Itv leaders debate.

[c1973]

Obviously to limit immigrants coming into the country would need the UK to control its borders and it's been suggested that an Australian points systems to be used

I understand ( happy to be corrected ) that this won't be allowed whilst we are members of the EU

Farage and his party has stated that closing the borders will save the country £20billion - not sure how he has arrived at this figure and can't see anywhere to find where he gets the figure but the question I have to ask is how much would it cost the country if we were to leave the EU - how many companies would leave the UK , how many jobs would be lost , how much would it effect the finances of the country ?

Personally I think we would lose out if we left the EU. Only a hunch though, as I genuinely don't think anyone would actually be capable of predicting what would happen.
I do think we have sleepwalked into a federal state (of sorts) that we never signed up for in the first place.

Just a personal belief with limited regard to facts though.

 

[c1973]

Sorry, I thought that was a rhetorical rant. Are you suggesting that people of clear conscience can't vote for any party in the upcoming election?

No. Certainly not a rant. A well reasoned point I believe.

Read it again. The sheer hypocrisy is pretty obvious to me. As I said, its one of the reasons not one of them will be getting my vote.

Not sure my conscience would be clear if I did vote for a party embroiled in expense scandals, cash for questions etc, anymore than it would if I voted for someone who was racist. You wouldn't put a thief in charge of your friends housekeeping would you?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I have never voted UKIP and am still undecided who I will vote for this time. I dont believe UKIP have a policy on Gay Marriage. If you read my previous comments I suggested that there were a large number of voters who were unhappy with the way it was put into law by the Tories and along with other issues these people will turn their votes away from Labour and Conservative and to UKIP. I was also explaining that IMO this is more of an issue that is driving us towards a Hung Parliament than the SNPs.

Who are these "large" number of voters who have an issue with a law allowing gay marriages to happen ? Not really heard or seen many people having a problem with two people who love each other getting married regardless of their sexual orientation - can't really see how it effects anyone in a negative way ?

I can understand some religious people having some issues with it but "large" numbers ?

 

[FairwayDodger]

No. Certainly not a rant. A well reasoned point I believe.

Read it again. The sheer hypocrisy is pretty obvious to me. As I said, its one of the reasons not one of them will be getting my vote.

Not sure my conscience would be clear if I did vote for a party embroiled in expense scandals, cash for questions etc, anymore than it would if I voted for someone who was racist. You wouldn't put a thief in charge of your friends housekeeping would you?

No, I don't see any hypocrisy but you're certainly shooting out in all directions to deflect from criticism of UKIP.

I believe it's important to vote for somebody. I'm not arguing that point because I know others have a different take on it and I think it's a matter of personal conscience. But, for me, that means I have to choose even if it means voting for the best of a bad bunch.

Are you talking about the MP expenses scandal or something more? Assuming the former, all parties were caught up in it. If my MP had crossed the line I wouldn't vote for him again but I need to vote for someone so would have to make a choice.

If all the parties were racist, sexist and homophobic I'd still have to choose one to vote for. Fortunately, they're not all like that so I can rule out those that are.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

No, I don't see any hypocrisy but you're certainly shooting out in all directions to deflect from criticism of UKIP.

I believe it's important to vote for somebody. I'm not arguing that point because I know others have a different take on it and I think it's a matter of personal conscience. But, for me, that means I have to choose even if it means voting for the best of a bad bunch.

Are you talking about the MP expenses scandal or something more? Assuming the former, all parties were caught up in it. If my MP had crossed the line I wouldn't vote for him again but I need to vote for someone so would have to make a choice.

If all the parties were racist, sexist and homophobic I'd still have to choose one to vote for. Fortunately, they're not all like that so I can rule out those that are.

Why do you "have" to vote for someone ?

Surely you wouldn't be vote for soneone you want or trust etc if you feel you "have" or "need" to vote for someone ?

Surely when someone votes it's because they "want" to vote for the person that represents their views - as opposed to the next best thing ?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Why do you "have" to vote for someone ?

Surely you wouldn't be vote for soneone you want or trust etc if you feel you "have" or "need" to vote for someone ?

Surely when someone votes it's because they "want" to vote for the person that represents their views - as opposed to the next best thing ?

As I said, I'm not arguing that point. It's how I feel, accept it. You can vote or not, I don't care.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

As I said, I'm not arguing that point. It's how I feel, accept it. You can vote or not, I don't care.

I guess I just don't understand it and was hoping you could explain ( not looking to argue )

 

[bluewolf]

Whilst I wouldn't criticize anyone who decided not to vote, I can't help but feel that, as far as protests go, it's fairly pointless. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was found guilty of expense fraud, cash for questions etc. However, refusing to vote at all makes zero difference to that person. In fact, it could be argued that it assists the morally bankrupt as your vote hasn't shifted to another candidate.

Apathy is the enemy of democracy and is what has allowed our democratic system to become as corrupt as it is..

 

[6inchcup]

I guess I just don't understand it and was hoping you could explain ( not looking to argue )

that will be a first then

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Whilst I wouldn't criticize anyone who decided not to vote, I can't help but feel that, as far as protests go, it's fairly pointless. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was found guilty of expense fraud, cash for questions etc. However, refusing to vote at all makes zero difference to that person. In fact, it could be argued that it assists the morally bankrupt as your vote hasn't shifted to another candidate.

Apathy is the enemy of democracy and is what has allowed our democratic system to become as corrupt as it is..

It's not a protest vote though - it's feeling a lack of trust or respect of belief in any party

I think they all only looking after one person - themselves. I think they are all as bad as each other and can't vote for someone I have no trust for and will only be looking after themselves.

I would like a box on the ballot paper that says - none of them above.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

that will be a first then

Oh dear

 

[FairwayDodger]

I guess I just don't understand it and was hoping you could explain ( not looking to argue )

It's been done to death and always ends in an argument. I think everyone should vote but I'm not an evangelist about it so don't get worked up whether others do or not. But I'll always vote if I'm able.

To be honest, it's tricky this year as there are more reasons not to vote for the various candidates than to actually vote for any of them. But I'll still vote and I know who I plan to vote for, at the moment!

 

[c1973]

No, I don't see any hypocrisy but you're certainly shooting out in all directions to deflect from criticism of UKIP.

I believe it's important to vote for somebody. I'm not arguing that point because I know others have a different take on it and I think it's a matter of personal conscience. But, for me, that means I have to choose even if it means voting for the best of a bad bunch.

Are you talking about the MP expenses scandal or something more? Assuming the former, all parties were caught up in it. If my MP had crossed the line I wouldn't vote for him again but I need to vote for someone so would have to make a choice.

If all the parties were racist, sexist and homophobic I'd still have to choose one to vote for. Fortunately, they're not all like that so I can rule out those that are.

I'm certainly not shooting out in all directions to deflect criticism from UKIP. I have no desire to defend them, I was merely highlighting what I believe is the hypocrisy of many voters.

My point was, I believe, quite clear.



I'm assuming (from the highlighted part) that you believe in voting for someone rather than no one. That's great if that's your belief. No problem with that. Apologies if I'm wrong in my assumption.

My belief is that a party where members have made racist, homophobic etc comments are no better or worse than a party whose members have abused expenses, taken cash for questions/access etc. None of them imo are fit to hold office.

I believe that condemning the former yet condoning the later (by voting for them) is hypocritical. You (and others) obviously don't as far as I can tell.
We differ in our opinion if that is the case.

 

[bluewolf]

It's not a protest vote though - it's feeling a lack of trust or respect of belief in any party

I think they all only looking after one person - themselves. I think they are all as bad as each other and can't vote for someone I have no trust for and will only be looking after themselves.

I would like a box on the ballot paper that says - none of them above.

Strangely enough, it's this feeling of general apathy that has allowed things to become as "corrupt" as they are. We all turned our backs, and the snouts hit the trough.. If the political parties realized that a tainted candidate could cost them seats, then they would soon become more alert. We need to make them accountable. And refraining from voting does not do that..

 

[Hacker Khan]

Whilst I wouldn't criticize anyone who decided not to vote, I can't help but feel that, as far as protests go, it's fairly pointless. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was found guilty of expense fraud, cash for questions etc. However, refusing to vote at all makes zero difference to that person. In fact, it could be argued that it assists the morally bankrupt as your vote hasn't shifted to another candidate.

Apathy is the enemy of democracy and is what has allowed our democratic system to become as corrupt as it is..

Good post that sir

 

[c1973]

Good post that sir

Ok.

Here's your choice of leaders.

A) a racist.
B) a bigot.
C) a Nazi.

Who ye voting for then?

Simplistic, I know. But, I'll go for voter apathy and not vote.

 

[bluewolf]

Ok.

Here's your choice of leaders.

A) a racist.
B) a bigot.
C) a Nazi.

Who ye voting for then?

Simplistic, I know. But, I'll go for voter apathy and not vote.

Is this the St Helens by-election?

If that (amazing) selection is what the political parties offered, then I would make it my job to make sure that each political party was hit by a media spotlight. If that didn't work, then I'd probably stand against them as an independent.. I've got feck all else to do after June...

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Strangely enough, it's this feeling of general apathy that has allowed things to become as "corrupt" as they are. We all turned our backs, and the snouts hit the trough.. If the political parties realized that a tainted candidate could cost them seats, then they would soon become more alert. We need to make them accountable. And refraining from voting does not do that..

But they are all tainted in some way - so who gets the vote ? The one less tainted

 

[c1973]

Is this the St Helens by-election?

If that (amazing) selection is what the political parties offered, then I would make it my job to make sure that each political party was hit by a media spotlight. If that didn't work, then I'd probably stand against them as an independent.. I've got feck all else to do after June...

Now (provided yer not going to fiddle expenses) that's the kind of honesty that could get my vote.

 

[FairwayDodger]

My belief is that a party where members have made racist, homophobic etc comments are no better or worse than a party whose members have abused expenses, taken cash for questions/access etc. None of them imo are fit to hold office.

Without condoning anything it should be obvious that different "offences" have a different connotation to different individuals. As someone who has experienced rather a lot of homophobic abuse and discrimination it's a red line issue for me, something that is very real in my life rather than the somewhat more remote notion of MPs flipping homes to benefit from a lax expenses regime.

In your case, I suspect that sexism, racism and homophobia are also remote concepts you deplore but have no direct experience of, which makes it easier for you to equate them with the expenses scandal.