Can you really vote for little rich boy?

[skitzee2k]

Well, i agree with a lot of people here. We don't know what anyone is really going to do.
However over the last 13 years we have seen what a balls up labour have done, so we KNOW they are crap..I think we should have a change.
Any government that has been in power for as long as Labour NATURALLY run out of steam..they have nothing more to add. Time to shake it up a bit.

I am a blue through and through, but only because I believe in their policies (more than the others anyway) and this is what i want from my government.

 

[transam]

Socialist what is that , ??? someone who has got nothing ?? but is prepared to share it with everyone else ???

 

[Infidel]

Again the word "banker" springs to mind in this debate.
And I'm sure that they will vote in the best interests of the country they make their money in , and god forfend that they or any of the companies they represent try and avoid paying tax in the country that makes them rich.
Thats down to us plebs, after buying their products.
Politics used to be a vocation, it's now a gravy train.

 

[Lincsbodger]

The whole problem is that in our world a vote isn't simply for the best party - it's a popularity contest. All the parties know that, so those that can throw the biggest party get elected. Thatcher and Blair were the main culprits. S*d tomorrow - let's party today. Whoever gets in this time will be a total flop - another John Major or James Callaghan. To make change you need a massive majority - but neither party will get it. My guess is that Cameron will just get in with a slender majority - but far too week to make any real change - so the show rolls on. He'll be the most unpopular leader in recent history. There may well be riots in the streets when he tries to cut back on welfare while giving tax cuts to the rich. But that's what he's got to do - that's what the rich pay his party to do. It's gonna be a complete fiasco.

Theres no grey in majorities, either you have one or you dont. Harold Wilson ruled with a majority of three. And your prediction that Cameron wil be the most unpopular leader in history is quite frankly unsubstantiated ******. One what evidence do you base this prediction - you have access to a time machine? I think Wilson, Heath and Major may be far stronger candidates for THAT title.

The fact is that you have no idea how Cameron will perform, but you do know how Brown will perform. The odds are that Cameron will be better than Brown, because Cameron wants to stay in power and isnt tainted by his own history, whereas you KNOW Brown is a lying cheating two faced toad, surrounded by slimy dishonest pocket fillers like Mandelson. You voted Blair in and you had no idea how he would perform, so whats the difference with voting Cameron in in exactly the same circumstances? How come Blair got the benefit of the doubt and Cameron doesnt ?? And we never got the chance to vote for Brown, and he turned out to be as two faced as Blair!!

So, vote for somone you know for a fact is a dishonest ****, or someone who on the balance of probability is likely to be far batter?

Furthermore, this comment about "that's what the rich pay his party to do" - its just more class ******. Those same people switched allegiance to Blair in 1996, and its those people who have been bankrolling the Labour party up until a couple of years ago. So its immaterial there now bankrolling the Tories. On the other hand, you do have to take into account that ONE Union now provide 25% of Labours income and has them by the balls, and they have every intention of throwing out the Blairites and Brownites and returning the Labour party and the Unions to the position in the early 1970's - and we know where that went - the Miners Strike and the Winter of Discontent.

 

[joe-90]

When you want to make change your law has to pass through the house (as you know). It goes through a voting system. If the MPs like it - it becomes law. If they don't like it - that's where it stops. Do you really think that with a tiny majority that Labour and the Lib Dems will allow a bill to pass if they don't care for it? Sorry mate, but the 'I's just won't have it very often'. He'll be an unmitigated disaster. Mind you, he'll do the dirty work for the Labour party who will be voted back in at the following election.

Oh and by the way. I've never voted for either of the main parties and I doubt I ever will.

 

[noseall]

I am fairly certain that, if every single person in the country that was eligible to vote, understood politics and what political parties were all about and decided to cast their vote, a majority would vote labour.

By the way i am a pragmatist through and through. Not red not blue.

However, there is no political party on this planet that does not take advantage of the working man.

Learn to live with this fact.

 

[joe-90]

if every single person in the country that was eligible to vote,

What about the married ones?

 

[skitzee2k]

I am fairly certain that, if every single person in the country that was eligible to vote, understood politics and what political parties were all about and decided to cast their vote, a majority would vote labour.

By the way i am a pragmatist through and through. Not red not blue.

However, there is no political party on this planet that does not take advantage of the working man.

Learn to live with this fact.

Why?? i don't agree with almost ANY of labours policies...and I am sure most people don't either!!

Labour unlike the tories and lib dems etc have these weird hold over people... "My parents always voted labour...so i do too"

If they we asked about their policies they wouldn't have a clue....they are the same kind of people who put C of E down as their religion although they haven't been to a church since their christening.

THESE are the people that **** it up! People that vote out of habit..

I alwaysd suggest these people go to http://www.votematch.org.uk/
which asks you statements and then tells you what is the closer party to your way of thinking...most come back as lib dem or tory.

 

[Lincsbodger]

I am fairly certain that, if every single person in the country that was eligible to vote, understood politics and what political parties were all about and decided to cast their vote, a majority would vote labour.

By the way i am a pragmatist through and through. Not red not blue.

However, there is no political party on this planet that does not take advantage of the working man.

Learn to live with this fact.

Why?? i don't agree with almost ANY of labours policies...and I am sure most people don't either!!

Labour unlike the tories and lib dems etc have these weird hold over people... "My parents always voted labour...so i do too"

If they we asked about their policies they wouldn't have a clue....they are the same kind of people who put C of E down as their religion although they haven't been to a church since their christening.

THESE are the people that **** it up! People that vote out of habit..

I alwaysd suggest these people go to http://www.votematch.org.uk/
which asks you statements and then tells you what is the closer party to your way of thinking...most come back as lib dem or tory.

Spot on

Labour has always relied on the habitual voter - "I vote labour, mi' da voted labour and mi grandad 'oo wor on the Jarrow March voted Labour, pet"

ffs

And as for taking advantage of the working man, ofc the Tories do it, but Labour, the supposed socialist party, the party of the people, the party founded on Leninism and the Peoples Revolution of 1918, has well and truly turned its back on the working class in the last 14 years, and screwed the working man rigid. They even tried to introduce a bottom end tax band that actually only hit the lowest paid, the 10p tax band, but that turned out to be a bridge too far even for Brown.


Because of the way the voting system works, you have only two options. Vote for the party in power, or vote for the Opposition. One or other will then get in power. A vote for any third party is largely waste of time, no party has ever achieved majority power from the third position. The nearest anyone ever got was is the scottish MP's propping up Brown as there part of the bargain to give them devolution (thats another issue, we want anyone who votes in Scottish or Regional assemblies to be disbarred from voting at Westminster - why shoudl some MP's get to vote twice, or in votes that dont affect there countries?)

 

[Infidel]

Labour has always relied on the habitual voter - "I vote labour, mi' da voted labour and mi grandad 'oo wor on the Jarrow March voted Labour, pet"

ffs

And of course the Tories don't have their "heartland" ffs if we are so polarized how come there are so many marginal seats that all parties need to win to gain an overall majority.
Proportional representation is the only way, and is in use in the UK in one area, why not all ?

 

[mickyg]

I alwaysd suggest these people go to http://www.votematch.org.uk/
which asks you statements and then tells you what is the closer party to your way of thinking...most come back as lib dem or tory.

I just tried that, I came out matching UKIP quite highly 70%, followed by BNP then Conservative. It makes perfect sense, but I'll be voting conservative simply because I want to make sure they beat Labour.

 

[skitzee2k]

I alwaysd suggest these people go to http://www.votematch.org.uk/
which asks you statements and then tells you what is the closer party to your way of thinking...most come back as lib dem or tory.

I just tried that, I came out matching UKIP quite highly 70%, followed by BNP then Conservative. It makes perfect sense, but I'll be voting conservative simply because I want to make sure they beat Labour.

Mine came out Tory, UKIP then BNP

The UKIP is pretty much just a wing of the tory party anyway what with their agreement not to stand against any tory that was anti EU.
...the BNP I could never vote for.

 

[joe-90]

"David Cameron is also likely to court controversy by nominating two of the highest-profile expenses-shame Tory MPs for peerages - grandees Michael Ancram and John Gummer."

That's it Rich Boy - support your party crooks.

 

[Lincsbodger]

"David Cameron is also likely to court controversy by nominating two of the highest-profile expenses-shame Tory MPs for peerages - grandees Michael Ancram and John Gummer."

That's it Rich Boy - support your party crooks.

ROFL!!!

and who has Labour got but PETER MANDELSON!!!

Twice thrown out of public office because hes a crook and a liar, he went to Brussels, spent several years lining his own pocket with public money, and selling favours, and then returned for his Lordship, obtained by selling us down the river at every opportunity and doing the Eu dirty work. He now has Brown by the balls, and so gets government positions of power, despite being entirely unelected, whilst STILL using his position to line his own pocket. You know when he's lying, his mouth moves.

Sorry mate, Mandelson is a slimy two faced crooked liar, and his skill in lining his own pocket with public money at everyone elses expense is olympic standard, hes crooked at a level most MP's can only dream about.

 

[joe-90]

So two wrongs make a right then?