Rusevelt Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) Im pretty sure most of us here don't care about which party will the lead our country out of mess we are currently in, because the two main contenders are just as bad as each other historically, but if you do, who you like to see win the general election and why? I undecided at the moment because the whole build up to the election is still a slagging match on each other. Ps, id loved to blag my way onto one of those live tv debate shows like the recenty one on channel 4, and state "Adam@tartybikes party to lead the country" Edited May 11, 2010 by Rusevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 I won't be voting for anyone - no matter what party gets in I'll still get my healthcare, I'll still have to pay out taxes on fuel, booze, fags, wages, I'll still see the same headlines blaming <name here> for ruining the country. Nothing will change for me if I do, or don't vote...I give Gordon enough of my wages, if he thinks he's taking my lie in he can piss off. In fact cancel that, apparently it's the 6th May, so I'll be working - and after that I'll probably be too tired to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamR28 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 I won't be voting for anyone - no matter what party gets in I'll still get my healthcare, I'll still have to pay out taxes on fuel, booze, fags, wages, I'll still see the same headlines blaming <name here> for ruining the country. Nothing will change for me if I do, or don't vote...I give Gordon enough of my wages, if he thinks he's taking my lie in he can piss off. In fact cancel that, apparently it's the 6th May, so I'll be working - and after that I'll probably be too tired to do anything. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam-Griffin Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Gordon Browns doing no worse of a job than anyone else would be in his position. Like Anzo said, nothings going to change who ever gets it. Therfore, I don't give 2 shits and won't be voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 There's more scope for change this time round just 'cos we're sort of in the shit as a whole, whereas previously it's been on more of an even keel. Labour and Conservatives are sort of proposing different routes after the election so I think there might be more of a difference, but it seems to be that they're both planning on doing the same things at different times... Both of them can go do one though. Lib Dem vote just to f**k shit up, perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 it will be too close for either party to effect any decent changes - the parties wont work together - so we are all f**ked Vote Green. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) it will be too close for either party to effect any decent changes - the parties wont work together - so we are all f**ked Vote Green. If I do vote, it will be Green. The first three parties are of little difference; in terms of foreign policy and the environment. The Green Parties policies certainly seem the sanist, and I'm more inclined to believe what they say over the rhetoric we hear from the three main parties. They seem to have a grasp on the fact that human health requires a broader consideration beyond monetary health and also that our place on this earth shouldn't be of one exploitation but of living sustainably with other life or the ecosystem as a whole. It's also great to hear a political party willing to admit America's support for various tyrannies across the world. It would be preferable to hear them mention America's (and the UK's) installation of tyrannical regime but they're nearly there at least. Check out the Green philosophy here. Edited March 30, 2010 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 As has just been said, they're all pretty much the same, we'll still have to pay through the teeth for everything so I won't be voting. When people say "Well you can't moan about the country if you didn't vote" - Yeah right, if someone's not doing their job right and I'm paying for it I'll moan as much as I like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebelistic Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 If I do vote, it will be Green. The first three parties are of little difference; in terms of foreign policy and the environment. The Green Parties policies certainly seem the sanist, and I'm more inclined to believe what they say over the rhetoric we hear from the three main parties. They seem to have a grasp on the fact that human health requires a broader consideration beyond monetary health and also that our place on this earth shouldn't be of one exploitation but of living sustainably with other life or the ecosystem as a whole. It's also great to hear a political party willing to admit America's support for various tyrannies across the world. It would be preferable to hear them mention America's (and the UK's) installation of tyrannical regime but they're nearly there at least. Check out the Green philosophy here. Agreed, I'll vote green if I vote (or for another party that's pro left wing and supports animal rights etc.). Most of the main parties are corrupt scum anyway. They say we have to tighten our belts to get through the financial crisis but it is them who support capitalism and have allowed things to get this bad. F**k 'em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 As has just been said, they're all pretty much the same, we'll still have to pay through the teeth for everything so I won't be voting. When people say "Well you can't moan about the country if you didn't vote" - Yeah right, if someone's not doing their job right and I'm paying for it I'll moan as much as I like Take a look at the link I just gave, you might find that the Green Party holds some views you appreciate. They are a fairly unique party and, I think, the only relatively sane one. The trouble is if we give up without properly exploring our options we risk further losing our power to change the political situation we find ourselves in. We easily take for granted that the things that benefit us will stay the same but this isn't so. There are always people wanting to oppress and exploit us for their own gain. We forget that our current benefits are on the back of great oppression and exploitation that was fought against for the majority of 'civilized' times. It is true however that our democracy is a bit of a farce in the sense that not each party has equal resources to advertise itself but then this also relates to the apathy of voters who aren't willing to properly explore alternatives. Our actions that contribute to the political condition have ramifications potentially for ourselves, but more likely for future generations in terms of the environment. Most of you will have kids but nobody seems to manage the forsight about how they will feel bringing their children into a broken world. What sort of life are we cultivating for future generations? Our political influence also relates to foreign policy in the now and the explotation of other countries relating to the profits of big business. When these things are just abstract ideas people easily brush them aside but if each person was exposed to it as a reality, I suspect they would each change their mind and feeling. It's a shame that not many seem able to recognise that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusevelt Posted March 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) Im amazed that Tony Blair is now jumping on the labour campaign bandwagon, when he effectively lead this country into this mess in the first place, then refused to stand down as prime minister despite pressure from his own party to hand over the mantle to Gordon Brown, then when he did finally step down as p'm, he pretty much dropped gordon brown right in the thick of this whole mess, and now he's back campaigning for his former party that pretty much ousted him out of power. What the heck is that all about Is maggie thatcher now gonna jump in this political spectacle, hopefully not.... Edited March 30, 2010 by Rusevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Im amazed that Tony Blair is now jumping on the labour campaign bandwagon, when he effectively lead this country into this mess in the first place, then refused to stand down as prime minister despite pressure from his own party to hand over the mantle to Gordon Brown, then when he did finally step down as p'm, he pretty much dropped gordon brown right in the thick of this whole mess, and now he's back campaigning for his former party that pretty much ousted him out of power. What the heck is that all about. I happen to like Tony Blair - and Brown wasn't dumped in the shit, his ignorance did that. Mainly I like Tony Blair because he seemed a bit more honest and open about things. Gordon just strikes me more as an indoor boy. Is maggie thatcher now gonna jump in this political spectacle, hopefully not.... Unless it's for the Dementia Party I seriously doubt it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Mainly I like Tony Blair because he seemed a bit more honest and open about things. I'd suggest that such qualities were only superficial relating to his charisma, great acting and rhetoric skills, something which Brown clearly lacks. The guy happens to be a war criminal though as he took us to war on knowingly false premises and even if those false premises were true, he was still involved in breaking interenational law that led to great atrocity in Iraq. I'd suggest that he's definitely very dishonest, just like most individuals involved in mainstream governmental politics. It makes me really quite angry just thinkiing about him and our foreign politics in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 I'd suggest that such qualities were only superficial relating to his charisma, great acting and rhetoric skills, something which Brown clearly lacks. The guy happens to be a war criminal though as he took us to war on knowingly false premises and even if those false premises were true, he was still involved in breaking interenational law that led to great atrocity in Iraq. I'd suggest that he's definitely very dishonest, just like most individuals involved in mainstream governmental politics. It makes me really quite angry just thinkiing about him and our foreign politics in general. I think the whole going to war thing can't be singled out to one person inparticular. Not many government officials have any idea what's going on out there apart from a quick breifing by some officer. Surely the decision to go to war would have been passed by several people, the UN officials, other UK officials, EU maybe and I'd imagine even the head of the British Army (Mike Jackson at the time?) would have a say in the matter too? I don't know the process of going to war, and I doubt many people do, but there would have been a lot of budgeting, planning and (at the time) some pretty hard evidence that Iraq was a threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hitcher Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Yarrgghhh me vote be going to... YARGH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash-Kennard Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 which party isnt going to raise uni costs for students? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) I think the whole going to war thing can't be singled out to one person inparticular. Not many government officials have any idea what's going on out there apart from a quick breifing by some officer. Surely the decision to go to war would have been passed by several people, the UN officials, other UK officials, EU maybe and I'd imagine even the head of the British Army (Mike Jackson at the time?) would have a say in the matter too? I don't know the process of going to war, and I doubt many people do, but there would have been a lot of budgeting, planning and (at the time) some pretty hard evidence that Iraq was a threat. If not many people in government know what's going on, does that in anyway form a basis for war? The fact is, however, that Blair is clearly the individual with the greatest access to all the relevant information for going to war. Although he has to gain majority governmental support for going to war, he is the individual that initiates a proposal for war, regarding a motivation and information/evidence. The claimed motivation for war was a pre-emptive strike on Iraq for supposed possession of WMD's yet no WMD's were found. Prior to the war, experts that denied the existence of WMD's in Iraq were ignored and any evidence in support of WMD's was highlighted. Iraq's invitations for weapons inspectors to investigate WMD's were ignored by the USA, Britian, etc. because that simply was not the motivation. A modern historical consideration illuminates a different motivation. Breifly, the gulf war and following UN sanctions which saught to systematically ruin Iraq and its people are evidence of motivation aside from self defence or some kind of altruism (the west couldn't care for the Kurds, seeing as it delibrately motivated them to cause Iraq to invade so that there was an excuse for war). In the gulf war our armies specifically targetted hospitals, water treatment facilities, schools, powerplants etc. which had no military value but desimated the resources required for basic living and a healthy society. The UN sanctions that followed the gulf war caused the deaths of either 0.5-1 million children, plus an amount of adults (I forget how many in total) over the 4-5 years (about that time I think) they were in place. The sanctions blocked medical supplies, food, water, materials to rebuild the infrastructure, etc. Two high UN officails, who worked in Iraq, resigned over the sanctions, because they were essentially a form of "genocide" - their words. The sanctions were lessened when a scheme called "food for oil" was introdcued, which forced Sadam because of the dire situation, to trade oil as a ridiculously low price. He was unable to trade anywhere else because of the sanctions. The sanctions and war were basically a way of getting the people of Iraq to overthrow Sadam, to avoid what was being done to them, where thereafter a more agreeable regime could be installed that followed the wishes of western power. All of this relates to the nationalisation of oil by Iraq, so that oil profits serve the people of the country that the oil comes from and not instead the western multinationals. This is such a broad theme, not only in oil but also with resources in general across the world. Unfortunately, our apathy supports it. We are all implicit in the actions of our governments, ignorance not really being an excuse. Governments and most specifically, leaders, are not blind to these facts, they are involved in them because they bring some monetary or power gain. Why assume that somebody in government actually has good motivations? If we take a look at the alternative version of history that never makes it into mainstream media, we get a quite different idea of what mainstream government tends to be about. We all seem to recognise that Politicians talk shit, but we usually don't investigate what lies beneath that shit. It's actually pretty outrageous. Anyone actually interested should check out a online resource such as Z-net. Edited March 30, 2010 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpson Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 which party isnt going to raise uni costs for students? Doesn't matter for us ash, we will always pay 3.5k. I won't vote, its all bollocks, I maintain the right to complain about it though. There all scamming, cheating cunts, just because they can "legally" house switch, doesn't mean that they morally should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanuckleJive Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 If both parties are gonna do pretty much the same thing, I'd rather that we DON'T have gordon brown leading it again, I'd like to have a prime minister who contains at least 10% usefulness I'll probably write "chuck norris" at the bottom of the paper and tick next to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 If both parties are gonna do pretty much the same thing, I'd rather that we DON'T have gordon brown leading it again, I'd like to have a prime minister who contains at least 10% usefulness I'll probably write "chuck norris" at the bottom of the paper and tick next to that. Actually that is a very sensible idea - if everyone who didnt vote for whatever reason went in an spoilt their ballot paper you might see some changes to the system and the parties... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Shucksmith Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 If both parties are gonna do pretty much the same thing, I'd rather that we DON'T have gordon brown leading it again, I'd like to have a prime minister who contains at least 10% usefulness Agreed. David Cameron > Gordon Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanuckleJive Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Agreed. David Cameron > Gordon Brown. I'm not sure how I feel about David Cameron either to be honest, He seems a bit pretentious at the best of times. I'm not big on politics at all, But when the whole farce went down about the letters Gordon Brown wrote to the parents of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Mis-spelt names and scrawled handwriting and all that lark, I really realised how utterly useless a human being he is Actually that is a very sensible idea - if everyone who didnt vote for whatever reason went in an spoilt their ballot paper you might see some changes to the system and the parties... I'm something of a revolutionary PeanuckleJive for prime minister! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Personality contest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 you dont vote for the leader you vote for your local MP - if you prefer david cameron but your local tory is a fanny you shouldnt really be voting conservative, as I would guess that will affect you far more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanuckleJive Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 you dont vote for the leader you vote for your local MP - if you prefer david cameron but your local tory is a fanny you shouldnt really be voting conservative, as I would guess that will affect you far more.... Our local MP was a legend, Til the expenses scandal and then he became antichrist to pretty much everybody here, So I think he'll be out this time around anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.