How many are changing their vote from last time?

[View From The Top]

I was just wondering, after looking at the SWF poll, whom, if anyone, will be swapping sides in this election?

 

I'm going from Lab' in the last general electionto Lib' in this one.

[benjii]

2001 I voted Green.

 

Last time I didn't bother.

 

This time I will vote Lib Dem.

[Seaford Saint]

I am not voting

[norwaysaint]

As an expat, I'm still allowed to vote in elections fot another 4 years (you get 15 years where you can), but never would as I have no intention of ever moving back so don't feel I should be electing an MP.

 

Do any expats on here vote in British elections?

[Thedelldays]

UKIP usually...Tory this time

[bridge too far]

Always vote the same way - always have and probably always will.

 

I can't change my basic belief which is in the well-being of everyone.

 

I happen believe there's more chance of Labour aiming to deliver that than any other party.

 

I don't understand people who choose on the basis of what's best for them rather than what's best for society as a whole.

[Thedelldays]

Always vote the same way - always have and probably always will.

 

I can't change my basic belief which is in the well-being of everyone.

 

I happen believe there's more chance of Labour aiming to deliver that than any other party.

 

I don't understand people who choose on the basis of what's best for them rather than what's best for society as a whole.

of course people vote for what is best for them..as if people voted what is best for others then the lib dems would be in power as they wouldnt have rampaged across the middle east resulting in tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths

[Arizona]

Always vote the same way - always have and probably always will.

 

I can't change my basic belief which is in the well-being of everyone.

 

I happen believe there's more chance of Labour aiming to deliver that than any other party.

 

I don't understand people who choose on the basis of what's best for them rather than what's best for society as a whole.

 

Whilst that's very admirable, it's completely against human nature.

 

Just making an example, but if a party came along and said, "I'm going to take another £5k a year from your wages and spend it on litteracy classes for single mums in Sunderland" I wouldn't be that inclined to vote for them.

 

Maybe that's a bit selfish, but if you don't look out for number 1, nobody else will.

[dune]

I was going to vote Tory (and voted torry in the SWF poll), but living in one of the safest Tory seats in England i've changed my mind and will vote BNP as a protest against immigration.

[bridge too far]

Whilst that's very admirable, it's completely against human nature.

 

Just making an example, but if a party came along and said, "I'm going to take another £5k a year from your wages and spend it on litteracy classes for single mums in Sunderland" I wouldn't be that inclined to vote for them.

 

Maybe that's a bit selfish, but if you don't look out for number 1, nobody else will.

 

It's not completely against mine but I can only speak for myself of course.

 

Your example is a bit strange because it wouldn't cost that much but I get your drift.

 

I'd be prepared to pay more tax if it meant people had a better chance / treatment in life. If you want to put a selfish spin on it, it would mean that our society in general would be fairer and better and that would be to my benefit.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

I'd be prepared to pay more tax if it meant people had a better chance / treatment in life. If you want to put a selfish spin on it, it would mean that our society in general would be fairer and better and that would be to my benefit.

 

Great in prinicple, but it doesn't work. If income Tax went up to 1979 levels society wouldn't be any fairer, it's just that more of our money would get wasted.

[JackanorySFC]

Always vote the same way - always have and probably always will.

 

I can't change my basic belief which is in the well-being of everyone.

 

I happen believe there's more chance of Labour aiming to deliver that than any other party.

 

I don't understand people who choose on the basis of what's best for them rather than what's best for society as a whole.

 

Personally I'm dead against that. I'll vote for who suits me and my family, not some jobless sponger who wants to milk the system! If I end up unemployed I expect a safety net of say 3 months dole, but after that I'd expect to be on my own.

[RedAndWhite91]

Never voted in a General Election before, but voted Lib Dem in locals and UKIP in EU elections... Think I'll be voting Tory just to help oust Labour but I live in a Lib Dem stronghold, and my local prospective Tory MP seems a bit useless, so could well be Lib Dem.

 

I would definitely change my vote depending on the leader, policy, etc each year.

[bridge too far]

Personally I'm dead against that. I'll vote for who suits me and my family, not some jobless sponger who wants to milk the system! If I end up unemployed I expect a safety net of say 3 months dole, but after that I'd expect to be on my own.

 

And there's me thinking that 'I'm alright Jackism' died out with Thatcher!

 

I'll move heaven and earth for my family but I also recognise that there are a lot of people in our country who are born into deprivation and generally don't stand a chance. I'd rather pay more tax to give them opportunity than pay less and see those people grow up with no hope.

 

For example, my daughter has found herself unsupported through no fault of her own since her partner deserted her with a 6 week old baby. In spite of working full time, she (and more importantly her child) benefit from Working Family Tax credits and help with childcare.

 

We're happy to pay tax to help out people like her (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HER CHILD) in the same way that we're happy to pay tax to enable people like my mother to have free access to hugely expensive cancer drugs.

 

And I'd pay more tax to continue these benefits to help people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control rather than less tax so the super-rich can line their pockets even more.

[MorningtonCrescent]

And there's me thinking that 'I'm alright Jackism' died out with Thatcher!

 

I'll move heaven and earth for my family but I also recognise that there are a lot of people in our country who are born into deprivation and generally don't stand a chance. I'd rather pay more tax to give them opportunity than pay less and see those people grow up with no hope.

 

For example, my daughter has found herself unsupported through no fault of her own since her partner deserted her with a 6 week old baby. In spite of working full time, she (and more importantly her child) benefit from Working Family Tax credits and help with childcare.

 

We're happy to pay tax to help out people like her (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HER CHILD) in the same way that we're happy to pay tax to enable people like my mother to have free access to hugely expensive cancer drugs.

 

And I'd pay more tax to continue these benefits to help people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control rather than less tax so the super-rich can line their pockets even more.

 

I think you'll find that the "i'm alright jack" attitude is not solely reserved for "thatcher" or any other political persuasion! Stop bringing such dull and irrelevant arguments to the board!

 

There are plenty of examples of "socialists" for whom the phrase "i'm alright jack" would fit just nicely! Go do some research!

 

Yes, there are many people who are needy of benefit support and well deserve it. There are also many more who are habitual spongers and benefit fraudsters. The trick is in finding the balance, or in persuading the "spongers" to stop being a drain on society and get out there and do something positive about their own lives. The biggest issue I have with the current govt is that they have failed to recognise the fact that people are better are now "better off" under their benefit regime than they would be if they went back work. Gordon extols the virtues of giving the needy more support, when actually it often works the wrong way around by encouraging them to remain on benefits. Go figure! Govts need to strike that balance between "support" and "dependancy"....

[Lord Duckhunter]

And there's me thinking that 'I'm alright Jackism' died out with Thatcher!

 

I'll move heaven and earth for my family but I also recognise that there are a lot of people in our country who are born into deprivation and generally don't stand a chance. I'd rather pay more tax to give them opportunity than pay less and see those people grow up with no hope.

 

For example, my daughter has found herself unsupported through no fault of her own since her partner deserted her with a 6 week old baby. In spite of working full time, she (and more importantly her child) benefit from Working Family Tax credits and help with childcare.

 

We're happy to pay tax to help out people like her (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HER CHILD) in the same way that we're happy to pay tax to enable people like my mother to have free access to hugely expensive cancer drugs.

 

And I'd pay more tax to continue these benefits to help people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control rather than less tax so the super-rich can line their pockets even more.

 

I dont think that anyone would argue against helping people in genuine need. However, nobody can deny that there are thousends of toerags, that can work but choose not to, that do work and still claim benefit, and that say they have no partner, but do have one.

 

The welfare system in this Country needs a complete and utter overhaul. How can it be right that rich people are entittled to Child Benefit, and have you seen the upper limits for earnings on Working Family Tax Credits.The burden for paying for all this seems to fall more heavily on the normal working man.

 

As for funding Cancer drugs, again the whole NHS system is broken. It should be there to fund your mother's drugs, but why should my taxes pay for sex change operations and the like.

 

Welfare should be a safety net for those in trouble and in need, it shouldn't be a way of life, as it is for some.

[View From The Top]

Welfare should be a safety net for those in trouble and in need, it shouldn't be a way of life, as it is for some.

 

Agree 100%.

[bridge too far]

I think you'll find that the "i'm alright jack" attitude is not solely reserved for "thatcher" or any other political persuasion! Stop bringing such dull and irrelevant arguments to the board!

 

There are plenty of examples of "socialists" for whom the phrase "i'm alright jack" would fit just nicely! Go do some research!

 

Yes, there are many people who are needy of benefit support and well deserve it. There are also many more who are habitual spongers and benefit fraudsters. The trick is in finding the balance, or in persuading the "spongers" to stop being a drain on society and get out there and do something positive about their own lives. The biggest issue I have with the current govt is that they have failed to recognise the fact that people are better are now "better off" under their benefit regime than they would be if they went back work. Gordon extols the virtues of giving the needy more support, when actually it often works the wrong way around by encouraging them to remain on benefits. Go figure! Govts need to strike that balance between "support" and "dependancy"....

 

Does it not occur to you that, if some employers paid decent wages, some of the 'spongers' you refer to WOULD be better off and go back to work?

 

I certainly couldn't live off benefits so why would I do so if there was an opportunity for me to earn a decent living and be better off?

 

Why should my taxes go towards subsidising unscrupulous employers? Thank goodness we're working towards ensuring people get an honest and dignified reward for their labours although there's some way to go.

 

And the Minimum Wage didn't cause a dramatic drop in jobs after all, did it? Something else the Tories got wrong.

[stevegrant]

Why should my taxes go towards subsidising unscrupulous employers?

If there are "unscrupulous" employers in this country who are paying below the statutory minimum wage then surely this Labour government should have been taking steps to sanction those employers?

[Johnny Bognor]

I don't understand people who choose on the basis of what's best for them rather than what's best for society as a whole.

 

I don't disagree with you here. I believe the best for society is to create an environment where the entrepreneurial class create wealth which provides a larger cake to divide up amoungst its citizens.

 

If you only focus on dividing the cake without taking measures to make the cake as big as possible, it may be noble, but it doesn't necessarily help the needy as much as you would like.

 

 

 

And the Minimum Wage didn't cause a dramatic drop in jobs after all, did it? Something else the Tories got wrong.

 

To be fair it did cause a fall in jobs (the tens of thousands of jobs that were outsourced to China and India). Luckily the economy was growing and creating new jobs faster than those that were lost by outsourcing. Sorry, luckily Gordon Brown borrowed ****loads of cash and employed an extra 1 million people in the public services. At a glance, very worthwhile but the problem is that we now have £900,000,000,000 millstone round our necks to pay for it.

[bridge too far]

If there are "unscrupulous" employers in this country who are paying below the statutory minimum wage then surely this Labour government should have been taking steps to sanction those employers?

 

Well I rather think it's the authorities who should implement the law that's in place if they are aware of the transgressions.

 

I suspect that many people who work for these employers are too scared to report them for fear of losing their jobs.

 

Perhaps they should go on benefit instead?

[View From The Top]

If there are "unscrupulous" employers in this country who are paying below the statutory minimum wage then surely this Labour government should have been taking steps to sanction those employers?

 

Yes, they should have done.

[stevegrant]

Does it not occur to you that, if some employers paid decent wages, some of the 'spongers' you refer to WOULD be better off and go back to work?

 

I certainly couldn't live off benefits so why would I do so if there was an opportunity for me to earn a decent living and be better off?

The current minimum wage is £5.80 per hour for people aged 22 and over. In order to earn more money from a job paying minimum wage, someone would only need to work between 12 and 15 hours per week.

 

Unfortunately, there is a significant minority of people in this country who genuinely can't be bothered to work. You may not be able to live off benefits and you may be someone with ambition to earn a decent living, but not everyone has those ambitions, as strange as it may seem that everyone isn't exactly like you.

[stevegrant]

I suspect that many people who work for these employers are too scared to report them for fear of losing their jobs.

If they're too scared to report them, how do you know about them?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Does it not occur to you that, if some employers paid decent wages, some of the 'spongers' you refer to WOULD be better off and go back to work?

 

I certainly couldn't live off benefits so why would I do so if there was an opportunity for me to earn a decent living and be better off?

 

Why should my taxes go towards subsidising unscrupulous employers? Thank goodness we're working towards ensuring people get an honest and dignified reward for their labours although there's some way to go.

 

And the Minimum Wage didn't cause a dramatic drop in jobs after all, did it? Something else the Tories got wrong.

 

I have people who work for me that turn down Overtime on the basis that it will affect their WFTC's. I have also had the situation where a guy turned down a promotion and a pay rise, because he would lose the same amount from his WFTC's. How can that be right? As an employer we were prepared to give him more money, but he was happier to collect the same amount from our taxes, rather than from a private company.

 

As for the minimum wage, it was set at such a low level (delebrately so) that it didn't make much difference at all. It was an Elephant trap for the Tory's and a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful attempt to increase peoples wealth. Had it been set at the rate the unions were calling for, it would have indeed cost jobs.

[bridge too far]

If they're too scared to report them, how do you know about them?

 

I don't - that's why I said 'suspect'.

[bridge too far]

Expect a huge swing to the Tories:

 

Take That's Gary Barlow has joined their campaign.

 

Wow!

[OldNick]

Oh it's the employers who are the baddies. lol

I doubt not one of the employees ever took a sickie when they were not entitled to or spent the time on the web instead of working or texting etc etc etc

[TopGun]

Always vote the same way - always have and probably always will.

 

I can't change my basic belief which is in the well-being of everyone.

 

I happen believe there's more chance of Labour aiming to deliver that than any other party.

 

I don't understand people who choose on the basis of what's best for them rather than what's best for society as a whole.

 

+ 1 but I have some caveats about long term dolies etc.

[dune]

Switched from Tory to BNP because living in a safe Tory seat I will use my vote to send a message that the Tories need to move to the right and take a tough stance on immigration. That said if i lived in a marginal i'd vote Tory to get rid of Labour.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

Expect a huge swing to the Tories:

 

Take That's Gary Barlow has joined their campaign.

 

Wow!

 

Has he said he will leave the country if Labour get in again? Phil Collins, Jimmy Tarbeck, Jim Davidson etc saying this in 1997 was a big vote winner for Labour.

[bridge too far]

Has he said he will leave the country if Labour get in again? Phil Collins, Jimmy Tarbeck, Jim Davidson etc saying this in 1997 was a big vote winner for Labour.

 

Yep - the driving force behind me voting Labour

 

Anyone see Eddie Izzard on the PP Broadcast tonight?

[Pav]

yes. labour to tories!

[Red Alert]

I want to vote Lib Dem, but I would rather see Labour out and voting Tory is the only way to do that imo (I know if all Lib Dem voters feel this way they have no chance). As I have never voted before its all new to me. However apathy may well win me over on the day.

[woodfc]

I want to vote Lib Dem, but I would rather see Labour out and voting Tory is the only way to do that imo (I know if all Lib Dem voters feel this way they have no chance). As I have never voted before its all new to me. However apathy may well win me over on the day.

 

A lot of the electorate would like to see the removal of this incumbent Government and will vote tactically to enable this to happen.

 

Ive never considered myself as someone who would vote Lib Dem but what a good presentation Nick Clegg put over last night!

[Red Alert]

A lot of the electorate would like to see the removal of this incumbent Government and will vote tactically to enable this to happen.

 

Ive never considered myself as someone who would vote Lib Dem but what a good presentation Nick Clegg put over last night!

 

I think I have always been a bit Lib Dem. Find myself agreeing with them on a lot of issues, but then I guess they can say what they want almost safe in the knowledge they will never have to walk the walk.

[woodfc]

I think I have always been a bit Lib Dem. Find myself agreeing with them on a lot of issues, but then I guess they can say what they want almost safe in the knowledge they will never have to walk the walk.

 

Stick with them if you believe in them. Okay they're not going to form the next Government, its going to be Lab or Cons but i dont think they're that far behind. We may even have a hung parliment where Lib Dems will have an influence.

Im ****ed if i know who im going to vote for at the moment, tempted to go away from the mainstream but will probably end up voting tactically

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Has he said he will leave the country if Labour get in again? Phil Collins, Jimmy Tarbeck, Jim Davidson etc saying this in 1997 was a big vote winner for Labour.

 

Phil Collins is a ****

 

Jimmy Tarbuck is a ****

 

Jim Davidson is a ****

 

Hmmm, I think I see a pattern forming there...

[JackFrost]

I voted Labour in '92 and '97, Even after 13 years of a clueless, sleazy government they haven't been as bad as the Tories were.

 

'01 & '05 - I didn't vote

 

2010 - They've changed the constituency boundaries round my area so it's no longer going to be a Tory landslide round here. Voting Lib Dem just to keep the Tories out.

[buctootim]

Rock solid tory seat here - around 50% of vote in previous elections. I'll probably vote LD even though it wont make a difference.

[1976_Child]

UKIP usually...Tory this time

 

kinda swinging that way too. I am a weirdo when it comes to voting. I vote Green in local elections (mainly because here in Hove a vote for the Greens actually means something), I vote UKIP in European elections and so put my cross against Mr Farage's name last time around and I have been an active member of the Conservative Party in the past.

 

My heart is split: We need a strong Green and LOCAL economy, which can only be delivered if we are freed from the (evil) undemocratic statism of the EU, but we also need a strong defense force including Trident - in the years ahead the world is only going to get scarier and I will sleep better at night knowing that there is a brace of subs 'some where out there' with the capability of flattening Tehran etc if push should come to shove. And the Greens, at a national level, are not the ticket for either keeping Trident or telling Brussels to stuff off.

 

And then UKIP are just a mess when it comes to national politics. I will continue to vote UKIP at European elections but it is a complete waste of a vote at national level.

 

The Liberals got my attention with their awesome policy of zero tax for the first ten grand earned. The most sensible and decent proposal I have heard all election. But then Clegg likes to make love to Europe and wants to ditch Trident so we are back to square one.

 

So, it will probably be Cameron's lot who gets my vote, but purely because they are the default. That is if I can be buggered to go cast my vote at all. As an ex-active-Tory I am underwhelmed by Cameron.

 

One thing is absolutely certain: my mortal body will be cold, dead and buried before I even allow a single synapse to think about voting Labour. Brown is a disgrace.

 

As for the outcome? I am longing for a hung-parliament. We all know that nothing will ever change who ever we vote for so the spectacle of the dogs all fighting for power will provide a few weeks of entertainment until the start of the world cup. Might even be good for the over-opinionated muppets to realize that they have to work together for a change. But Clegg is quite correct, if Labour don't win there is no way Brown can remain PM. None. He wasn't even elected in the first place.

Edited 27 April, 2010 by 1976_Child

[Joensuu]

Voted Green as a protest last time. Switching back to Lib Dem this time (before Clegg stormed out of nowhere was going to stick with my Green protest vote).

[The9]

Expect a huge swing to the Tories:

 

Take That's Gary Barlow has joined their campaign.

 

Wow!

 

You mock, but that's the exact kind of non policy-based garbage that will hoover up the votes of the mehbothered usual non-voters and the incredibly simple. And as we know, there are shiiiitloads of them out there, all with a potential vote with the same value as yours or mine.

[View From The Top]

After chatting with the Green candidate on Saturday I may well cast my vote for them.

 

Clegg needs to decide who he is getting in bed with.

[Johnny Bognor]

You mock, but that's the exact kind of non policy-based garbage that will hoover up the votes of the mehbothered usual non-voters and the incredibly simple. And as we know, there are shiiiitloads of them out there, all with a potential vote with the same value as yours or mine.

 

 

Indeed the issue of 'wasted voters' is far greater than the issue of wasted votes IMO

[Thedelldays]

Voted Green as a protest last time. Switching back to Lib Dem this time (before Clegg stormed out of nowhere was going to stick with my Green protest vote).

What do you mean clegg storming out of no where.. He has been around for a while

 

Or are you swayed by a few sound bites and spin?

[solentstars]

voted tory last time and haveing seen their friends in the city who caused this worldwide slump backing them and a tax exile funding them ,i,ve switched to lib dems who i hope can getaway from the tory /labour cosy arrangement and shake the system up.

all we get from cameron is spin and soundbites "the big society"what is that:confused:

[dune]

"the big society"what is that:confused:

 

It makes me cringe and i want the Tories to win. That non policy is not their achiles heel though, the inheritance tax break for the super rich is.

[pedg]

Rock solid tory seat here - around 50% of vote in previous elections. I'll probably vote LD even though it wont make a difference.

 

I think this year it will as the higher the difference between votes cast to seats won the stronger will be the argument to overhaul the election system.

 

Personally I am lucky this year as due to boundary changes I am hopeful for that for first time in about 10 parliamentary elections my vote may actually help elect the person I intend to vote for.

Edited 27 April, 2010 by pedg

[Joensuu]

What do you mean clegg storming out of no where.. He has been around for a while

 

Or are you swayed by a few sound bites and spin?

 

Ay, I'm a sucker for the soundbites...

 

Nah, I voted for Paddy, and Kennedy, but then as the Lib Dems drifted to the right I found myself more closely aligned to the Greens. Which of course is a wasted vote under FPTP (outside of Brighton Pavillion). As such my vote would have been wasted, but a protest. Now that Clegg has gained momentum, he has a realistic chance of winning seats. Now I'd rather vote Green, but the Lib Dems are so much better than the two large parties. As such, I can tactically vote Clegg, and hope a Lib Dem in Brighton will tactically vote Green to balance it out.