Theresa May is my MP ATM, and in June will still be my MP. So I'm voting BNP as I can't stand her, I detest Farage, loath the LibDems, and never liked Labour, the Greens will do well to come forth and keep their deposit, and Freedom and Responsibility have got no chance.
A coalition with whom would make it an improvement? The SNP (should they decide to enter into such an agreement (which I doubt)) would only do so to hold Westminster to ransom in a bid to pursue their ambitions of breaking up the UK, the Greens are loons and whatever remains of the Lib-Dems might not fancy another kicking along the same lines as they are getting now (Labour aren't going to abandon Trident or abolish tuition fees).
It's bad news all the way if Labour wins the most seats in my opinion.
And I would say the same about the Tories, who I would not like to see in power again!
Also, it's too easy to dismiss the Greens as "loons". A little Green influence on govt would be no bad thing.
Perhaps you should consider the high unemployment that the Tory's created in the 1980's and 90's that lead to my dad (who is the hardest working person I've met in this country) and many others struggling to support his family due to businesses going bust, zero hours contracts (yes the existed back then) and various other factors that kept a highly skilled man such as him struggling.
and don't make the lazy assumption that just because I'm anti-Conservative that I'm pro Labour - I've never voted for either in my life.
But even as I'm no fan of Labour, I have to acknowledge that where I came from only started to recover after the 1997 election.
Perhaps you should consider that a political philosophy that gives out hand outs to corporations is no better than one that gives hand outs to individuals.
Perhaps you should also consider learning critical thinking skills?
I do consider the high unemployment that the Tories created in the 1980s and '90s, however, it had already increased massively under the previous Labour administration. I was one of the many unemployed throughout the '80s and '90s, so I do know how unemployment manifests and the damage it can do to self-esteem, however, I found that there were lots of opportunities for training and education. University was still free (indeed mandatory grants were given), Further Education colleges were either free or inexpensive, there was opportunity to take risks and experiment with different occupations, which all allowed creativity to thrive.
Giving handouts to either corporations or individuals in order to create more business opportunities and benefit the wider community is a good thing rather than giving them to people who would only squander the money for their own short-term benefit.
Zero hour contracts have always been around (many more were created under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and aren't necessarily a bad thing for those who want flexible working hours or are studying. They can be a means to an end.
I'm sorry that your father found himself in the position of having to struggle despite being skilled, but it's inadvisable to blame society for his situation when there are perhaps myriad other complex reasons that might have contributed.
And I would say the same about the Tories, who I would not like to see in power again!
Also, it's too easy to dismiss the Greens as "loons". A little Green influence on govt would be no bad thing.
It might be dismissive to denounce the greens as loons, but's that's more to do with their grip on economic reality than it is environmental arguments.
I do consider the high unemployment that the Tories created in the 1980s and '90s, however, it had already increased massively under the previous Labour administration. I was one of the many unemployed throughout the '80s and '90s, so I do know how unemployment manifests and the damage it can do to self-esteem, however, I found that there were lots of opportunities for training and education. University was still free (indeed mandatory grants were given), Further Education colleges were either free or inexpensive, there was opportunity to take risks and experiment with different occupations, which all allowed creativity to thrive.
I was the first of my family to go to University.
Although my course fees where paid for, I had no grant
I
Giving handouts to either corporations or individuals in order to create more business opportunities and benefit the wider community is a good thing rather than giving them to people who would only squander the money for their own short-term benefit.
In other words. Socialism bad, however Corporate Socialism is good...!
Zero hour contracts have always been around (many more were created under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and aren't necessarily a bad thing for those who want flexible working hours or are studying. They can be a means to an end.
I worked zero hours for casual work when studying. In those sort of circumstances I'm fine with it.
For full time work, it is expoitative. Or in otherwords - privatised serfdom!
I'm sorry that your father found himself in the position of having to struggle despite being skilled, but it's inadvisable to blame society for his situation when there are perhaps myriad other complex reasons that might have contributed.
Yes, the facical economic policy of neo-liberalism forstered by those who lied about the nature of Adam Smith's beliefs (I've read wealth of nations).
I'm very much into classical liberalism, but unlike some people I know the difference between that and some of the economic right wing nonsense (not all right wing people) mascarading as classical liberalism - if Adam Smith was around now, he'd be dismissed as a lefty.
I live in a Labour safe seat so my vote won't make a difference although I won't be voting Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems or Greens, I will probably vote for an independent if there are any.
Without some form of PR the whole proces is pointless. It is probable that a party could win an overall majority with only 35% of the poll so a 65% "majority" are not represented other than to shout abuse at PMQs.
I would strongly suggest tactical voting not for your party but to keep out the one that you don't want.
Perhaps a further suggestion would be to actually think about what a party will do if elected.
Labour will tax more, spend more, and waste more of your money.
Conservatives will pretend to give you a vote on the EU
Lib Dem will decide on the day what suits them best
UKIP will take us out of the EU
Greens will give you more windmills that don't work most of the time.
Each will publish a Manifesto but there is no guarantee that anything in it will come to pass.
I would like to thank the voters for there ringing endorsement in the election. Our vote share clearly shows that we have a democratic mandate to carry out our full election manifesto which will be funded by Wonga/scrapping all benefits**
**delete as appropriate for whomever wins
I would urge people to vote for the party they most want to win, regardless of their chances. Sure we will still end up with a Labour or Tory government, at least this time around, but you'll get that anyway if you get sucked into the 'vote for the least worse of the two' viewpoint.
So your choice is ...
(1) a Labour or Tory gov't (no real difference if you ask me) that understands they won on a record low share of the vote and need to address the issues, and a public who suddenly realise that they're not on their own for prefering other parties.
or
(2) a Labour or Tory gov't that is convinced it has a mandate from the people, and a public who think everybody else is happy with Labour / Tory and they are the odd ones for having contemplated (and then regretfully ignored) a smaller party.
A study of prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) in winnable seats reveals 31 per cent of them to have been privately educated – compared with a figure of just 7 per cent of the country as a whole.
The number of Labour candidates in winnable seats among the new intake who are privately educated – 19 per cent – is almost double the number of privately educated Labour MPs, at 10 per cent...
...The study, carried out by Dr Robert de Vries, a research fellow in sociology and social policy at the University of Oxford, also showed 55 per cent went to elite Russell Group universities (compared to 11 per cent of the country) and 19 per cent to Oxbridge (as opposed to less than 1 per cent nationally).
Figures for this parliament show 33 per cent to have been privately educated – and that includes 52 per cent of Conservative MPs (now down to 49 per cent)
So who do you vote for?
The only party to buck the trend was Ukip which had only one candidate from Oxbridge – and 35 per cent of its candidates not going to university.
The Liberal Democrats did not feature in the statistics because they had fewer PPCs in winnable constituencies.
I can imagine the speech on the Downing Street garden...
**delete as appropriate for whomever wins
I would urge people to vote for the party they most want to win, regardless of their chances. Sure we will still end up with a Labour or Tory government, at least this time around, but you'll get that anyway if you get sucked into the 'vote for the least worse of the two' viewpoint.
So your choice is ...
(1) a Labour or Tory gov't (no real difference if you ask me) that understands they won on a record low share of the vote and need to address the issues, and a public who suddenly realise that they're not on their own for prefering other parties.
or
(2) a Labour or Tory gov't that is convinced it has a mandate from the people, and a public who think everybody else is happy with Labour / Tory and they are the odd ones for having contemplated (and then regretfully ignored) a smaller party.
Comments
I think you can guess from my post that I don't mean that!
And I would say the same about the Tories, who I would not like to see in power again!
Also, it's too easy to dismiss the Greens as "loons". A little Green influence on govt would be no bad thing.
Not at all; I composed it myself, but thank you for the compliment.
I do consider the high unemployment that the Tories created in the 1980s and '90s, however, it had already increased massively under the previous Labour administration. I was one of the many unemployed throughout the '80s and '90s, so I do know how unemployment manifests and the damage it can do to self-esteem, however, I found that there were lots of opportunities for training and education. University was still free (indeed mandatory grants were given), Further Education colleges were either free or inexpensive, there was opportunity to take risks and experiment with different occupations, which all allowed creativity to thrive.
Giving handouts to either corporations or individuals in order to create more business opportunities and benefit the wider community is a good thing rather than giving them to people who would only squander the money for their own short-term benefit.
Zero hour contracts have always been around (many more were created under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and aren't necessarily a bad thing for those who want flexible working hours or are studying. They can be a means to an end.
I'm sorry that your father found himself in the position of having to struggle despite being skilled, but it's inadvisable to blame society for his situation when there are perhaps myriad other complex reasons that might have contributed.
It might be dismissive to denounce the greens as loons, but's that's more to do with their grip on economic reality than it is environmental arguments.
I was the first of my family to go to University.
Although my course fees where paid for, I had no grant
In other words. Socialism bad, however Corporate Socialism is good...!
Congratulations, your programming is complete
I worked zero hours for casual work when studying. In those sort of circumstances I'm fine with it.
For full time work, it is expoitative. Or in otherwords - privatised serfdom!
Yes, the facical economic policy of neo-liberalism forstered by those who lied about the nature of Adam Smith's beliefs (I've read wealth of nations).
I'm very much into classical liberalism, but unlike some people I know the difference between that and some of the economic right wing nonsense (not all right wing people) mascarading as classical liberalism - if Adam Smith was around now, he'd be dismissed as a lefty.
No better way then hitting her/them in the ballots.
I would strongly suggest tactical voting not for your party but to keep out the one that you don't want.
Perhaps a further suggestion would be to actually think about what a party will do if elected.
Labour will tax more, spend more, and waste more of your money.
Conservatives will pretend to give you a vote on the EU
Lib Dem will decide on the day what suits them best
UKIP will take us out of the EU
Greens will give you more windmills that don't work most of the time.
Each will publish a Manifesto but there is no guarantee that anything in it will come to pass.
The sooner it is over the better.
Perhaps they will have to fight for it.
I can imagine the speech on the Downing Street garden...
**delete as appropriate for whomever wins
I would urge people to vote for the party they most want to win, regardless of their chances. Sure we will still end up with a Labour or Tory government, at least this time around, but you'll get that anyway if you get sucked into the 'vote for the least worse of the two' viewpoint.
So your choice is ...
(1) a Labour or Tory gov't (no real difference if you ask me) that understands they won on a record low share of the vote and need to address the issues, and a public who suddenly realise that they're not on their own for prefering other parties.
or
(2) a Labour or Tory gov't that is convinced it has a mandate from the people, and a public who think everybody else is happy with Labour / Tory and they are the odd ones for having contemplated (and then regretfully ignored) a smaller party.
I would prefer (1), TeeGee is recommending (2).
So who do you vote for?
I'd choose 1.