UK political party poll

Say the coalition broke down today and a general election was on the immediate horizon. Who would you vote for and why?

This thread and poll is open to anybody so don't feel like you can't take part because you're not British.

I wouldn't vote UKIP if I was at gun-point. It's like Thatcher's ♥♥♥♥ing nursery. Their only redeeming feature is that they're dividing the right wing vote and stealing from the Conservative's base, which will hopefully weaken them come the next election. Other than that, Little Englander Nigel Farage has nothing to say to me.

I'm not a fan of regression, draconianism, or the idea that society should be for the few, so I would not be voting for the Conservative party. Their awful job at the economy doesn't even give them a practical appeal.

The Liberal Democrats are, as far as I'm concerned, liars and Tory-enablers whose first and last attempt at power has been unbelievably feckless. It's a bit enjoyable watching them disintegrate as every wing of politics turns their backs on them.

I like the Labour party. Not New Labour, but Labour. Blair and Brown weren't good enough, and the cabinet still remains weak and compromised. Voting for them in my constituency is pointless because Labour don't win seats down here. It would be a reluctant cross.

Every other party is too minor for me to bother summarising.

I'd probably end up voting for Labour, since they're the party that disgusts me the least at the moment. The Lib-Dems sold their souls to the Tories and, while I agree with a lot of their policies, I cannot vote for them in good conscience as they've shown themselves to be Tory lapdogs.

The Tories, well... They've completely ruined the country's economy, which was actually starting to recover before they came along thanks to Brown, and I'm not a fan of them cutting absolutely everything willy-nilly even when it's actually detrimental, and I could honestly never vote for them without a bad taste in my mouth.

UKIP are insane. Leaving the EU would be economic suicide, and would make the Tories' damage to the economy look like nothing at all.

BNP are, well, the BNP.

---------- Post added at 02:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

Speaking of which, I should really register my absentee vote at some point.

Tories are evil, Lib Dems are spineless, UKIP are insane, Greens haven't a hope in hell of winning, so, by a process of elimination, Labour.

Thank you to everybody who is voting, but if you could post something about your opinions then we could have a discussion, and that's a really fun thing to do, right?

Conservatives? ♥♥♥♥servatives

They've effectively stopped a generation of people having access to university and have turned into an exclusive club for those with rich parents and a stiff upper-lip. They say "Ooh yes, but it's 27,000 over a longer period of time" but at the end of the day that means I'm still going to be in more debt and for a longer period of time then my brothers. Cheers pal I appreciate it. Most of the Cons are corrupt as well in having oversea bank accounts, they're as bad a Bono and Jimmy Carr yet feel they can condemn there actions?

Out of interest, who voted for SNP? And why do you want Independence? Is it so you do better at the Eurovision Song Contest?

If you asked me a year ago I would have said Tory. Anyone who knows me knows that I am conservative (with a small C), so Tory would be my natural state.

But one would have to reside in a lunatic asylum to vote for Cameron. The coalition has done NOTHING for the betterment of this country- they have probably made it worse. The easing of the recession is a result of Brown's policies before he was kicked out (why was he hated? I liked Brown), and the cuts are just stupid.
I remember at the election they promised that front line services (the police, the army etc) would be protected, yet that was just a massive lie. The army is being cut to less than 100, 000 (which would leave it difficult for us to defend ourselves), and the police are struggling to do their jobs due to their numbers shrinking. There is still massive inefficiency at the MOD, which is being left alone while front line troops are being made redundant WHILE WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. The Coalition is basically betraying our soldiers, and they are certainly not fit to run this country.

Basically nothing they have done is sane in any way, and they seem to just be on one big PR campaign to make it seem "we are all in this together". Yeah, Cameron and his other buddies from their privileged upbringings are in it together in their comfortable lifestyles, while the rest of the country suffers.

And the one thing that typifies the utter insanity of this government is the U-turns over the future aircraft carriers. In 2010 they made a VERY good decision to build them as conventional take off and landing ships, with the F35C fighter on board. This would have resulted in a slightly higher initial cost, but would be much cheaper in the long run as well as being very effective- we would be able to fly French or American aircraft off our carriers, whilst also being able to operate American built AWACS aircraft.
But early this year, the government took an absolutely stupid decision. The carriers would have a "ski jump" fitted (much like the old Invincible class light carriers) and the aircraft carried would be the V/TOL F35B. The ships themselves would be slightly cheaper, but in the long term the maintenance costs would astronomical. The F35B is also half as effective as the C version, as it carries a smaller payload, less fuel, and is far less maneuverable. Yet the government decided to make a U-turn and switch to the more expensive and less effective option. Utter insanity.

The only reason I think they could have done this is corruption, plain and simple. BAE are the ones building the carriers, and it would be beneficial to them to build the V/TOL carriers instead. The only party that would benefit from this decision is BAE, so this just screams out corruption in the government. BAE is dictating our defence policy, not the government. Just proves how weak, stupid, and plain terrible the Coalition government is.

So while I may identify as conservative, I will never vote for the Tories unless I can see they are not the PR whores they seem to be today. The Tories do not care about the country, they just want to get a good article in a newspaper that will do well for their egos.

I might, however, vote Labour. I thought Brown was a good PM (what did he do to be hated? He had a bad media image, sure, but he was basically running the show throughout Blair's premiership and peopled seemed to like Blair before 2003. The masses seemed to hate him just because comedians on Mock the Week and other programs kept making cruel jokes about him), but Blair was rather sickening to me. I agreed with some of his policies, but his leadership style was far too Presidential for me. A good PM is someone like Major or Brown, who isn't a slave to PR and often takes unpopular decisions that would have a benefit to the country in the long run. Brown's economic policies are starting to pay off as the recession is easing somewhat, but everyone just remembers him as a bad PM. He was quite the opposite, sacrificing his image for what he felt was the correct course of action.

Regarding Ed Milliband, I think he will be fine as long as he doesn't end up as either A) a puppet of the unions or B) a puppet of the more experienced Labour MPs. He is rather young, which is quite worrisome, but if he is strong willed enough then I think there isn't much to worry about. I do need to read Labour's manifesto before I make a decision, however.


But yes, anyone who votes Conservative in 2015 deserves to be locked up. For treason, as well as being mentally handicapped.

Dovah's pretty much summed things up there. I was always planning to vote Lib Dem, but now they've shown just how pathetic they are...

Also, let's be honest with ourselves. The non-main parties are either two-dimensional (the Green Party, separatist parties), or ♥♥♥♥ing insane (UKIP, BNP). The only really viable option are the three (two?) main parties.

Depending on how things pan out, I might just vote for MRLP, just because it seems that everybody's an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Otherwise it'll probably be Labour for me.

I'm not British and not know well of British parties,but in this poll I voted for UKIP.

The reason is,that Nigel Farage surprised me positively in a way I would never expect.I mean this man has balls, and dares to speak of his believes. It's hard to find people like that,even more politicians like that today.
And what surprised me even more is that he defended the Greek people in the Euro-Parliament more than even Greek politicians did.
I know he is an anti-European Union politician,and that for that reason he is considered right,or even nationalist from some people.
But I really don't think that the EU of modern times is a saint.
It is good that Britain is a powerful and independent enough country,that could not be affected by some EU's ideas.

I'm not against a union of European nations,but I'd like that to be an organization that actually unites the people perhaps promotes cultural events and stuff that brings closer Europeans to each other,than an authoritarian economic union.


The EU as it is now,does more to divide Europeans than unite them.
Economically weak countries of the union are called PIGS by EU officials,and they also build up degrading stereotypes for nations,and they clearly state that they are sadists and want to see people of nations suffer, because they can't produce enough money.

I admire Britain for staying out of the Euro-trap and staying a more independent country than other European countries.

They are actually called PIIGS, which stands for Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. It is just a handy acronym to use when talking about the weaker European economies. It isn't supposed to be an insult, just officials like acronyms.

And really, the problem with the weaker economies is not because "they can't produce enough money", it is just they have long term structural problems with their economies that can only be solved with very painful measures. It isn't the richer countries bullying the small ones, just their poor economic management is a danger to the rest.

No one wants to build degrading stereotypes for nations, but when their governments refuse to take measures to make their economies actually WORK (and not just riding off boom periods) then they do deserve everything that comes to them. Other small nations such as Finland have been able to keep their economy strong throughout the recession, so why have the PIIGS economies not been able to?

The reason is simple. Throughout their modern history, these other smaller nations have ignored the blaring structural problems in their economies- trade unions being too powerful, wages being too high in comparison to productivity, etc. The powerful economies such as Germany or Britain have gone through periods of structural reform decades ago, and the PIIGS economies need to do this now. If they had only done the same while the world economy was doing well, all the pain they are having to go through today would have been averted.


In short, I know it is rather cruel to say so, but the PIIGS have brought it on themselves due to poor economic management over the years.


Also, Nigel Farage is an idiot. Single issue parties are a waste of space.

I'm under 18, so I am unable to vote. Before I vote on this poll, can somebody please explain to me the aims of UKIP?

The aim of UKIP is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

Originally Posted by Silver

The aim of UKIP is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

Great, I'm in!

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

Great, I'm in!

And that's it? You base your entire political orientation on a single issue? What about the economy? Or healthcare? Education? Defence?

Any political party that defines it's position using a single issue does not deserve any votes.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

And that's it? You base your entire political orientation on a single issue? What about the economy? Or healthcare? Education? Defence?

That's why I also support the Green Party. Isn't it wonderful to have a party that has one definite goal? At least they won't be sidetracked by wars or money or other countries begging for aid they don't need.

I am starting to doubt your level of seriousness.
Is keeping unemployment and inflation low not an important issue for you? Are you fine with people living below the poverty line due to their family not having any income just so a single issue can be resolved?

You should look at the wider picture. And no, it isn't wonderful at all. It is a very, very bad thing.

Governments need to run the country, not chase a single issue that is not really that important.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

I am starting to doubt your level of seriousness.
Is keeping unemployment and inflation low not an important issue for you? Are you fine with people living below the poverty line due to their family not having any income just so a single issue can be resolved?

You should look at the wider picture. And no, it isn't wonderful at all. It is a very, very bad thing.

Governments need to run the country, not chase a single issue that is not really that important.

I'd say environmental protection is a very, very important issue.

Anyway, I think it's logical that once a party has solved it's main issue and achieved it's central aim, then they can take care of other issues regarding poverty, economy, etc. And if they're not good at solving other problems, we can kick them out and vote again.

(Besides, getting Britain out of the EU would solve a whole range of problems, especially unemployment.)

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

I'd say environmental protection is a very, very important issue.

Is keeping children literate, sick/injured people alive, crime low, and families above the poverty line not a greater priority?

Anyway, I think it's logical that once a party has solved it's main issue and achieved it's central aim, then they can take care of other issues regarding poverty, economy, etc. And if they're not good at solving other problems, we can kick them out and vote again.

You would have to wait 4 years for that. Look at the current government, the nation made a huge mistake in 2010 and is paying heavily for it. If a government spends a lot of money on protecting the environment, and keeps other issues on a lower priority, then people will suffer. Do you know who would suffer the most? The poor. The rich will be able to pay for private education or healthcare, but if the government neglects vital services such as these in order to focus on the environment, then it is poor people who will suffer the most.

(Besides, getting Britain out of the EU would solve a whole range of problems, especially unemployment.)

How would it 'solve' unemployment?

Economic unions are very good for a nation, as long as the member states are on the same level economically. Including the PIIGS economies in the EU was a mistake from the start, and this crisis should have been seen earlier. Free trade areas, customs unions, common currencies etc are all hugely beneficial for the member states.

I will put it in simple terms for you. Country A has a population of 10 million people. It resides in continent X which has a combined population of 100 million people. A firm residing in country A will see a much greater amount of customers if it was able to sell to everyone in continent X without any form of tariffs or currency exchanges. That is what the EU is for, and it is very beneficial for member states.

The Green Party are, perhaps tied with Respect, the most left-wing party in this poll. UKIP are quite strongly right-wing. So they're quite profoundly different.

The Green Party are the most concerned with the environment but that doesn't mean that they should be the default vote for the environmentalist. In fact, all of the mainstream parties tend to be quite forward thinking with the environment. The Green Party have been criticised as anti-science in the past, and their policies range from debatable in terms of helping the environment (anti-nuclear) to downright odd (anti-zoo, anti-growth). They're also very pro-EU, by the way, and so you may be struggling with some cognitive dissonance if you also plan to support UKIP.

There's more to UKIP than their rejection of the EU. Xenophobia, privatisations, climate change denial etc etc. UKIP are the Daily Mail's wet dream and that's a dangerous thing for many people. They'd also cause unemployment like nobody's business via their ruthless cutting in the public sector.

So you need to be careful when paying too much heed to the headline issues of single-issue parties. Often there is a far denser and often concerning backdrop. They would need to run the country in all respects, after all.

The EU may be on its knees but I am careful about committing to being a eurosceptic. How much trade comes from the EU? More than we'd like to think.

Bit boozy tonight so sorry for my curtness.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

Is keeping children literate, sick/injured people alive, crime low, and families above the poverty line not a greater priority?

Those are national issues. Climate Change is a global issue.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

You would have to wait 4 years for that. Look at the current government, the nation made a huge mistake in 2010 and is paying heavily for it. If a government spends a lot of money on protecting the environment, and keeps other issues on a lower priority, then people will suffer. Do you know who would suffer the most? The poor. The rich will be able to pay for private education or healthcare, but if the government neglects vital services such as these in order to focus on the environment, then it is poor people who will suffer the most.

To be honest, we cannot predict anything until a government takes power. I did not expect riots in 2011 under a coalition government, but that's just life.

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

How would it 'solve' unemployment?

Economic unions are very good for a nation, as long as the member states are on the same level economically. Including the PIIGS economies in the EU was a mistake from the start, and this crisis should have been seen earlier. Free trade areas, customs unions, common currencies etc are all hugely beneficial for the member states.

I will put it in simple terms for you. Country A has a population of 10 million people. It resides in continent X which has a combined population of 100 million people. A firm residing in country A will see a much greater amount of customers if it was able to sell to everyone in continent X without any form of tariffs or currency exchanges. That is what the EU is for, and it is very beneficial for member states.

You're from San Marino, right? Are you part of the EU? Well, being from the UK, the EU has done nothing but ♥♥♥♥ on us.

As an island, we gather most of our food from the sea: fishing. Because we are an island, we are entirely surrounded by water, and therefore can gather more fish than anyone. Suddenly, we're part of the EU. The EU says "everybody should have the same fishing limitations and territories." We are not entitled to half as much sea as we were before joining, and the fishing industry falls dramatically. Okay, we're not starving, thanks to imported food, but the EU has ruined fishermens' lives forever.

We're a service economy nowadays so our primary sector would never continue being as strong as it was. Our fishing industry would be responsible for a very small part of our larger economic structure. The EU has created trade which is what we actually need.