UK general election 2015
 

Who are you voting for? Or are you undecided?

probably tory but undecided.

No offence to you but I really don't understand how people can still vote Tory after the last five years and that is me not including Thatcher. Oh well. I will probably vote for the Green party or Labour.

I am very much of the attitude as long as UKIP or any other extremists don't get in I'm not really bothered who is in charge of the country.

This is because I am aware that we will never be happy with who we are going to get. I still haven't decided who to vote for myself and am actually researching all my local candidates (except the UKIP one who had an argument with me on twitter the other day) before I make my decision.

Dont know who im voting for. Dont really get the tory hate. I dont like them but i dont like labour either. They are both the same and only in it for themselves.

Dont really know how anyone can vote labour after blair and brown. ruined the economy and milliband is not a prime minister..

Ukip racists... ill probably waste my vote and vote green...

They hardly ruined the economy. The economy would have crashed no matter who was in charge and I do remember the Tories saying they were willing to spend as much as Labour before the crash.

one reason I am thinking of voting tory is to stop ukip winning in our constituency.

Yes it would have crashed but the damage could have been a lot less if they had been more responsible with the publics money.

Anyway, labour and tory are two sides of the same dirty coin.

My understanding of the recession is that it started in America.

But there are more parties than just Labour and conservative.

Did anyone see the debates? I watched the first one but only caught the last of the second. Pretty interesting for the most part, if slightly annoying when they were bickering.

Isn't that what they do in parliament? Bickering?

Well they also decide on major policies that have a huge influence over our lives.

Having watched last night's TV debate involving Milliband and the leaders of the lesser parties, I'm quite clear that the very last person I would vote for would be Nicola Sturgeon. In my book she is the most dangerous person in the entire UK: she not only continues to want to break up the UK despite the SNPs clear defeat in last year's vote re Scottish independence but all the signs are that she'll be pressing for a further referendum just as soon as possible (many of my acquaintances, listening to her interminable whingeing about Westminster, take the view that she and Scotland should bugger off now, and good riddance); she and the SNP are committed to abandoning Trident on principle and leaving ourselves vulnerable to nuclear blackmail by whatever unpredictable states succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons in the future - sheer lunacy (as were the well-meaning but misguided attempts by Bruce Kent and the Greenham Common women all those years ago).

And, for me, I found the almost universal prejudice in the debate against austerity to be hugely depressing. Of course there has to be austerity you idiots - we've been living beyond our means for years and nobody is going to bail us out for nothing. Debts have to be paid off, whatever the pain, and no matter how much we may feel that somebody other than ourselves should do it, the pain has to be borne. I read a figure recently that suggested that just paying the interest on our national debt was costing us £45billion a year - if true, that's more than we spend on defence. I freely admit that I'm no economist, but we surely can't go on like this indefinitely unless we're happy to bequeath even greater debt to our children and grandchildren - as a memorial to our selfishness and profligacy.

Meanwhile, both the major political parties continue to try to bribe the electorate with yet more unaffordable goodies in the run-up to the election. Both the major players are equally guilty and I suppose they'll say that voters have to have something to encourage them. I remain sceptical and wary of bribes but, at the end of the day, I personally feel that economic stability and growth are the best way out of our present situation - but growth that does not require yet more borrowing on top of the hundreds of billions (actually a trillion and a half) which we've already borrowed.

Come 7 May I shall be voting for the party which I believe will offer the best prospect of financial stability and growth, without which nothing ...

Tony.

I have a conundrum because my local MP is amazing, she cares passionately about our village, however I don't want to vote for her party as a whole.

Vote for me Irene. I will make you queen of the world.

I think it'll be interesting to see how much the lib dem vote has been affected by them backtracking on the tuition fees and allowing the rise given those who are facing those fees are now at the age to vote!

^ and the whole backtracking on bedroom tax. I think they've ****ed it up for themselves

I dont know who to vote for. I prefer the Socialist Labour Party, but I know that they have very little chance. According to an online poll/quiz I took I should vote for Plaid Cymru, but I think the Labour Party have the most realistic chance of getting in.

I don't know who I will vote for as I have issues with all the parties whilst liking individual policies of them all as well.

The online poll I took said Conservative and Greens equally.

I would never vote UKIP

I'm voting for the first time this year.
I'm still mostly undecided but definitely not UKIP!!! Not a huge fan of the tories either tbh.
And they're pretty much all full of rubbish anyway.

In fairness to our parliamentary system I think it has to be said that most MPs of whichever party honestly believe that they have a sense of dedication towards making things better for the country. Surely (despite the scandal of expenses) not many of them can be in it for the money when their salary is less than that of the average GP, and they have all the costs of running offices in their constituencies, travelling, etc,etc.

Many of them are, in my view, mistaken in their beliefs - but they are perfectly entitled to hold those beliefs and I respect them for it. Even UKIP, which has been criticised already in this thread, are entirely entitled to their views, however much they may grate with some people (personally, while I am all for every possible trade link with our continental neighbours, I am strongly against our being ruled from Brussels and Strasbourg. Successive governments, starting with Edward Heath in the early 1970s, have conned the British people into a far closer relationship with Europe than many people feel comfortable with.) However, no way am I voting UKIP on May 7 - they simply lack the financial nous to even begin to run the country, and financial nous is by far the most important need if we are to continue to haul ourselves out of the mess that was inherited in 2010 by the coalition. Remember the "joke" that the last government left as they left office - "there is no money". That says it all!

Tony.

The area I live in is very firmly Tory, so a vote for anything other than Labour would be a waste of a vote. I did actually vote Lib Dem last GE (which did nothing due to the way my area voted) but since they broke a lot of their promises they've lost themselves lots of votes in this election.

For a while I was interested in the Green party, though I think at this election I'll vote Labour purely because I think it'll have more of a chance of swinging the vote in my area.

Though there is a very promising independent candidate where I live so I am considering voting for her. She does have a dedicated following.

Though really whoever you vote for is pretty much the best of a bad lot. Some MPs can be amazing for their constituency, but political parties as a whole are all as bad as each other.

Everyone should also consider their local MP, ie, who they are actually voting for. Would you rather an MP who is constituency-based and cares a lot about the local area but is the "wrong" party, or one who is the "correct" party but does nothing for the area and is simply trying to climb the political ladder?

Ultimately, whichever party/parties get into power, I don't believe very much will change.

^^ a valid point, I stopped voting SNP for a while there cos their candidate had (amongst other things) voted against the equal marriage bill and also mixed religion and politics too much for my liking, however for this election there is a different candidate so I will be voting them again this time.

I think the best thing about the referendum (while being disappointed with the result) is that a lot of people are getting interested in politics again and are actually taking part in the process and I hope this trend continues.

As far as UKIP are concerned, well I don't think they are fascists or even racists and I think they are just getting the protest vote which would have went to the BNP who actually are fascists and say what you like about UKIP the BNP are worse' also I'm noticing lately that there are an awful lot of people who moan about UKIP but wont actually bother to vote themselves, even if you vote for another candidate it means less of a percentage of the vote going to UKIP or any other party you don't like

I fear, The One Who, that if Labour gets in with the support of the SNP to achieve a botched-up majority, then we're in for a financial mess of the sort we really don't need at this stage of our present recovery. There is a distinct irony in the prospect of a party such as the SNP whose declared aim is the bust-up of the UK having the power of votes at Westminster to end up having the ability to tilt the balance of overall power.

As to the prospect of having Ed Balls enjoying the power of Chancellor in a new Labour government after his role in the disasters prior to 2010, the mind boggles! I'm astonished that he has the gall to be standing for anything, still less for a further role in the financial future of the UK, which he helped to c*ck up so totally last time around.

Let the polls go on predicting what they will, but at the end of the day I hope that voters will support financial prudence - building the economy and paying off our enormous and inescapable debts. God, I'm beginning to sound like a politician ... !

Tony.

I will be voting labour, but only to try and keep the tories out in my area. Tactical vote as all politicians are liars.

Yet Labour are as bad as the Tories. Why not spoil your vote?

In fact, that point goes to everyone who can vote but chooses not to. You aren't making a stand, you are simply lumped in with the apathetic. If you want to make any sort of stand, go and spoil your voting slip.

in Australia they count the spoiled papers, I think they should here too.

Yeah, I'd be interested to know how many people spoil their vote.

In the official numbers of how many people voted, do people who spoil their vote count as having voted, or not voted?

They count the spoiled votes here, and they will count as having voted.

To me it seems just as much of a waste to spoil your vote as to not vote at all. Unless I am missing something?

At least you are making your dislike known. I am not too sure what happens in the event of the number of spoiled votes outweighing the number of valid votes, but I think that would send much more of a message than 50% of the population simply not bothering. They can't tell whether you are too lazy to vote, too disengaged, or are making a political statement by deliberately not voting.

In quite a few countries it is a legal requirement to vote.

I will be voting labour. Not that I think milliband will be fantastic as a leader but anything to keep the Tories (and UKIP) out.

Tbh I think they are all as bad as each other. They all lie too us and try to pull the wool over our eyes but I would prefer labour to do so.

I think that's only true at the higher levels because narcissistic people tend to rise to the the top on any organization. a friend of mine is a Labour councillor. He's a good person as are all the Labour people in the area ( and the one Tory man!) . I think at a local level most of any party are probably good people. Although, where my parents live it's a mix of mostly liberals and they are beyond useless but I suspect that's just out county!

I think many people posting on this thread are being unnecessarily unkind towards politicians. As I said in an earlier post most MPs are honest and well-
meaning - although electioneering does tempt them into stretching the truth from time to time!

However, today we heard from the terrifying (and seemingly increasingly popular) Nicola Sturgeon with her manifesto in which she stridently denounced austerity. Oh Gawd, lets spend, spend, spend, never mind the vast amount of debt we're bequeathing to our children. Let's ease the pain now and to hell with the future ...

And to me, the most frightening aspect of the SNP's outlook is their call for a ban on our nuclear deterrent, Trident. I've posted on this before, but to summarise briefly:

The atom bomb was the most life-saving invention of the last century. Without the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US (with a little help from Britain and the Commonwealth) would have had to invade the Japanese Home Islands. The earlier US capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa showed the sheer fanaticism that the Japanese would have shown in defence of their homeland. Estimates are that an invasion would have cost the lives of a million US troops and, by Japanese estimates, some ten million Japanese. I put the figures much higher.
So President Harry Truman was absolutely right in his decision to use the bomb, despite the horrors that they caused.

Without the nuclear tripwire I believe there would have been a 3rd World War in Europe in about 1950-53. The Soviet Union was at its most belligerent and without the potential NATO nuclear response its armies would have swept into Western Europe with little real opposition (in the late 1980s it was estimated that the Soviets had over 50,000 main battle tanks, while the whole of Nato could barely muster 5,000. Another 20-30 million would have died ...

Since then the Soviets, now Russia, have known that any attempt to attack UK with their ICBMs would meet a devastating and totally unacceptable response from our own nuclear-armed submarines. This is the current nuclear deterrent and we discard it at out peril.

Who knows which of the world's emerging (and perhaps aberrant) states will acquire a nuclear capability during the next 30-50 years? Undoubtedly many will and therefore be in a position to apply nuclear blackmail against us. I don't know, and I'm damn sure Nicola Sturgeon doesn't either. But I'm absolutely clear that we must retain our deterrent at all costs ... Miliband recently said that he wouldn't press the button - what the hell sort of un-thought-out remark is that - so naive that I won't waste time on it.-

Tony (and Nicola, what are you going to say to your constituents when it is discovered that Glasgow and/or Edinburgh are prime UK targets for some future nuclear attack on UK?)

I don't think you'll have to wait 30-40 years. Lots of scholars and writers (and even the Pope) think WW III is already begun. Obama has taken up sides with Iran and wants it to have nukes. He betrayed Saudi Arabia in the process - who has now taken up with China (and has their msisiles) and made an appeal to Pakistan for nuclear weapons (to counter Iran who it hates). Pakistan also wants more nukes and delivery systems - which causes India to want more nukes. Israel - fearing Iran (who said it wants to destroy Israel and attack Europe) with nukes - has said it will have to use nukes vs Iran's nuke sites because Russia showed them how to build deep undeground (where conventional weapons can't reach them) . Meanwhile Putin has said he might use nukes.

Egypt was also betrayed (Obama helped destabilise Murbuak to put Muslim Brotherhood in charge (who the people came to hate). They were deposed by military - who Obama stopped giving arms to. Egypt has taken up with Saudis and Israel (all former allies betrayed to help former enemies).

Meanwhile, of 15 NATO countries, only 2 have budgeted the mandatory 2% GDP for military spending. That's one problem - another is NATO (mostly the former Eastern Bloc nations) pushing Putin into a corner.

Add in Libya, who was destabilised by NATO and is now a wierd terror state like Somalia. We bombed it, killed Gaddafi and left nothing in place to govern. Now IS (ISIS or Daesh) is moving in and looking to come to Europe (where thousands are itching to join). They are also taking over Iraq (Obama is heloing them with US air power) and moving into Afghanistan (and probably Pakistan and their nukes).

I mean the world is a mess and many people don't know it because they cant keep track of it all (and media tries not to help).

Sandhurt was over to West Point a few weeks ago, and they won the competition - as they often do. However I read enlistment is down 40% and spending is below NATO levels this year. I think while people are focused on benefits, they are about to be bashed in the head by an awful international situation the West seems to be begging for. I'm almost ready for my cave in Scotland


Nato spending promises largely ignored

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7739b6aa-bce... k&_i_referer=

Jack, you outline a pretty frightening prospect - and it's difficult to contradict any of it. I think the Middle East is likely to be the initial trigger, with Iran and its lunatic ayatollahs shortly to become a nuclear power and having declared that they'll wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But Israel does itself no favours in its refusal to acknowledge the rights of the Palestinians. And US support for Israel right or wrong (often wrong) further complicates the issue. So in my book the UK would be crazy to abandon our deterrent, particularly when the further potential threats likely to develop as more and more nations, whose attitude towards us cannot yet be predicted, become nuclear powers - and thus capable of threatening us.

The first and most fundamental responsibility of any government is to provide effective defence of this country - even above health and education (though of course a balance must be struck). Successive UK governments, including the present coalition, have run down our armed forces to a frightening level. Every "review", every change of government results in yet more cuts and more loss of capability. And the only discussion in the present political debate is the SNPs threat to abandon the deterrent that has helped keep us safe for the past 60-odd years.

They're mad, utterly mad! You can't disinvent nuclear weapons, any more than you can disinvent gunpowder. And while more and more of this unstable world acquires a nuclear capability we'd better bloody well retain some ourselves ...

Tony.

My understanding of Trident is that the UK do not own it - we lease it from America. As such, we do not have the capability to arm or activate it without their express say so, as they have the codes necessary.

If Britain owned and operated Trident it would be different, but as far as my understanding goes, it is useless if we cannot actually 'press the button' when we want to.

Well, The One Who, the submarines are ours, the warheads are ours, but the missiles were bought from the US. I very much doubt that we have to wait for US permission before pressing the button - but in any case it is highly probable that a crisis leading to a nuclear exchange would involve extensive US/UK discussions and negotiations in the run-up to that crisis, and I cannot imagine us going nuclear without such discussions. It is of course our capability of replying to any nuclear attack in kind that provides the deterrence - hopefully never to be actually used, but there all the time. In the changing and dangerous world we live in, we discard it at our peril ...

Tony.

What we've been seeing in the Mid East the past few years shows Israel/Palestine issue is not really the overwhelming focus. Thats why you now see Israel and Arab Muslims (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc) uniting against Iran (who pulled Yemen down).

Al Qaeda and such groups were not really that interested in Israel or Palestine. They wanted to rid the ME and Maghrebod the dictators, strongmen etc. - the people who blocked the establishment of a new caliphate (as IS/Daesh is trying) across the region.

People celebrated the "Arab Srping" as if it was the end of tyrants when it was just a swap for new tyrants with more violent intentions. Uprisings in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria weren't about Israel. The genocide in Sudan isn't about Israel. Same for religious violence in Russia, Malaysia, India, Nigeria, India/Pakistan and other places around the world. We have a global wave of violence thats escalting dramatically for ibroad ideaological, religous and tribal reasons .

The worst part is that these groups are uniting - among themselves and with criminal enterprises. Boko Haram just moved to unite with IS/Daesh. Hezzbollah showed Mexicam drug cartles how to build tunnels under US border. Al Qaeda is helping Mexican cartels with its heroin traffic in Europe. Russian mob has been in Mexico a long time. Iran has 40,000 agents in South America. We have a NATO ally in Turkey who is helping IS with arms and safe transit. Alas US, Saudis, Turkey were also letting them get arms through bizarre attempts to "arm moderates" in Syria - attempts that always saw arms getting into wrong hands.

What military experts see now thats ominous is a rising level of chaos thats outside the standard and usual systems, confines etc. If a car fishtails it is out of control but still subject to being stabilised. We are outside of that range now. Even if a country does something right it angers someone else, who angers someone else, who angers someone else. Some scholars have compared present to pre WW I where nations who didn't really really want war just stumbled into it. The difference is now people have nukes - including kooks.

I was looking into some policies from various political parties this morning, and I found that if the Tories are elected then they are going to get rid of housing benefit for young people aged 16-24. I thought that was shocking, and I haven't seen it mentioned on here before.

The main young people who will be relying on housing benefit will probably be those who have just left being in care and will be forced to live independently (I think at age 18), and those who have physical or mental disabilities/issues meaning they either cannot work, or can't work much. So it will have a big impact if housing benefit will not be an option any more.

18-21s would also be unable to claim JSA and would have to have something different called a Youth Allowance where they would HAVE to work for 30 hours a week under some scheme at the same time as spending 10 hours a week job searching.

Conservative will screw up the future for so many young people if they get elected.

Aye there will be a lost generation out of this for sure.

Well, Sherlock, I don't know whether that's only a rumour or what. In fairness to the Tories, they are trying to balance the books while at the same time cutting back on unnecessary expenditure. I can't believe that they're being vindictive to the young - who are, after all, our future ...

Tony.

Young people are already restricted with their Housing Benefit, because the stock of one-bedroom properties is so low that they are having to either take property in a very poor area or a larger property that they may not be able to afford if/when the Discretionary Housing Payment stops.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea. But it would need to be implemented properly, which it probably won't be. Currently a 24-year old is only entitled to £60/week, and they have costs exactly the same as a 25-year old. So if this Youth Allowance would then make it 22-years and above I don't think that's a bad thing.

Sorry but I think 18-21 being unable to claim JSA is s ridiculous idea, a lot of people leave education at that age and can find it more difficult than 22 year olds and above to find work.

On a tangent, I've heard that our national debt has increased since 2009, which to me is a worrying concern. I'm not sure if the exact figure but the people discussing it in the radio seemed very concerned about it.

Yes, Iamcatbug, our national debt is now over £1.5 trillion which amounts to a staggering amount for every one of our population (you work it out if your maths is up to it - and don't forget to allow for all the illegal immigrants in your calculations). And it's all your fault, and my fault too, for expecting government spending which can't be afforded. Yet even more such spending is currently being promised by all parties in the run-up to the general election!

If we can't afford it, we can't have it, in my book. And when you vote in a couple of weeks time, I strongly recommend that you vote for the party which is most likely to pull us out of this mess - not for the party which promises most and which can't be afforded ...

Tony.

Tomy, I've been trying to find the facts and figures of how much our debt has been increasing over the years. If you have any idea of where I can look that'd be great!

I would by default vote labour unless convinced otherwise, and the only election material I've received through the door is from the labour candidate in our area and I liked what it said so I'm likely to vote labour.

Also, I've had hours of fun doing the constituency quizzes from the BBC election page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies

Sorry, Iamcat, I don't have sources to hand but no doubt you can find stuff on the net. But I do know that in crude terms our national debt has risen during the life of the current government from £1trillion to £1.5 trillion. When it was a mere £1trillion I seem to recall calculating that it represented about £26,000 for every man, woman and child in the country so I suppose we can now call that about £39,000 for each of us. There is no fairy godmother who is going to pay that off for us - we have to do it ourselves, even if it means cutting back on otherwise desirable spending.

Meanwhile, several of the contenders in the forthcoming election have declared themselves "anti-austerity"! That is, if they were to win power they'd run us into yet more debt and presumably sod the consequences. And all of them are promising yet more carrots (which have to be paid for) in order to bribe us for our votes ...

On 7 May I shall be voting for the party which I consider is most likely to exercise at least some financial prudence - and it won't be either Labour or the SNP (not qualified for the latter anyway).

And as for Nicola Sturgeon's declared plans for manipulating Westminster with a mass of SNP members, I think she needs to be very careful lest the rest of UK is driven to vote Scotland altogether out of the Union. That might suit her personal ambitions but it would hardly be good for the ordinary citizens of Scotland who would quickly find that a national income based on whisky and salmon farming was not going to keep them in the style to which they've been accustomed as part of the UK ...

Tony.