Come 2015, who will you vote for?

[Fox92]

Do UKIP only have one policy then?

 

 

No they have many actually...

 

 

EUROPE: Nigel Farage says he wants an "amicable divorce" from the European Union. Britain would retain trading links with its European neighbours but would withdraw from treaties and end subscription payments, adopting a similar relationship with the EU to Norway or Switzerland.

 

IMMIGRATION: An end to the age of "mass uncontrolled immigration". It wants a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement - and any future migration must be strictly limited to those who can "clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy". Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years. In order to achieve these goals Britain would have to leave the EU because there are no restrictions on other EU citizens moving to the UK while it remains a member.

 

TAX: UKIP favours a flat tax - a single combined rate of income tax and national insurance paid by all workers. It claims this would end the complexity of the current system and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned. It would also lead to a major shrinking of the size of the state, which would revert to a "safety net" for the poorest. The party has yet to decide the rate at which the flat tax would be levied. Its policy at the 2010 election was 31% but a recent policy paper suggested 25%. It is having an internal debate about whether there should be two rates.

 

EDUCATION: UKIP backs selection by ability and would encourage the creation of new grammar schools. It would give parents vouchers to spend in the state or private education sector. It also advocates the return of the student grant system to replace loans.

 

HEALTH: UKIP says it has no plans to fundamentally change the NHS - it would, however, shrink the Department of Health and hand control to locally elected County Health Boards. It would also restore "traditional" non-university training for nurses.

 

DEFENCE: According to a recent policy paper, UKIP would increase defence spending back to 2010 levels. It would build more warships and carry out an urgent review of the case for replacing Trident, including the option of a new British-built nuclear missile system capable of launch from air, sea or sub-surface vessels.

 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: UKIP is sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change and would scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments. Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power stations.

 

GAY MARRIAGE: UKIP supports the concept of civil partnerships, but opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage, which it says risks "the grave harm of undermining the rights of Churches and Faiths to decide for themselves whom they will and will not marry".

 

LAW AND ORDER: UKIP would double prison places and protect "frontline" policing to enforce "zero tolerance" of crime.

 

THE ECONOMY: UKIP is proposing "tens of billions" of tax cuts and had set out £77bn of cuts to public expenditure to deal with the deficit.

 

TRANSPORT: UKIP says it is the only political party to oppose the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail line arguing it will destroy countryside for little economic gain. It also opposes a third runway at Heathrow, arguing instead for an expansion of Manston airport, in Kent.

 

SOCIAL ISSUES: UKIP has been vocal in its opposition to what it sees as "political correctness" in public life. It also argues that multiculturalism has "split" British society. It would legislate to allow smoking in pubs, in designated rooms, and hold local referendums on repealing the hunting ban.

 

DEMOCRACY: The party wants binding local and national referendums on major issues.

 

 

Now who copied and pasted knows all the policies, eh!

[Mark_w]

You've got some front to call other parties vulgar, repulsive etc when the one you are voting for instead led us into two wars that have cost the lives of around two million people.

 

I'll assume that's aimed at me as I'm the only person who's used any of those terms in this thread, but I'm not sure what makes you think you know who I'm voting for?

 

Either you can read minds or you're maybe looking a little too hard for excuses to attack Labour?

[ADK]

Well of course they were lied to with the evidence presented by the ruling party.

 

No they claimed they would have gone to war even with the same evidence.

[Guest MattP]

Thought you were a Labour voter. Apologies if you're not.

[MooseBreath]

It's a protest vote at none of the other parties respecting the issue. The other policys are unimportant as they will never hold enough power for it to count.

A vote for anyone other than the conservatives is a vote for labour. Why is leaving the EU so important to you that you'd risk helping to bring Labour back just to make a point? I suspect most people don't really know the full extent of the consequences should we decide to leave the EU. I know I don't. It seems bizarre then to place so much importance on such an ambiguous issue. Much better to vote for a party who we know can make a tangible positive difference to life in this country.

[absolutelegend]

Russell Brand says that I shouldn't vote, and he's really cool so I'm going to do what he says.

[Mark_w]

Thought you were a Labour voter. Apologies if you're not.

 

I'm 18 and yet to vote for anyone, I didn't vote for the government that led us into those wars. I'm not saying that I won't be voting for Labour, I haven't decided yet, but I wouldn't be voting for the people who led us into those wars in the same way that when you vote Conservative you won't be voting for the people who under the Conservative banner took us into plenty of wars that cost plenty of lives. I'm not going to judge Ed Miliband on the actions of Tony Blair or Labour on the actions of the New Labour government in the same way that I'm not going to judge David Cameron on the actions of Thatcher. I'll make a decision based on the policies and I find plenty of UKIP's policies absolutely repulsive.

[Alf Bentley]

Ukip next year in Euros Tories in 2015 providing the figures keep going in the right direction.

 

This is why ill move back to the Tories come 2015.

I'll vote UKIP next year to send a message to the EU but on domestic and economic policy they have become far too much like Labour for my liking.

 

So, who will you vote for if the figures don't keep going in the right direction, Matt?

 

Greens for me, as the party that prioritises environment, society and quality of life, rather than the ever greater exploitation of people's lives and natural resources in the interests of big capital (even if we are bought off with a few shiny baubles and even own some of that capital through pension funds, insurance etc.). Though I disagree with the Greens on some points (e.g. nuclear power)...

 

In theory, might have to reconsider if (a) the Greens suddenly had a chance of being in government; or (b) there was a chance of the reds losing Leicester South to the blues or the yellows. However, almost zero chance of either circumstance occurring. Greens will do well just to hold the 1 seat that they won last time, and if the Tories & Lib Dems came nowhere near taking Leicester South in 2010, they won't in 2015 either, barring truly extraordinary events in the meantime... 

[Guest MattP]

UKIP I'D imagine. Safe Tory seat anyway here so it doesn't matter.

Leicestershire is easy to predict isn't it? Red in the middle, blue everywhere else.

[kingfox]

Make my own box, write Boris Johnson at the side of it then I will tick it.

[MooseBreath]

So, who will you vote for if the figures don't keep going in the right direction, Matt?

Greens for me, as the party that prioritises environment, society and quality of life, rather than the ever greater exploitation of people's lives and natural resources in the interests of big capital (even if we are bought off with a few shiny baubles and even own some of that capital through pension funds, insurance etc.). Though I disagree with the Greens on some points (e.g. nuclear power)...

In theory, might have to reconsider if (a) the Greens suddenly had a chance of being in government; or (b) there was a chance of the reds losing Leicester South to the blues or the yellows. However, almost zero chance of either circumstance occurring. Greens will do well just to hold the 1 seat that they won last time, and if the Tories & Lib Dems came nowhere near taking Leicester South in 2010, they won't in 2015 either, barring truly extraordinary events in the meantime...

Would be fascinating if the greens got in and went through with the citizens income idea, where they give every citizen a certain amount of money funded by taking more from the rich. How long would it take before nobody could be bothered to go to work anymore and the whole country just imploded, I wonder.

[Strokes]

A vote for anyone other than the conservatives is a vote for labour. Why is leaving the EU so important to you that you'd risk helping to bring Labour back just to make a point? I suspect most people don't really know the full extent of the consequences should we decide to leave the EU. I know I don't. It seems bizarre then to place so much importance on such an ambiguous issue. Much better to vote for a party who we know can make a tangible positive difference to life in this country.

Come on then moosey enlighten me to the full extent of the consequences of leaving the EU, as i said im undecided so you could legitimatly sway me should your argument be as good and solid as it should be. I agree with alot of what you have said in other threads that have turned political, so im genuinely all ears.

[Harry - LCFC]

Would be fascinating if the greens got in and went through with the citizens income idea, where they give every citizen a certain amount of money funded by taking more from the rich. How long would it take before nobody could be bothered to go to work anymore and the whole country just imploded, I wonder.

 

The idea of a citizen's basic rights being provided for appeals to me in principle as long as it really is the very basics - water, low quality food and low quality shelter. And I'd be happy enough, in principle, to give that to anyone - a living, but only just.

 

It's just the cost that's concerning, how much does is required to pay for the basics?

[Captain...]

I mean this respectfully, but if you don't exercise your right to vote.. do you really have a right to complain about the government

 

I would agree except for the fact that in about 75% of seats it is a foregone conclusion, so actually voting in a lot of cases is irrelevant, if we had proportional representation it would be a lot more relevant, but there really is no point in voting in Charnwood as it is very safe Blue seat. The current system also lends itself to protest voting and tactical voting, not to mention parachuting poor politicians into safe seats

 

Don't know who I will vote for, depends on the manifestos and the candidates, Lib Dems have seriously let themselves down, although though they shouldn't be completely written off after one u-turn (albeit very big one) especially considering the number of U-turns performed by the conservatives this term. Labour aren't very convincing and the Conservatives have just spent the last 4 years reinforcing every negative stereotype about themselves. UKIP are a one policy party which I don't agree with. Unless my vote could actually make a difference I would probably end up voting Green.

[Captain...]

Come on then moosey enlighten me to the full extent of the consequences of leaving the EU, as i said im undecided so you could legitimatly sway me should your argument be as good and solid as it should be. I agree with alot of what you have said in other threads that have turned political, so im genuinely all ears.

 

The business impact would be huge, the freedom of work and travel within the EU is a huge advantage, and just the fact that Cameron has mentioned there will be a vote on the EU in 2015 is, according to experts, making a lot of companies think twice about building their HQ here. 

 

The fact that people consider the Human Rights bill to be an issue because it took a bit longer to deport Abus Hamza and Qatada than we would like, just shows that we shouldn't let some people vote. Immigration is an issue, but it really isn't anywhere near as big an issue as is reported by the red tops, and could and should have been tackled by previous governments and we don't need to leave the EU to solve the "immigration problem".

[Strokes]

The business impact would be huge, the freedom of work and travel within the EU is a huge advantage, and just the fact that Cameron has mentioned there will be a vote on the EU in 2015 is, according to experts, making a lot of companies think twice about building their HQ here.

The fact that people consider the Human Rights bill to be an issue because it took a bit longer to deport Abus Hamza and Qatada than we would like, just shows that we shouldn't let some people vote. Immigration is an issue, but it really isn't anywhere near as big an issue as is reported by the red tops, and could and should have been tackled by previous governments and we don't need to leave the EU to solve the "immigration problem".

The business arguement can go either way, and many business leader are anti europe too. The freedom to travel will be the same as always, its the freedom to work in europe that will change. To have that as a reason to stay is not enough for me, anything else?

Its not just the fact that i hate the human rights bill that matters to me, its the fact we can't change it and vote it out even if we want too. Its the whole undemocratic way in which the eu operates which infuriates me, and everyones votes are just being watered down because our own government is really nothing more than a regional assembly.

This has done more to create voting apathy than anything in my opinion, and nothing will change until its gone.

[Captain...]

The business arguement can go either way, and many business leader are anti europe too. The freedom to travel will be the same as always, its the freedom to work in europe that will change. To have that as a reason to stay is not enough for me, anything else?

Its not just the fact that i hate the human rights bill that matters to me, its the fact we can't change it and vote it out even if we want too. Its the whole undemocratic way in which the eu operates which infuriates me, and everyones votes are just being watered down because our own government is really nothing more than a regional assembly.

This has done more to create voting apathy than anything in my opinion, and nothing will change until its gone.

 

I'm very happy to have a higher power than our government as they regularly prove themselves to be short sighted and act in the interests of themselves over that of the country, voting has been largely irrelevant for the majority of the country for a long time.

 

As for the European bill of human rights? How is this even a discussion, what part of it do you disagree with? The argument that it is undemocratic is bollocks, we don't vote on every parliamentary bill, or every law created by judges, we vote for people to make those decisions for us, they voted to join the EU, this is part of the EU (presided over by a democratically elected council). Of all the problems within the EU, and I'm not naive enough to think there aren't any, I just don't understand how anyone can have a problem with the convention on human rights. OK it cost a bit more money and time to get rid of a few people, but in the end the right thing was done and in the case of Abu Qatada, it forced Jordan's hand to stop paying lip service to human rights and actually prove they are no longer torturing people. Personally I think the extra time and money spent in detaining Qatada was worth it if it means Jordan stops barbaric and inhuman practices.

[Strokes]

I'm very happy to have a higher power than our government as they regularly prove themselves to be short sighted and act in the interests of themselves over that of the country, voting has been largely irrelevant for the majority of the country for a long time.

As for the European bill of human rights? How is this even a discussion, what part of it do you disagree with? The argument that it is undemocratic is bollocks, we don't vote on every parliamentary bill, or every law created by judges, we vote for people to make those decisions for us, they voted to join the EU, this is part of the EU (presided over by a democratically elected council). Of all the problems within the EU, and I'm not naive enough to think there aren't any, I just don't understand how anyone can have a problem with the convention on human rights. OK it cost a bit more money and time to get rid of a few people, but in the end the right thing was done and in the case of Abu Qatada, it forced Jordan's hand to stop paying lip service to human rights and actually prove they are no longer torturing people. Personally I think the extra time and money spent in detaining Qatada was worth it if it means Jordan stops barbaric and inhuman practices.

Whats undemocratic is the eu, how many options are there?? One

[MPH]

The business impact would be huge, the freedom of work and travel within the EU is a huge advantage, and just the fact that Cameron has mentioned there will be a vote on the EU in 2015 is, according to experts, making a lot of companies think twice about building their HQ here.

The fact that people consider the Human Rights bill to be an issue because it took a bit longer to deport Abus Hamza and Qatada than we would like, just shows that we shouldn't let some people vote. Immigration is an issue, but it really isn't anywhere near as big an issue as is reported by the red tops, and could and should have been tackled by previous governments and we don't need to leave the EU to solve the "immigration problem".

but it isnt just the winning vote that shapes policies...

I remember quite a few years ago now that, partly due to a protest vote I am sure, the green party received 15 % of the total vote at a general election. Their biggest ever vote. This unnerved the two biggies who realized it could completely change the next election if the opposition got hold of those votes.

they both introduced a plethora of green policies as a result.

hmm replied to the wrong one. sorry

[Captain...]

Whats undemocratic is the eu, how many options are there?? One

 

There are many options, there is full blooded EU membership and the euro, there is taking on the majority of what the EU stands for, as we do, but not all of it, there are EU micro states like Norway and Sweden, there is the Swiss approach, and then there is the out option. There are options, but we can only choose one, and we wanted to be big players, and by we I mean the democratically elected government of the time. We have the third highest number of members on the EU parliament, which are democratically elected and vote on all legislation, unless you are a UKIP MEP in which case you don't bother attending, nor voting on EU legislation, another reason not to vote for them.

 

So please explain what is undemocratic about it?

[leicsmac]

Will decide after looking at manifestos, but given where I'll likely be it would be a useless vote due to the ridiculously antiquated FPTP system. Means only 10-15% of the areas up and down the country are actually up for grabs with votes that matter.

 

Hung parliament, followed by no coalition, lots of bickering and then finally electoral reform please.

[Guesty]

I'm not one of these people who picks a party and stays to it for life; I won't know till right before the election and see what they are offering - I'm not impressed with any of them atm. I guess you could call me a floating voter.

 

Even though I live in a safe Tory seat and there's no chance of my vote making any difference I always vote in the general election. Like someone else said, if you don't vote then you lose all right to complain when the people who are elected start making decisions which you disagree with and effect you. Plus, there are plenty of people in the world who are denied the luxury so I vote because I'm not in their shoes and because people have fought for my right to vote. I always think half the people who refuse to vote because: 'politics is boring' etc, would vote as soon as the freedom was taken away from them.

[Strokes]

Voting for an mep is like voting in the council elections and expecting them to be accountable for national polocies. There is no accountability and the eu has power to apply laws to this country that our elected government must enforce, we are no longer a country but a state of europe in all but name. The electorate was never given a choice regarding current membership of the eu, and it should be.

[Mack]

You need to add the actual winner of the election that is coming..... None of the above.

[Ford Super Sunday]

I would agree except for the fact that in about 75% of seats it is a foregone conclusion, so actually voting in a lot of cases is irrelevant, if we had proportional representation it would be a lot more relevant, but there really is no point in voting in Charnwood as it is very safe Blue seat. The current system also lends itself to protest voting and tactical voting, not to mention parachuting poor politicians into safe seats

 

Don't know who I will vote for, depends on the manifestos and the candidates, Lib Dems have seriously let themselves down, although though they shouldn't be completely written off after one u-turn (albeit very big one) especially considering the number of U-turns performed by the conservatives this term. Labour aren't very convincing and the Conservatives have just spent the last 4 years reinforcing every negative stereotype about themselves. UKIP are a one policy party which I don't agree with. Unless my vote could actually make a difference I would probably end up voting Green.

 

Very much the case here. I will vote in 2015 but it'll be nothing more than a nice spring walk down to the polling station than the prospect of voting. Robathan and the Conservatives have South Leicestershire tied up by over 10k majority. The Tories could field a laughing monkey instead of a human and he'd get elected. Just like safe Labour seats. No wonder the term 'career politician' is peddled out when they're parachuted into the safest seats in the country and know they're there until they decide to retire.