2015 Elections : Who is voting for who and why ?

[Macman]

I was voting for UKIP according to that guide then Labour.

I will be voting but think I will see if I can have a look at the manifestos at somepoint over the weekend.

[opel80uk]

Well, how about this.

We're coming at this very differently. Perhaps, due to differing backgrounds. Mine is economics degree, and one with a heavy emphasis on maths, econometrics, etc, rather than the politics or historical emphasis most politicians with degrees involving economics (like PPE) seem to have. Then, icing on the cake if you like, I trained as a chartered accountant, though I then took an entirely different career path.

Nonetheless, my basic mindset is that sort of analytical approach. Several years back, I condidered buying a breadmaker. Then did. But I wanted to know if it made financial sense. So, I built a series of spreadsheets, breaking down the cost of each of my main loaf recipes accounting for the cost right down to the per gram cost of yeast, and the actual consumption of electricity, and the resultant cost. It came out at between 31p and 67p per loaf, by the way, depending on which loaf.

So .... from what you say above, and my your own admission, your approach is more emotional. Take your comments on food banks, for instance. You take that, it seems, as face-value evidence of increasing poverty. I don't necessarily accept that. It might simply be a combination of increading availability and increasing publicity. I would want to drill down behind headline figures, before drawing conclysions as fo what they mean. For instance, I've heard claims that prior to 2010, the Labour administration would not allow job centres to publicise these, and the coalition reversed that. If true, then if you present people living jnder very tight finances with a way to ease that, many will take it. If MANY more becone aware the option exists, take-up rates will jump, and the increased demand will fuel the growth in availability.

So, it seems, you take the emotional route and make assumptions about what it means, and want to determine policy accordingly. I take a much more hard-headed approach, and
I regard food bank numbers as a symptom and want to analyse the cause before stepping to policy.

And this, I suspect, is behind our different perspectives on "in it equally". Your reaction is more emotional outrage, mine is to want to know precisely how your defjne "equally" before giving a view on whether we are or not.

It is, for instance, blindingly self-evident that billionaires, or even millionaires, aren't in it to the point that many attend food banks. So not, by that measure, it's not "equal". Billionaires are less "in it" than job-seekers. But short of confiscating ALL property, from EVERYONE, that sort of equality us a ludicrous pioe-dream. And, by the way, any attempt to do so wouldn't just alienate the very rich, but the vast majority of the middle classes, too.

But food bank attendance isn't the only way we can all be "in it together". Another would be on how much tax we pay. For us to be "equally" in it, in terms of tax paid, we'd all have to pay the same. So, either the vast majority are going to see large tax bill rises, or the filthy rich paying millions in tax are going to get a tax cut of millions to bring them down to the amount we could ALL pay equally.

I doubt you'd back that, and I certainly wouldn't.

If you, or anyone else, can come up with a way to make the very wealthy pay more in tax to contribute to lessening the pain either of welfare, or austerity, THAT WORKS, I'm for it. But for any such policy to be intelligent, it MUST take account of behavioural impacts, because changes in tax rates, or rather, impact of tax burden can and does have a behavioural impact, and the larger the change in impact, the larger the behavioural change.

This, by the way, is another challenge for "equality" - the ability to change one's personal circumstances depends in large part on wealth. The poor have little or no ability make a behavioral change that affects tax jurisdiction. The middle classes and middle affluent can, but ir's far more difficult. The filthy rich can do it, if need be, in hours. And there's naff-all point in making an emotiobal decision to bleed the rich if the actual impact is that they up-sticks and beggar-off, resulting in lower tax contributions, making things even harder on the rest of us than it already was.

So, by some definiions, the wealthy are making far more than equal contributions, by others far less than equal. Any sensible policy has to consider not just an emotional claim to some amorphous 'fairness' but a pragmatic approach to what will actually work, actually help, not just make us feel better by punishing those we see as having more than us .... hence my politics of envy criticism of Labour spin. About half their campaign has been based on this, be it attacks on "toffs", or banker's bonuses, or wealth taxes. It's a naked emotional appeal, often lacking in pragmatism, just like Brown's ludicous assertions of "Iron Chancellor" and abolishing boom and bust.

That is all well and good, but whilst I made an emotional point, it doesn't follow that that is the approach I always take, or that I reject analytical analysis in favour of that. It is true that I may fail to forget that behind the figure of half a million or whatever it is, that there is a hungry person behind each one, but don't assume that, because I am outraged at those numbers, it means I haven't researched, coldly, whether that figure to be correct, or whether there are other, mitigating, reasons for the number, or whether the 'increase' is really an increase at all and not just the revealing of perviously masked ones. I have, and I have come to the conclusion that the increase is a direct result of the, in my opinion punitive, measures brought in to reduce the deficit. And so does the the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry by the way, which presumably also just doesn't look at the emotive either, and addressed a lot of the reasons you suggested which may have explained the increase in use, and dismissed them. Or read the report by Warwick University into the increase – they have lot's of facts and figures in theirs, but come to the same conclusion.

So whilst you, and others, want to look at the cause, and study effects, and analyse what 'equal' actually means, going back and forth with ideas and counter ideas, with the customary scaremongering about about capital flight (which didn't happen En masse as was predicted when the top rate went up to 50p) and using the (incidentally) emotive term of 'bleeding' those with more (as their wealth actually increases) rather than simply asking them to contribute the extra that they can afford for this period in time, there are people actually going hungry and that number is going up. When that happens at the same time as the rich getting richer, then the endless talk of pragmatism, deficits and emotional appeals is simply peripheral noise from a society that has lost it's way. And there is no set of analytics that you could ever show me to make me understand that.

[Saracen]

Yet, you directly want me to say if it's "equal" without any clarity on what that means.

On emotive terms like 'bleeding' the rich, well, use any adjective you like but it amounts to the same thing. It's the standard Labour response, to whatever the see as inequality, to require more and more from the rich, because it's an emotive appeal.

The 50p tax rate didn't generate either capital or physical flight at least in part because it was in operation for such a brief time. What was in question was whether it would raise any money, meven if maintained, because of behavioural impacts. And that isn't just flight, by the way.

Anyway, the food bank issue is one, and a relatively small, aspect of what ekections are decided on. If that's the crunch, critical issue for you, fair enough. It isn't for me.

And by the way, I'm not trying to show you any set of analytics to change your mind. I'm not even trying to change your mind. I'm just debating on a forum, and pointing out why I don't agree with you.

One thing I suspect we both agree on is the chances of either changing the other's mind are .... small.

[Hicks12]

I dont like conservative so I wont be voting for them as I feel they have done very little since coming to power that I agree with, labour is probably my default choice just because of this being my general favourite (I say favourite... to me they're all useless people who care nothing more than getting into power and then dont deliver). That who should I vote for site said I should go for lib dems then labour however I feel lib dems are the most spineless of the lot, they have some good ideas but are always like 'Oh we cant have that... okay thanks for listening'

Been busy with finishing my last year of uni so I must admit I have been rather lax in my reviewing of the latest party plans so I will do this once I have finished important work and read up before my vote.

[neonplanet40]

Just as an aside to my vote - I really wish I could link to some pictures and videos of Glasgow right now. Pro SNP rally over the city with concerts etc. Huge crowds. Atmosphere is amazing which is great as politics used to be seen here as an absolute waste of time. The SNP have changed that in Scotland.

Not surprisingly - the BBC has no word of it at all. . . . They have really shown over the last year what a biased broadcaster they are. It makes me sick that I have to pay them money. Anyway, that's another argument.

Some images I can link too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oTEZDowIGI
https://www.facebook.com/NicolaSturg...749885/?type=1
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...03d6133e6b661b

Why am I showing these? To highlight what good the referendum did for politics in Scotland. People are really engaging across the spectrum and its great to see. Especially the younger generation. Disillusionment with Westminster politics replaced with new life. As I said, this was one of the great positives in the Scottish referendum.

The BBC have not been giving any real positive or impartial coverage of the SNP at all (focusing on them being a destructive force yadda yadda yaa) but the political atmosphere here is rife. Crowds in most main towns every weekend with people engaging with local counselors etc who are out canvassing. Cracking atmosphere

As I said, I am voting SNP for a large number of reasons. Something new is needed.

[Bluecube]

^ What he said. Couldn't put it any better.

[Spud1]

For me the choice of who i'm going to vote for is simple - it will be Conservative.

The reason why though..is mostly that I don't really have any other choice. I'm not over the moon about it as they have had to promise a referendum on the EU which I really don't want (the risk of idiots voting to leave the EU is huge and terrifying). I do think they have done a good job this term however and the vast majority of Tory policy fits with my ideals.

Labour - I am totally against most of what they stand for, Milliband is absolutely useless and in truth they are only beaten by the Greens with their idiotic policies. Two recent examples being their idea of cutting tuition fees which helps absolutely no one and just costs us + the universities more money, or their silly idea of forcing everyone to take a fixed Gas/Electric contract rather than just choosing to right now. Lunacy.

UKIP - Funny party but would be useless in government, and despite a few sensible policies most of their key pledges are far too xenophobic for me. Plus I strongly believe that immigration (EU or otherwise) is an overwhelmingly positive things for the UK and trying to stop it is the wrong move. I can see why people would vote for them (farage is fun and elections are often a popularity contest) but they don't deserve any serious votes.

Lib Dem - I voted for them last time but too much has changed. I don't care about the tuition fee thing (it was actually the right move - we need LESS people to go to university not more) but they seem to have gone the way of the greens with some crazy ideas this time. Also really not a fan of their "ok we can't win, lets give up and just agree to sleep with anyone who wants us" approach.

Greens - Hilarious to watch, and their Fully Costed Manifesto is a brilliant read but no one would really vote for them as a party to go into government.

Everyone else - would be a waste of a vote.

[Saracen]

.... Two recent examples being their idea of cutting tuition fees which helps absolutely no one ....

Oh, but that's not true ..... it helps graduates that leave uni and go into high-paying careers, like bankers, lawyers, accountants, etc. And it helps those with significant private incomes.

Oh, wait .....

[Spud1]

Oh, but that's not true ..... it helps graduates that leave uni and go into high-paying careers, like bankers, lawyers, accountants, etc. And it helps those with significant private incomes.

Oh, wait .....

Very true. Maybe better to say it doesn't help their target demographic or those that most people think it will

[Saracen]

....

UKIP - Funny party but would be useless in government, and despite a few sensible policies most of their key pledges are far too xenophobic for me. Plus I strongly believe that immigration (EU or otherwise) is an overwhelmingly positive things for the UK and trying to stop it is the wrong move. I can see why people would vote for them (farage is fun and elections are often a popularity contest) but they don't deserve any serious votes.

....

Just to be clear, UKIP policy isn't to stop immigration. It's to control it. It's to stop uncontrolled immigration.

I'd agree that many aspects of immigration are hugely beneficial, but most of that comes from skilled people, like doctors, nurses, etc. that's exactly what the Aussie system UKIP want to mimic seeks to do. If, right now, we need, say, midwives and biochemists, you weight the points system for qualifications and experience in those fields. If you have a surfeit of plumbers, plumbing gets you far less points. And points means prizes .... I mean, a visa.

It can also be used to control tne rate of flow of unskilled people, because too many, too fast, puts serioys pressure on local infrastructure, like housing, hospitals, school places, GP surgeries, etc. It takes time for infrastructure to respond to growing demand and if demand ruses too fast, infrastructure gets overwhelmed. Hence .... "control".

[Andy3536]

The reason why though..is mostly that I don't really have any other choice. I'm not over the moon about it as they have had to promise a referendum on the EU which I really don't want (the risk of idiots voting to leave the EU is huge and terrifying).

As one of those idiots (takes a bow) i'm going to ask what's wrong with a bit of democracy?
And just why is it everyone that's not of your opinion is an idiot?
What the EU represents is a complete destruction of national democracy. Just need to look at the Irish,Dutch, French, Danish referendums, the Lisbon treaty, The recent election to elect a president of the EU commision. Where MEPs had only 1 name on the ballot paper. Jean-Claude Juncker, the one the Germans wanted ...

It's not like the coutries that arn't part of the EU, Switzerland, Norway etc aren't doing well. And even if we would do better in the EU, that's just selling our democratic principles for a few extra percentage points on the GDP (even though i think that's a nonsence) If trade would be so effected by leaving why is it i can in any high street get Swiss watches and Chocolate?
The EU is a corrupt, and undemocratic nonsence.

[Saracen]

Very true. Maybe better to say it doesn't help their target demographic or those that most people think it will

Like so much of what's on offer from so many to so few (makes me think I ought to be smoking a cigar ), it's a short-term, unconsidered, back-of-fag-packet populist, vote-buying sound-bite stunt.

From which, you may safely conclude, I wasn't impressed.

[Spud1]

As one of those idiots (takes a bow) i'm going to ask what's wrong with a bit of democracy?
And just why is it everyone that's not of your opinion is an idiot?
What the EU represents is a complete destruction of national democracy. Just need to look at the Irish,Dutch, French, Danish referendums, the Lisbon treaty, The recent election to elect a president of the EU commision. Where MEPs had only 1 name on the ballot paper. Jean-Claude Juncker, the one the Germans wanted ...

It's not like the coutries that arn't part of the EU, Switzerland, Norway etc aren't doing well. And even if we would do better in the EU, that's just selling our democratic principles for a few extra percentage points on the GDP (even though i think that's a nonsence) If trade would be so effected by leaving why is it i can in any high street get Swiss watches and Chocolate?
The EU is a corrupt, and undemocratic nonsence.

There are legitimate arguments for both staying and leaving the EU. My concern (and that of many people) is that whilst a % of the population will understand the benefits as much as the negatives, a huge % are swayed by the general concept, idea, and all the daft things you read in the media. Lots of people just hear "we're giving them a fortune, losing the right to make our own laws and being forced to allow anyone into our country". They will then vote to leave as a result. I also would not class everyone who wants to leave the EU as an idiot - if it's based on an informed choice then great No offence meant. For full disclosure I am a fan of Europe and the EU in general, and believe we are all stronger as a result. I could even get behind the removal of trident (just about) if we were to stay in the EU and form an EU armed forces to replace it. Almost.

I am all for a referendum if everyone (me included!) can be provided with the facts clearly explained without bias, but that just isn't possible or realistic. Indeed the entire point of having an elected representational government is that we leave those decisions to those who do fully understand the facts, and make the decision in the best interest for the country. Clearly this doesn't work a whole lot better given all the self-interest that goes on, but it is still better than the alternative imo. This is an area where PR would have helped, but look what happened when we were offered that.

And yes I know UKIPs policy is to control immigration - but imo the controls they want to put in place are damaging. I have a personal interest in immigration too - I recruit as part of my role and often I really want to employ someone from outside the EU at the moment (typically an Indian/Pakistani developer) and its an absolute nightmare. If people in the UK won't take the job (and given they are ASP.NET webforms developers, it's getting harder and harder without paying stupid money), and I can get excellent guys from elsewhere..why should I have to either spend weeks working through paperwork with the home office (where I may still be told no) or pay an extra £10k to attract someone from the UK who will only stay for 18 months anyway.

Anyway I digress Point was I am all for informed debate/referendum with the best interest of the country at heart - but I don't believe we can do that with an EU referendum due to the emotion involved.

[Saracen]

And on the EU, Spud, one thing that's not going away is the argument about it.

Not everyone that wants a refefendum wants to leave. Quite a few Labour MPs want a referendum, not to leave, but to settle the question.

Here's the thing. We, the people, have NEVER been asked if we wanted to be in the EU. We were asked about a trade agreement, the common Market (still not properly implemented, by tne way) and political union was explicitly RULED OUT. Yet, we find ourselves in exactly that (well, sort-of in but not fully, given non-Eurozone status, Schengen opt-outs, etc).

So, there's a mahoosive democratic deficit in that we gind ourselves subject to courts, law-making bodies, etc, that we, the people, never, EVER agreed to.

So, regardless of whether we're better off in or out, we're better off resolving that deficit, because until we do, we're always going to be lurking on the edges, never quite in, never quite out.

Lots of businesses, nainky big business, says it doesn't lije uncertainty. Well, until that question gets resolved, uncertainty remains, and festers. If either Labour or Tory governments had had the balls to deal with this over the ladt four decades, had acyually given US a vote on "ever further integration", then consider .... we wouldn't have a UKIP now.

And remember, the EU is an evolving organisism. It hadn't finished mutating yet. Remember the central theme of the treaty .... "ever greater integration." Full political union. The United States of Europe.

And on that, love or loathe the idea, we, the people, deserve to decide in or out.

That, by the way, is why I would never vote LD.

[Andy3536]

Going back to the origional point for a mo.
Don't forget your voting for an MP, not just a party. So why not take a look through your current MPs expences.

http://www.parliamentary-standards.o...hFunction.aspx

[HalloweenJack]

tories signed up to Maastricht and labour to Lisbon , we as the public didn't get a say in either.