmilar to usa i guess with their presedetial candidate elections and everything in each media source is set up to make us vote like this.

Just the way things have changed really. The fact that 1 vote means hardly anything in each constituency anyway, means that people are probably going to just vote for who can impress them the most on the tv, radio, magazines etc (as it's so readily available to them) than bother to do research and make an effort.

Now, what would be a good idea would possibly be to have local radio's having a week where they take on candidates to have a question and answers section. This might actually influence a few thousand voters in that constituency...or particularly if it's in london perhaps 10's of thousands of voters. Rather than just the leaders debating and put on national tv.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Britbb said:


> ...the entire system is now set up that we are expected to follow a three party system ...
> 
> Now, what would be a good idea would possibly be to have local radio's having a week where they take on candidates to have a question and answers section. This might actually influence a few thousand voters in that constituency...or particularly if it's in london perhaps 10's of thousands of voters. Rather than just the leaders debating and put on national tv.


Well, the only way we voters can change the 3 Party hegemony is not to vote for them, or any Parties!

The radio exposure of candidates is a good idea - just so long as they don't only stick to policies, but the political philosophy, character and track record of the candidates, so we could judge the best representative.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

So what happened??

There is a power cut in my area and I haven`t been able to turn on a TV yet and find out the results. Luckily I have a little bit of power left in my laptop batttery...

I`m guessing it was a close run thing between the Tories and the BNP right?? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

goonerton said:


> So what happened??
> 
> There is a power cut in my area and I haven`t been able to turn on a TV yet and find out the results. Luckily I have a little bit of power left in my laptop batttery...
> 
> I`m guessing it was a close run thing between the Tories and the BNP right?? :lol: :lol: :lol:


BNP won mate, outright majority... only really threatened by the Greens who are now the largest opposition. The Queen is getting ready to ask Nick Griffin to form a government in just a few hours... :lol:


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Dtlv74 said:


> BNP won mate, outright majority... only really threatened by the Greens who are now the largest opposition. The Queen is getting ready to ask Nick Griffin to form a government in just a few hours... :lol:


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

I bet it was the punch in Barking that finally swung it for them!!


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

who did people vote for in the end?


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Well hung parliament.

WTF happens now?


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

its going to cause some sh*t mr witchypoo.

bigtime!


----------



## DMS (May 5, 2010)

Witch-King said:


> Well hung parliament.
> 
> WTF happens now?


Brown,Cameron and Clegg have a flop out and whoevers got the biggest purple headed womb hunter is elected PM simples.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

DMS said:


> Brown,Cameron and Clegg have a flop out and whoevers got the biggest purple headed womb hunter is elected PM simples.


nah, they should just strip off, oil up, slap on the fake tan and POSE DOWN!!!!

Best front double biceps for the win!!!


----------



## Glassback (Jun 18, 2010)

I am not voting. I know a no vote doesnt help but I am passed caring. For me this country is to the dogs.

For those voting BNP (Over 40 people doing so just on this forum). Wake up, look at what they stand for. Sure I dont want a spineless, rich boy graduate running the country but at the same time I dont want some skinhead thug running it either.


----------



## 1adf1 (Jun 15, 2010)

Glassback said:


> I am not voting. I know a no vote doesnt help but I am passed caring. For me this country is to the dogs.
> 
> For those voting BNP (Over 40 people doing so just on this forum). Wake up, look at what they stand for. Sure I dont want a spineless, rich boy graduate running the country but at the same time I dont want some skinhead thug running it either.


when you going down to vote then :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Readyandwaiting (Mar 20, 2011)

Are you joking?

You honestly think it matter when all of these ****ers are working for the same master so to speak.

It makes no difference. Please research and wake up. Really.


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

You are like 2 years early Glassback. :lol:


----------



## Glassback (Jun 18, 2010)

The discussion never evolves and can be applied every time we vote. The conversation could be 20 years old but never changes.


----------



## johnny_lee (Jun 15, 2011)

Wudnt waste time voting for anyone no matter what year, there all in it for them sevles, thank god im not allowed to vote in thsi country aswell .


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

Glassback said:


> The discussion never evolves and can be applied every time we vote. The conversation could be 20 years old but never changes.


That's deep man..


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

Woah 50 people for BNP


----------



## Glassback (Jun 18, 2010)

Witch-King said:


> That's deep man..


Sure is brother - but that said I am a pretty deep thinker.

If only my squats were as deep as my thoughts....


----------

