By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The UK 2010 Election Thread- Who will/would get your vote?

 

The UK 2010 Election Thread- Who will/would get your vote?

Conservative - David Cameron 19 32.20%
 
Labour - Gordon Brown 11 18.64%
 
Liberal Democrats - Nick Clegg 22 37.29%
 
Other Party (Green/UKIP/Etc) 5 8.47%
 
Undecided 2 3.39%
 
Total:59
Kantor on 21 April 2010
FootballFan said:

FIRSTLY I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I DONT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE VIEWS OF THIS PARTY. I JUST THINK IT IS "RIGHT" TO INCLUDE THEM AS THEY ARE A POLITICAL PARTY WITHIN THE UK.

 

No, thanks. I'd rather not be conversing with somebody who, knowing the facts about them, would still support that racist joke of a party. Not you, of course.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
MARCUSDJACKSON on 21 April 2010
Slimebeast said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
I would probably vote Liberal Democrats. I feel like the Authortarian levels of Britain are at a scary high level.

I mean stuff we complain about in the patriot act is stuff that happens in the UK all the time.

Conservative is a close second though based on the "Key issues" i've read between the two so far. I'll keep you up to date on my "non" vote.


Also, what's up with the health care saying "It's for the people who need it not who can pay."?

I mean, you guys have universal healthcare. Is there some rampant discrimination against the poor? I mean, I know if your poor your MUCH more likely to die of random diseases in the UK but I thought that was just due to the fact that the poor usually have a worse lifestyle.

hmm?

I think the NHS should always be a priority for the goverment, all the main parties support it.

 

They are saying it in a way that makes it sound like NHS discriminates against the poor.  Both Conservative and Liberal Democrats say "Healthcare should be about who needs it not who could pay."

This would be analgous to someone saying "Black people should be allowed to vote" in the US.  Black people already can vote... and have been able to for a while... why are you bringing this up?  Are there black people who can't vote?"

No. The national health care system in the UK doesnt discriminate against the poor. Just like here in Sweden they argue that it's important to keep the currnt system with strong public health care, and not let private alternatives get too strong and 'sneak in' a class based health care system in the long run when/if people lose their trust in the qualify of public health care.

See americans. Obama tried to do this but the republicans dissided to cry about it.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

FootballFan on 21 April 2010
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
SciFiBoy said:
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)

If I was in charge I would hit the millionaire bankers a lot harder with taxes. In addition, transfer the pay increases from the higest earning managers in the NHS to the lowest paid nurses. The NHS needs much much more funding but I don't quite know where the source of that could come from.....

Ideally the government would legalise many drugs. Charging obscence prices and profiting massivly from taxation. Only the rich would be able to consume these goods and the NHS would be placed under less strain as they wouldn't be as popular as they are know! 

This is where we need to be careful. It's very easy to say "Oh, tax the rich people, they're all spoiled and they don't need it"

But what about the rich people who have worked their arses off to become rich? People who started with nothing, and slogged to get to where they are now? Does the government really have the right to take away half of their money, and give part of it to people who are completely unwilling to work, and thus are poor? Yes, some people work hard and are poor. And yes, they should get help. But if you're not going to work, you don't deserve a penny from the government, which in turn would come from the people who work for a living.

I'm not criticising the NHS or anything, nor am I criticising progressive taxation. I just think that we need a healthy dose of capitalism, like Thatcher gave us in the 1980s. David Cameron won't give us that, but it would be a step.

I don't think that the government should give any money to the leeches that refuse to work. If they choose not to contribute to the economy the the governemtn should have the right to choose not to contribute to them. Also, im oppose to funding foreign nationals stay in the UK either. I think that the "super rich" who can live off their interest should be taxed in comparison to the apparent continuous crusade against the middle classes. The middle class seem to be the easy target though especially in the last...erm....13 years. 



Kantor on 21 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
I would probably vote Liberal Democrats. I feel like the Authortarian levels of Britain are at a scary high level.

I mean stuff we complain about in the patriot act is stuff that happens in the UK all the time.

Conservative is a close second though based on the "Key issues" i've read between the two so far. I'll keep you up to date on my "non" vote.


Also, what's up with the health care saying "It's for the people who need it not who can pay."?

I mean, you guys have universal healthcare. Is there some rampant discrimination against the poor? I mean, I know if your poor your MUCH more likely to die of random diseases in the UK but I thought that was just due to the fact that the poor usually have a worse lifestyle.

It's the Liberal Democrats' and Conservatives' job to complain about what Labour are doing. And Gordon Brown has a newfound obsession with agreeing with everything the Lib Dems say.

Having said that, people being denied treatment which they need due to lack of funds is quite a serious problem within the NHS, and one which all of the parties promise to tackle (of course, one of them has had 13 years to do so, which Clegg and Cameron point out every ten minutes).



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kantor on 21 April 2010
FootballFan said:
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
SciFiBoy said:
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)

If I was in charge I would hit the millionaire bankers a lot harder with taxes. In addition, transfer the pay increases from the higest earning managers in the NHS to the lowest paid nurses. The NHS needs much much more funding but I don't quite know where the source of that could come from.....

Ideally the government would legalise many drugs. Charging obscence prices and profiting massivly from taxation. Only the rich would be able to consume these goods and the NHS would be placed under less strain as they wouldn't be as popular as they are know! 

This is where we need to be careful. It's very easy to say "Oh, tax the rich people, they're all spoiled and they don't need it"

But what about the rich people who have worked their arses off to become rich? People who started with nothing, and slogged to get to where they are now? Does the government really have the right to take away half of their money, and give part of it to people who are completely unwilling to work, and thus are poor? Yes, some people work hard and are poor. And yes, they should get help. But if you're not going to work, you don't deserve a penny from the government, which in turn would come from the people who work for a living.

I'm not criticising the NHS or anything, nor am I criticising progressive taxation. I just think that we need a healthy dose of capitalism, like Thatcher gave us in the 1980s. David Cameron won't give us that, but it would be a step.

I don't think that the government should give any money to the leeches that refuse to work. If they choose not to contribute to the economy the the governemtn should have the right to choose not to contribute to them. Also, im oppose to funding foreign nationals stay in the UK either. I think that the "super rich" who can live off their interest should be taxed in comparison to the apparent continuous crusade against the middle classes. The middle class seem to be the easy target though especially in the last...erm....13 years. 

If a foreign national is working here, working hard and contributing to the economy and the country, he has just as much right to stay here as any British citizen, and infinitely more right than an "indigenous Brit" who refuses to work.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 21 April 2010
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
SciFiBoy said:
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)

If I was in charge I would hit the millionaire bankers a lot harder with taxes. In addition, transfer the pay increases from the higest earning managers in the NHS to the lowest paid nurses. The NHS needs much much more funding but I don't quite know where the source of that could come from.....

Ideally the government would legalise many drugs. Charging obscence prices and profiting massivly from taxation. Only the rich would be able to consume these goods and the NHS would be placed under less strain as they wouldn't be as popular as they are know! 

This is where we need to be careful. It's very easy to say "Oh, tax the rich people, they're all spoiled and they don't need it"

But what about the rich people who have worked their arses off to become rich? People who started with nothing, and slogged to get to where they are now? Does the government really have the right to take away half of their money, and give part of it to people who are completely unwilling to work, and thus are poor? Yes, some people work hard and are poor. And yes, they should get help. But if you're not going to work, you don't deserve a penny from the government, which in turn would come from the people who work for a living.

I'm not criticising the NHS or anything, nor am I criticising progressive taxation. I just think that we need a healthy dose of capitalism, like Thatcher gave us in the 1980s. David Cameron won't give us that, but it would be a step.

I don't think that the government should give any money to the leeches that refuse to work. If they choose not to contribute to the economy the the governemtn should have the right to choose not to contribute to them. Also, im oppose to funding foreign nationals stay in the UK either. I think that the "super rich" who can live off their interest should be taxed in comparison to the apparent continuous crusade against the middle classes. The middle class seem to be the easy target though especially in the last...erm....13 years. 

If a foreign national is working here, working hard and contributing to the economy and the country, he has just as much right to stay here as any British citizen, and infinitely more right than an "indigenous Brit" who refuses to work.

No. There are national states for a reason, none of them with open borders. There's still such a thing as birth right. 



Kasz216 on 21 April 2010
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
SciFiBoy said:
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)

If I was in charge I would hit the millionaire bankers a lot harder with taxes. In addition, transfer the pay increases from the higest earning managers in the NHS to the lowest paid nurses. The NHS needs much much more funding but I don't quite know where the source of that could come from.....

Ideally the government would legalise many drugs. Charging obscence prices and profiting massivly from taxation. Only the rich would be able to consume these goods and the NHS would be placed under less strain as they wouldn't be as popular as they are know! 

This is where we need to be careful. It's very easy to say "Oh, tax the rich people, they're all spoiled and they don't need it"

But what about the rich people who have worked their arses off to become rich? People who started with nothing, and slogged to get to where they are now? Does the government really have the right to take away half of their money, and give part of it to people who are completely unwilling to work, and thus are poor? Yes, some people work hard and are poor. And yes, they should get help. But if you're not going to work, you don't deserve a penny from the government, which in turn would come from the people who work for a living.

I'm not criticising the NHS or anything, nor am I criticising progressive taxation. I just think that we need a healthy dose of capitalism, like Thatcher gave us in the 1980s. David Cameron won't give us that, but it would be a step.

I don't think that the government should give any money to the leeches that refuse to work. If they choose not to contribute to the economy the the governemtn should have the right to choose not to contribute to them. Also, im oppose to funding foreign nationals stay in the UK either. I think that the "super rich" who can live off their interest should be taxed in comparison to the apparent continuous crusade against the middle classes. The middle class seem to be the easy target though especially in the last...erm....13 years. 

If a foreign national is working here, working hard and contributing to the economy and the country, he has just as much right to stay here as any British citizen, and infinitely more right than an "indigenous Brit" who refuses to work.

I think the answer is clear.

Deport the unemployed to the Pitcarn islands and Anguila.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 21 April 2010

I don't think we should have one party running against the other. So everybody will be represented, i think they should run in a bipartisan efort against each other, But this would divide those parties even more. Instead of just one republican party we would have about four, and we would have two Demacartic parties. I think everything should be balanced so everyone would be forced to work together in a bipartisan way, and noone could blame the other for something not getting done.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

FootballFan on 21 April 2010
Slimebeast said:
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
Kantor said:
FootballFan said:
SciFiBoy said:
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)

If I was in charge I would hit the millionaire bankers a lot harder with taxes. In addition, transfer the pay increases from the higest earning managers in the NHS to the lowest paid nurses. The NHS needs much much more funding but I don't quite know where the source of that could come from.....

Ideally the government would legalise many drugs. Charging obscence prices and profiting massivly from taxation. Only the rich would be able to consume these goods and the NHS would be placed under less strain as they wouldn't be as popular as they are know! 

This is where we need to be careful. It's very easy to say "Oh, tax the rich people, they're all spoiled and they don't need it"

But what about the rich people who have worked their arses off to become rich? People who started with nothing, and slogged to get to where they are now? Does the government really have the right to take away half of their money, and give part of it to people who are completely unwilling to work, and thus are poor? Yes, some people work hard and are poor. And yes, they should get help. But if you're not going to work, you don't deserve a penny from the government, which in turn would come from the people who work for a living.

I'm not criticising the NHS or anything, nor am I criticising progressive taxation. I just think that we need a healthy dose of capitalism, like Thatcher gave us in the 1980s. David Cameron won't give us that, but it would be a step.

I don't think that the government should give any money to the leeches that refuse to work. If they choose not to contribute to the economy the the governemtn should have the right to choose not to contribute to them. Also, im oppose to funding foreign nationals stay in the UK either. I think that the "super rich" who can live off their interest should be taxed in comparison to the apparent continuous crusade against the middle classes. The middle class seem to be the easy target though especially in the last...erm....13 years. 

If a foreign national is working here, working hard and contributing to the economy and the country, he has just as much right to stay here as any British citizen, and infinitely more right than an "indigenous Brit" who refuses to work.

No. There are national states for a reason, none of them with open borders. There's still such a thing as birth right. 


Kantor.

I was actually referring to the foreign nationals that came to this country and don't have any intentions of working. We shouldn't really support anybody who is capable and refuses work.

Some Romanian gypsies for example. MOST want to work and contribute, but, the ones that don't shouldn't get any of British taxpayers money. Some provide no benefit to being here. Why should they be allowed to stay if they have teh wrong intentions? A minority just end up placing more strain on public services such as the police force and NHS.



SamuelRSmith on 21 April 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
I would probably vote Liberal Democrats. I feel like the Authortarian levels of Britain are at a scary high level.

I mean stuff we complain about in the patriot act is stuff that happens in the UK all the time.

Conservative is a close second though based on the "Key issues" i've read between the two so far. I'll keep you up to date on my "non" vote.


Also, what's up with the health care saying "It's for the people who need it not who can pay."?

I mean, you guys have universal healthcare. Is there some rampant discrimination against the poor? I mean, I know if your poor your MUCH more likely to die of random diseases in the UK but I thought that was just due to the fact that the poor usually have a worse lifestyle.

It's the Liberal Democrats' and Conservatives' job to complain about what Labour are doing. And Gordon Brown has a newfound obsession with agreeing with everything the Lib Dems say.

Having said that, people being denied treatment which they need due to lack of funds is quite a serious problem within the NHS, and one which all of the parties promise to tackle (of course, one of them has had 13 years to do so, which Clegg and Cameron point out every ten minutes).

To be fair on Labour, they have over trebled the budget of the NHS since they've got into power. Really, if tripling the budget of something doesn't solve the problem, I don't think there's much that can be done under the current ways of doing things.

Instead of the NHS, we should have forced HSAs coupled with optional "emergency" insurance (only for the rarest, and most costly of health issues) and have all services provided by the private sector. That way, everybody would get the drugs they always want, because they can decide what their money is spent on, rather than the Government, or a Trust.

This system has proven to be very successful in other countries, in both reducing the costs and increasing the quality of healthcare.

Unfortunately, this country seems to have some sort of love-in with the NHS, and none of the parties would ever propose anything like the above, for fear of political suicide. However, the NHS really is unsustainable, going by the crude measure of past trends and extrapolating them into the future, we can predict that by 2027, if nothing else changes, the NHS will cost roughly 22% of GDP - almost 1 in every 4 pounds, it's currently at around 10%.