Dubstepforum.com

Only people i would consider voting, not that i will, are UKIP: against privatisation, want to drastically reduce foreign aid, leave the eu and be able to make our own laws, support for nuclear power, no tax on minimum wage and better controlled immigration. Also paul nuttall is one of the most genuine seeming politicians imo.

However they also have alot of, probably more, rediculous policies which is why i won't vote for them, but definitely won't be voting for anyone else. Also i believe alot of their criticisms are not based on fact and are due to ignorance of their policies.

pete bubonic wrote:The ONLY thing that would make even consider voting for any party are policies to excessively reduce military funding

m8, not too much though yea


I've not seen the interview but i've always liked brand. Probably one for the unpopular opinions thread.

I don't and have never voted for the same reasons and I held them opinions at 18. Paxman loves to play the tnuc but he knows Brand is right.

m8son wrote:Only people i would consider voting, not that i will, are UKIP: against privatisation, want to drastically reduce foreign aid, leave the eu and be able to make our own laws, support for nuclear power, no tax on minimum wage and better controlled immigration. Also paul nuttall is one of the most genuine seeming politicians imo.

However they also have alot of, probably more, rediculous policies which is why i won't vote for them, but definitely won't be voting for anyone else. Also i believe alot of their criticisms are not based on fact and are due to ignorance of their policies.

they're mostly voted for by racist lites though who don't want to go the full bnp

UKIP are the tories on the further right...voting for them is worse than voting for the tories.

m8son wrote:Only people i would consider voting, not that i will, are UKIP: against privatisation, want to drastically reduce foreign aid, leave the eu and be able to make our own laws, support for nuclear power, no tax on minimum wage and better controlled immigration. Also paul nuttall is one of the most genuine seeming politicians imo.

However they also have alot of, probably more, rediculous policies which is why i won't vote for them, but definitely won't be voting for anyone else. Also i believe alot of their criticisms are not based on fact and are due to ignorance of their policies.

They haven't sold themselves well recently. A lot of their MPs have had more than a touch of the crazies.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:UKIP are the tories on the further right...voting for them is worse than voting for the tories.

I'm not gonna vote for them, but that sort of attitude "they're more [insert attribute here] than [other party here]" properly hold backs proper debate by attempting to shame someone rather than actually get involved. For example, opposing privatisation and no tax on minimum wage are both very left wing policies.

garethom wrote:I'm not gonna vote for them, but that sort of attitude "they're more [insert attribute here] than [other party here]" properly hold backs proper debate by attempting to shame someone rather than actually get involved. For example, opposing privatisation and no tax on minimum wage are both very left wing policies.

They will not deliver on any of their policies, they would U-Turn the fuck out of them policies.

Lye Form wrote:Also the country is not too bad, if people work hard they can get pretty much anything they want.

It's easy to say that if, like me and I presume you, are in a decent position when we start.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24553611

Alan Milburn says child poverty 'no longer problem of the workless and work-shy'

Social mobility tsar Alan Milburn said his report shows "work is not a cure for poverty"
Continue reading the main story

Working parents in Britain "simply do not earn enough to escape poverty", the government's social mobility tsar Alan Milburn has warned.

Two-thirds of poor children are now from families where an adult works, his report found.

Many low and middle-income children face being "worse off" than their parents because of falling earnings and rising prices, Mr Milburn added.

Seems the gates of Auschwitz lied to us...

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

garethom wrote:I'm not gonna vote for them, but that sort of attitude "they're more [insert attribute here] than [other party here]" properly hold backs proper debate by attempting to shame someone rather than actually get involved. For example, opposing privatisation and no tax on minimum wage are both very left wing policies.

They will not deliver on any of their policies, they would U-Turn the fuck out of them policies.

Well they'll fit right in then won't they!

Anyway, not on about a particular party or whatever, just that attitude of "they're more x than y" and writing shit off straight away.

Plus the fact that Farage annoys me about as much as Cameron, Osbourne and Hague combined

yes pls UK, leave the EU

Are there political penalties when parties don't stick to what they've promised? Surely making promises that you will never keep, just to get you into power is against some form of law?

I'm obviously talking about a penalty worse than half the country thinking you and your party are stnuc.

teamhobson wrote:Are there political penalties when parties don't stick to what they've promised? Surely making promises that you will never keep, just to get you into power is against some form of law?

I'm obviously talking about a penalty worse than half the country thinking you and your party are stnuc.

Ask the lib dems

teamhobson wrote:Are there political penalties when parties don't stick to what they've promised?

teamhobson wrote:Are there political penalties when parties don't stick to what they've promised? Surely making promises that you will never keep, just to get you into power is against some form of law?

I'm obviously talking about a penalty worse than half the country thinking you and your party are stnuc.

I'd be in favour of some sort of hefty fine that goes straight to the treasury to be spent only on public services, something like 50% of all party funding for that year perhaps

also, y'know, like hang em all yeah, or something...

teamhobson wrote:Are there political penalties when parties don't stick to what they've promised? Surely making promises that you will never keep, just to get you into power is against some form of law?

I'm obviously talking about a penalty worse than half the country thinking you and your party are stnuc.

Nope. and that's democracy eh, they are are even above the legal system in most cases. Don't get me wrong some politicians do try and make a difference at a local level but it's quickly overshadowed by party consensus.

They should really be made to cut off their little fingers when they fuck up badly, you know, Yakuza style.
Then pass a law that forbids people with less than two little fingers to have subordinates.

Perfect solution. Nothing could go wrong.

wub wrote:

teamhobson wrote:Are there political penalties when parties don't stick to what they've promised?

That a no then?



New discussion... Punishments for naughty politicians?

How about 50% of all party funding shared amoungst the opposing parties? Oh and the Yakuza fingers thing.

teamhobson wrote:

wub wrote:

teamhobson wrote:Are there political penalties when parties don't stick to what they've promised?

That a no then?



New discussion... Punishments for naughty politicians?

How about 50% of all party funding shared amoungst the opposing parties? Oh and the Yakuza fingers thing.

Nah 50% of party funding going straight to the treasury to be spent solely on essential public services would be better

and yes, finger chopping as well

I'm not really interested in what would benefit Britain, I'm interested in what would fuck the naughty party off the most.