The Labour Party won the 2005 UK general election with 35.3% of the popular British vote. The Conservative Party was just a few points behind with 32.3% of the votes, but because of the first past the post voting system, the Labour Party had a significant majority with 356 parliamentary seats (MPs) compared to 198 seats for The Conservative Party.
Just over 4 years on with political scandal after scandal, all political polls point to a Conservative win at the 2010 general election with speculation of a possible Hung Parliament (rare in British politics).
How will you vote in the next General Election?
The general election polls below were closed ~10am on polling day. Good luck to all the political candidates.
General Election 2010 Polls
[poll id="2"]
Take a look at Weekly General Election Poll Results to see how British people have voted in the above General Election Poll this week (updated every Saturday until the election).
General Election 2005 Popular Vote Comparison
# Labour Party – 35.3%
# Conservative Party – 32.3%
# Liberal Democrats Party – 22.1%
# UK Independence Party (UKIP) – 2.2%
# Green Party – 1.0%
# British National Party (BNP) – 0.7%
# Plaid Cymru Party – 0.6%
General Election 2010 Scotland Poll
[poll id="12"]
General Election 2010 Northern Ireland Poll
[poll id="11"]
I’ve included the main political parties from the 2005 general election, they are listed in the order from most votes (The Labour Party) to least votes.
The first percentage value in brackets is percentage of the popular vote, for example the Labour Party received 35.3% of the popular vote. The second percentage value is based on the number of votes from this general election poll.
The 2005 UK General Election Results
Below is a list of the top 20 political parties (ordered by popular vote %) from the 2005 general election, only 12 of which gained parliamentary seats (MPs)!
Labour Party : 356 MPs
Conservative Party : 198 MPs
Liberal Democrat Party : 62 MPs
UKIP Party : 0 MPs
SNP Party : 6 MPs
Green Party : 0 MPs
Democratic Unionist Party : 9 MPs
BNP Party : 0 MPs
Plaid Cymru Party : 3 MPs
Sinn Féin Party : 5 MPs
Ulster Unionist Party : 1 MP
Social Democratic and Labour Party : 3 MPs
Independent Parties : 1 MP
Respect Party : 1 MP
Scottish Socialist Party : 0 MPs
Alliance Party : 0 MPs
Scottish Green Party : 0 MPs
Socialist Labour Party : 0 MPs
Liberal Party : 0 MPs
Health Concern Party : 1 MP
Look out for the General Election 2010 Results after election night.
Feel free to comment below on why you plan to vote for a particular party in 2010?
1174 responses to Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
the queen in her christmas message seemed to be more interested in the comenwealth, than in britain and the british people. although no fan of margaret thatcher she was right, when the queen said if you continue with your policy,the commenwealth will break up: thatcher,SO BE IT?
Awwww bless! Thank you chaps!
Your “last night” was my today (quiet afternoon) although no one was around until later on (your afternoon), I thought it was a bit quiet!
Traditionally I’m a Tory but this time around I’m voting UKIP (wait for all the thumbs down!!). I have emailed the Conservative Party, gave them a list of demands and I got wishy washy responses!! I couldn’t really expect them to take on all of them!
I suspect if David Cameron and his team did pull a couple of rabbits out of the hat during the election campaign then I may revert back. I was very inspired after the Conservative conference but looked at the details in their manifesto I just didn’t feel that their implementation were strong enough.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
What is it your are looking for the Torie to give you that would change your vote Sarah?
I know I had some miss givings as well, but there have been a few policy modifications lately that have helped change my mind (previous Labour voter)
“I have emailed the Conservative Party, gave them a list of demands and I got wishy washy responses!!”
ROFLOL, that brought laughter tears to my eyes :-)
Don’t suppose you still have the email and the response, would love to see your list of demands?
You could post them on the “Reasons to Vote Conservative 2010 General Election” page at http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/reasons-to-vote-conservative-2010-general-election.html I bet VoteNo ToBNP would respond as he’s a Conservative voter.
Would be great if more commenter’s were like you and VoteNo ToBNP, the vast majority of the BNP supporters commenting here can barely form a logical argument or mostly post copy and pasted articles and YouTube videos of extreme views!
At times it’s dragged my debating style into the gutter, what ever happened to the art of reasoned debate in Britain?
With regards you voting UKIP, at least they have some reasonably well formed policies. I think if any small party are going to do well in 2010 it will be UKIP, I bet they take some of the BNP vote. Considering they were formed in 1993 they have done exceptionally well to get 13 MEP’s.
Are there any estimates from reputable sources for how many MPs UKIP might gain at the general election?
I won’t vote UKIP, but I don’t have any fundamental objections to others voting for UKIP like I have for those voting BNP.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
I haven’t seen any offical estimates for UKIP but I have done some basic work on this and from what I have looked at I believe they could get 2 maybe 3 MPs in 2010.
They have a possibility of 5 if they take the BNP on hard in it’s two key areas in the North, if they do that then they could have 5, as for the BNP looking at the way they intend to focus their campaign they are only seriously targeting 3 seats with money etc one of those being El Griffo.
How ever the other parties I would hope are gearing up to through some serious weight behind that one I know UKIP are also targeting the Barking Seat, and I think judging by this years donations reports that have been handed in they are far better placed financially to take the fight hard in Barking.
So overall I would expect the BNP to get none (outside maybe 1 MP) and UKIP could be looking at 2 or 3 depending on how they target the seats.
But overall you’ have to say that they have a far better image to work from than the BNP and they seem to be much better financed and have made far more progression over the last few years securing the 13 MEPs that gives them a good starting base to work with.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
““I have emailed the Conservative Party, gave them a list of demands and I got wishy washy responses!!”
ROFLOL, that brought laughter tears to my eyes :-)”
I do laugh about it now but I won’t post the emails as they were pretty unsophisticated so I wouldn’t want to embarrass myself! The general gist was, if you do this, this and this then I’ll vote for you, if not, then I’m voting UKIP (ner ner ner ner ner!)!
I was quite irritated when I sent it! :-)
Surprisingly I did get a response, in the sort of patient “you’re obviously not that clever” sort of manner, but thinking about my phraseology they probably (quite rightly!) thought I was an idiot!
I did also email them about a referendum on Europe which I’ll post the response under the Conservative Policy thread.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Hi all…just thought ide start with saying ive been looking at your site David for a few weeks now and found the comments a realy good read!
ime not a seasoned voter but as my young son starts to get older i have found myself looking at the country that i was brought up in and how diffrent the the foundation of the country looks today….so i started loooking at the politics mostly through the internet and found the party i agree with the most is the bnp
Saying that i am not sure the bnp will be getting my vote as i would need to be certain the party has got rid of any old relations to the NF
i think the last 12 years under labour have been horrific in the way we have signed over laws to the EU and been taken into wars on the basis of lies..
then theres immagration..ime all for immagration , but when mass immagration happens it becomes a problem..as we see it has put a major strain on our schools ,housing ,nhs ,and communities..as intergration hardly happens!
so what party other than the bnp will deal with theese issues ..would conservatives be a wasted vote!?
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Those are fair points and questions I’m sure many people considering voting BNP in the 2010 general election are asking similar things.
I considered moving your comment to http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/reasons-to-vote-british-national-party-bnp-2010-general-election.html as the majority of BNP discussions have degraded quite fast, as long as commenter’s try to stick to your very good questions and not turn this into a slanging match or a place to post countless YouTube videos and copy n pasted articles I’ll leave it here.
I’d never vote BNP, but with almost a million people voting for them in the EU elections they should be discussed openly, so voters can make an informed choice either way.
I’ll make a separate comment to give you some of my points of view.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
I’m not a Conservative voter, currently I plan to vote Labour for reasons I’ve stated a few times in other comments (best of a bad lot), so it’s difficult for me to give a Conservative type answer to your last Conservative question (I bet Vote No To BNP can give it a go :-)).
Although I’m a Labour voter who is not that happy with how things are going (I have similar concerns like yours) I’m not looking at things from the perspective of “Labour have done a poor job, who should I vote for next?”, but “Labours done a poor job, but will any of the others do a better job AND would my vote be wasted?”
By doing this I’m not voting from angry at the Labour party, kick em in the teeth sort of approach, but trying to pick the best people for the job based on those available: that’s like asking do I want the village idiot or the town fool to run things!!!
When I look at who to vote for this way I’m torn between Labour and Lib Dems, but the Lib Dems never get enough MPs to hold real power, if they could win a seat where I live I’d vote for them especially with the possibility of a hung parliament.
When I look at the Conservatives I remember how it was when I was young (I’m 39), as a poor person back then the Conservatives came across as not giving a rats ass how they ran the country affected the average British family, no minimum wage, everything left to market forces, NHS was in real trouble (hell of a lot worse than now, the NHS is improving in my recent experience), services are cut, cut, cut so they could give tax cuts to the rich and though they say they are the party that’s fiscally sound look at how poorly they managed the finances before Labour took power!!! The current recession we are in now is not Labour’s fault, every country has been hit badly, yes you can argue they could manage getting out of recession better, but the Conservative recession was mismanagement by the Conservatives, they can’t blame a world credit crunch for how bad things got!
If the economy is not managed well we are all screwed, so whoever you vote for you have to be sure they are up to the challenge and if you’ve looked at all the parties policies like I have (posted them all on this site for discussion) that rules out the Green Party and the BNP, both their economic policies would be a DISASTER for the country.
Lib Dems I’d give them a try, I see them as a mix between Labour and the Conservatives, being closer to Labour than the Conservatives. They have never been in power, but I used to like how they’d tell the truth in their policies (not so much now) even though they knew they wouldn’t gain power (they could have said anything, didn’t matter that much).
UKIP are more Tory than the Conservatives if you ask me, so not a party I’d vote for, but based on the things you’ve mentioned if you decided the Conservatives are not for you then UKIP sounds closer to what you are looking for. Conservatives are loosing their eurosceptic status IMO (many of the anti EU Tories have moved to UKIP).
Like the Lib Dems, UKIP have never been in power (the parties less than 20 years old) so are a bit of an unknown quantity, but they do have people in the party that have been Conservative MPs so have some experience. I’m not eurosceptic, to be honest I’m not completely sure where I stand on Europe, the media discusses Europe so little from an intelligent perspective it’s hard to know if we’d be better or worse off if we left the EU? I suspect we’d be far worse off and to be honest I like the idea of close partnerships with other countries, it protects us from ever going to war with them and means we (all EU countries) have to abide by the same trading laws leveling the playing field. If we left the EU I think we’d have to loose the minimum wage to compete in the world, that would be terrible for working class families.
And that brings me to the BNP, I’ve spent more time looking at their policies than any of the other parties (because of this site!). If you read them they are very pie in the sky ideas (some are silly, who’d use the word Banksters to describe the bankers that caused the credit crunch in a policy document!) ranging from military National Service for all over 18s or they loose the right to vote to increasing our military spending, but at the same time stopping the Afghanistan war and not going to war unless it directly affects Britain (why do we need more military if we’ll not use them?).
Could you imagine the cost of getting all 45 million eligible voters to server military national service so they are allowed to vote still? though we do get the option to own a rifle, yep that will cut down on crime!!
The BNP plan to completely stop immigration completely, which might sound like a good idea at first, but what happens when businesses don’t have a skilled British workforce? They can’t click their fingers and produce tens of thousands of well trained British workers over night, it would take decades of extensive training programs to meet all our needs, too many of our young people reject education and as long as that is true we need immigration. We don’t need foreign workers to pick fruit and clean toilets though, British workers should be encouraged to do these lower paid jobs.
Then there’s the voluntary repatriation scheme, to get rid of legal immigrants they plan to pay them 10s of thousands of tax payers money to persuade them to leave. If someone offered me £50,000 to leave the country with my family I’d take it and I was born here. This BNP policy could not only cost us billions, but remove well trained immigrant workers that we need.
Then there’s acquiring British land and businesses, yes the BNP plan to take back businesses and land that are not currently owned by British people! This means companies like ASDA (owned by a US company) will be removed from Britain. The only realistic way for the BNP to take back land etc… without it costing the tax payer untold billions would be to steal it back and that would cause no end of legal trouble. Add to this foreign investors would no longer invest in Britain because of fear of loosing their investment when the BNP steal their businesses and we’d no longer be a center of finance, but become a third world economy!
I can not stress enough how bad BNP policies actually are, please have a read of them and feel free to comment on them under http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/votes/bnp-policies
I went a tad all over the place with that comment :-)
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
You did a bit, but I think we get where you’re coming from;)
I’m only a year younger than you and I just don’t remember things being so bad under the Conservatives even in the recession. I suppose it was why I voted them in again.
I was always in work whenever I wanted to be, I did lose my job on a couple of occasions but always had another one within a week or two, dole was never an option, it was only about £22 per week! I didn’t earn much but seemed to have enough to live on.
I’m moving on from Conservatives now because I don’t feel that much will change fundamentally if they do come to power, there will still be a ridiculous amount of political correctness, health and safety directives banning people from carrying out simple tasks, yob culture (I blame the Conservatives for this anyway with their banning of corporal punishment) and discriminatory laws amongst a whole raft of stuff that really grinds me down about the UK.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
A few personal examples of why I couldn’t vote Conservative.
When I left school at 16 (pretty much stopped going to school at 15) I’d messed up my education and life, already had a 24 hour attendance centre order (a bit like going to the Cadets for young criminals!) and a 3 month detention center order (prison for kids) under my belt for a string of criminal offences (petty offences, never anything violent)!
Started looking for a job and here’s a few examples of how British people are treated when market forces determine wages etc…
These are examples before I reached my 18th birthday.
Worked as a civil engineers assistant, basically carrying equipment, setting it up, bit of laboring… I worked 5 1/2 days a week (10 hours a day, 5 on Saturday) and sometimes a full 7 days a week (half days on the weekend, I’ve never been shy of hard work). I averaged at 16 years of age around 55 to 60 hours per week and was paid £55 (£60 if I worked Sunday morning) and if I recall correctly had to pay tax (think it was about £5 tax)! I also did a maths night class as well :-)
Went looking for a job on an industrial estate. Was offered a job putting springs into a machine all day, pick a spring up, pop it in a hole….. (a monkey could be trained to do the job) that would have been under a YTS scheme for £27 a week, the employer wasn’t going to pay a penny! YTS was the Conservatives answer to their destruction of apprenticeships, businesses took full advantage of young people with that little YTS initiative.
Found a job in the job center advertised at £1.30 an hour, the job was engineering based, mainly spraying bike frames with protective paint. Started the job, but at the end of the first day was told it was £1 an hour not the £1.30 advertised, never went back (didn’t get my one days pay either).
Worked in a print factory, packing food packaging boxes into boxes. Pay £1.50 an hour, would be on my feet all day at the end of a conveyor belt filling boxes with empty flat cereal boxes etc… Would work 12 hour night shifts 6 days a week and would be lucky to take home £120!
Got a job in a foundry that made car parts (turbos etc…) had to use glue spray to attach ceramic rings to polystyrene turbo moulds, was paid £1.40 an hour. The room we worked in had no ventilation and you’d get high by the end of the day from glue fumes!! Day two I complained to the supervisor who fobbed me off (others had also complained), gave up the job on day three and reported them to health and safety and they had to fit extractor fans.
The Conservatives did not care about the average working class man or woman when I was a teenager and I see no evidence they’ve changed. We live in a Conservative run area and it’s clear from how the district council is run they care more about themselves than the people they represent. For example they actually built a leisure center in a small town near where many of the Conservative councillors live even though the local people didn’t want it, yet we live near a popular holiday location that lacks a leisure center (it would pay for itself long term) and they build nothing!
I went back into education at 17 1/2 and had to lie to claim benefits etc… (I signed on unemployed) so I could study, there was no way for me to study full time legally under a Conservative government (I had no family financial support). I was living on my own by 18 and studying full time, if I didn’t lie I’d have been entitled to nothing and would have starved.
I now run a successful business and have no money worries, but will never forget how hard and more importantly how unfair it was under a Conservative government. If I was being a selfish git I’d vote Conservative as they will cut services and benefits I no longer need.
I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work, the Conservatives leave it to market forces which results in employers taking full advantage of their employees.
Our eldest son worked in Argos while studying full time to gain qualifications to enter University earlier this year (he’s 18 now). He got £30 from the government a week for studying 12 hours a week and was paid over £5 an hour working at Argos on weekends!
The minimum wage alone shows Labour cares more about hard working people than the Conservatives do. I’m self employed, so minimum wage isn’t a big issue for me now, but my early working life would have been so much fairer had we had a minimum wage that the Conservatives would have never legislated for.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
I do sympathise with your working life beginnings, I only earned £100 per week standing on my feet all day and night doing bar work and waitressing when I first left school!
That said, everyone else earned around that too or not far off.
Buying a house didn’t cost £200k in those days it was more like £30k, the general cost of living was lower too apart from when Poll Tax was introduced which worked out at 10% of my meagre £100! (I hated them for that -- they bloody chased me for years!).
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Well I can’t really add that much to the answers that have been given here other than from the Conservative point of view on Immigration.
Whilst I actually agree with the proposal for caps on immigration I still think the policy needs to go further and be used on Student visas as well (a longer version of what I would like to see as far as immigration is on the site somewhere).
My main reasons for voting Tory this time are based on economy and getting the country back in to good shape again. Labour haven’t done enough over the last 18 months to get the economy moving again which I believe they should have done by now.
I think any right thinking person knows that public spending has to be cut and the belt tightened to get the economy moving again, and looking through all the proposals for the other parties the only one for me that has a solid enough set of proposals to get the job done in the Conservatives.
Labour intends to pretty much carry on as we are (which hasn’t worked)
LibDems intend to well I can’t see exactly what they intend to do.
BNP intends to create a protectionist state in the UK which will basically floor the economy worse than anything the Tories or Labour have done before.
UKIP I haven’t read their economic policy as yet
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
I do have concerns about immigration, not necessarily skilled workforce but the issue of the EU migration.
One of my issues is that the EU project allows too many unskilled workers to compete with British unskilled workers for lower salaries (they come from generally lower cost economies and manage on less).
The purpose of the EU is a common market with the free movement of capital, goods and people, what it doesn’t have is a common language.
I think the British are very much disadvantaged, it’s a lot easier to migrate to Britain than for British to migrate to other European countries due to language barriers.
English is considered worldwide, the international language of business and trade (and is used as a communicating language between different speaking nationals). However, day to day business in Europe tends to be in the mother tongue of each particular country.
When I was at school, we had the choice of french and german, you only got to do german if you were good enough at french!. So fine if I wanted to move to either of those countries!
Most schools in Europe teach at least English as their main second language with maybe french and german as well.
So provided that they have a moderate understanding of English, most European countries can compete with us for our jobs on an individual basis.
As an adult its a lot harder to learn a new language from scratch.
I never had the opportunity to learn italian, bulgarian, czech, polish or any other language and I doubt very much I could turn up in their country and someone would give me job and help me learn the language at the same time. Let’s be honest, the British are notorious for being poor at learning other languages!
I just wonder whether anyone else considered this language barrier issue when we committed ourselves to the free movement of people.
Any thoughts?
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
“One of my issues is that the EU project allows too many unskilled workers to compete with British unskilled workers for lower salaries (they come from generally lower cost economies and manage on less).”
That’s an issue I have as well, only an extremist would say we don’t benefit at all from immigration and so ban the lot of it, but I also don’t understand why we allow unskilled foreign workers to enter Britain to take jobs that require no training.
Offer me one well trained dentist from Turkey over 50 British born Chavs who are too lazy to work and would rather rot on benefits any day, but we don’t need any more unskilled workers, we have enough British born people who refuse to get a decent education or training that should do these jobs!
As Vote No To BNP has said many times we need a much stronger immigration policy based on a points based system that only allows in economic migrants that we actually NEED. We don’t need unskilled foreign workers to clean our toilets, pick our fruit etc, we have over 2 million unemployed, when the unskilled unemployed have filled available unskilled jobs (that are suitable for them) then and only then should we look to other sources.
I appreciate under current EU law we can’t stop unskilled foreign workers entering Britain completely, but surely we can tighten the rules significantly?
We need immigration, but we need it strictly controlled with the primary goal of benefiting Britain.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
I picked this up from the BBC on the migration of Europeans and which countries have restrictions (dated April 2009).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513889.stm
“The UK was one of the three countries, along with Ireland and Sweden, to place no restrictions on workers from the 2004 entrants. However, workers have to register and only become eligible for benefits such as Jobseeker’s Allowance and income support after working continuously in the UK for at least a year.
After an unexpectedly large influx of workers from Central Europe -- an estimated 600,000 in two years -- the UK announced that it would impose restrictions on workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Up to 20,000 are allowed to take low-skilled jobs in agriculture or food processing, high-skilled workers are able to apply for work permits to perform a skilled job, and students are able to work part-time. Self-employed people from Bulgaria and Romania are already allowed to work in the UK, and this will continue.”
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Well my New Years evening starts now, have a good one everyone and don’t forget to take a couple of paracetamol before you go to bed!
We’ll being seeing the New Year in 4 hours ahead of you lot or I’ll be asleep by then!!
Let’s all hope 2010 will be better than 2009!
:-)
Have a good evening Sarah I think I shall be just slightly hung over in the morning (that’s assuming I even manage to get home)
:)
Happy New Year everyone.
I hope you all had a good New Years Eve whatever you did and having a good New Years day :-)
I was awake until 3am discussing politics with my eldest son (18) home for Christmas from University (blinking free loading kids). He was reading the site and commented on the Reasons to Vote BNP page at almost 3am!
2nd part of Doctor Who on later, whooh.
David
Immigration does not benefit Britain economically, and certainly does not socially. Controlled immigration from European countries would have had some econmic benefit, but it’s far too late for that now.
Britain is most the most densely populated country in Europe, there are simply far too many people here. Our services are under huge strain and we are in a horrible mess socially. I can see the deterioration myself on a daily basis, and I’ve had more than enough. Is it no wonder masses of British people are fleeing to countries such as Switzerland because ‘it’s like how Britian used to be’? I’d join them if I wasn’t so anti-defeatist.
The BNP’s immigration policy is what is currently needed right now. If the need should ever rise that we should need more skilled workers, then I have confidence that the BNP has more than enough sense to employ a very strict system allowing only skilled workers in from neighbouring European countries, as long as it does not have detriment effects on British communities. Although, with 4 million Britons unemployed, I doubt the need for more workers would ever arise, if the proper steps are taken.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
You realise BNP immigration policy is STOP immigration completely with no date for resuming immigration WHEN needed?
Lets imagine a parallel universe where the BNP have a clear majority after the general election and Nick Griffin is PM and they start bringing in BNP policies.
How would that work exactly, looking for time scales, what would they do first etc…?
British National Party policies are extreme right, it’s not like it’s the difference between Labour and Conservative policies where they both occupy the center ground of politics and each accept what’s come before them and adapt their approach accordingly. Like Labour opposed privatisation, but but when they gained power they realised they couldn’t seriously re-nationalise everything (they could, but it would have cost a fortune). Take the Lisbon Treaty for another example, Conservatives planned to give us a referendum, (could have been a NO vote) but Labour passed the treaty without a vote. The Conservatives accept there’s nothing they can do about it now and will have to adapt future policy.
The BNP on the other hand act as though nothing fundamental has changed over the last 30+ years and so what they wanted 30 years ago, they pretty much still want now and can pay for it all by cancelling the foreign aid budget. About the only difference is now they want to remove Muslims instead of non-whites: gone from racial discrimination to religious discrimination.
So what are the BNP going to do about shortages in trained workers when not only do they stop immigration, but pay well trained immigrants who are here now legally (and needed) to leave Britain with a nice fat cheque from the tax payer?
I might loose my dentist for example, where will I find a British born dentist? Takes years to train a dentist, not like the BNP can click their fingers and thousands of British born white chavs are suddenly trained dentists.
So Kelly how will it all work under the BNP?
I bet I don’t get a proper answer.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Firstly, no one would be ‘removed’ under the BNP, unless they are illegal or foreign criminals. The party continually says the problem lies with the politicians, and not entirely with the people who come here. The Party has a problem with the Islamic faith, and not necessarily with individual Muslims.
As unemployment is expected to hit 4 million, there should be no shortage is potential workers. If you read the BNP policies on Housing & Welfare you would learn that the current benefit system would be scrapped and those able to work but refuse to do so, would lose all financial support from government.
People of foreign decent would be offered grants, but I doubt you would see mass movement of people returning to their country of origin. The aim of the policy is lower the population and ease the strain on social services and communities. The hope is that the BNP would make the country less easily taken advantage of, and that would consequently put off a lot of the low life scroungers who have come here over the years with the sole intention of milking the system and taking advantage of our over hospitable tolerance. There would be no more foreign religious buildings, translations, festivals etc.
I believe most people who would take up the offer would not be well-settled skilled workers with a decent paying job in Britain, like a dentist; so I don’t think you should worry. Although I’m sure a loss of people from the country would ease the strain on the NHS and the demand for dentists, nurses and doctors would not need to be so high.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
“People of foreign decent would be offered grants, but I doubt you would see mass movement of people returning to their country of origin. The aim of the policy is lower the population and ease the strain on social services and communities.”
To confirm, the BNP policy is to offer grants (generous grants apparently) to legal immigrants to leave, but you don’t expect mass movement of foreigners from Britain, but this is the answer to tackling current and future British population problems?
That’s called a contradiction Kelly, for it being an answer to population growth wouldn’t it have to result in mass movement of immigrants to work?
Either you are wrong and this will result in mass movement of legal immigrants back to their country of origin or it will fail as a BNP policy to reduce our population.
Which is it?
How many legal immigrants do the BNP expect to take up this offer and how will it affect our population growth forecasts?
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
“Firstly, no one would be ‘removed’ under the BNP, unless they are illegal or foreign criminals.”
That’s not true, if you read the BNP’s immigration policy you will find this phrase:
Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate
http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/bnp-policies-immigration-%E2%80%93-time-to-say-enough.html
That sounds a lot like back dating any immigration laws the BNP would bring in and so immigrants that are considered legal now, may not be legal under a BNP government and will be treated as illegal immigrants.
Sounds like no one not born in the UK is safe under a BNP government!
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
That particular phrase is intended to assist in the removal of those whose residence in the UK is inimical to the interests of the UK. There are large numbers of radicalised moslems with British citizenship and who not too long ago would have been charged with treason. The lunatic running islam4uk being one such.
what a as tupid answerr the labour and tories have caused this problem/they stopped aprenticships, now we have no qualified people forcing us to bring in foreign dentist! David are you telling me their is no british person capable of being a dentist!!I can pull teeth no problem!!The BNP have the rite idea now we need to put it into practice by voting bnp
The Conservatives damaged apprenticeships as I’ve said before in other comments.
If the BNP ever gained power they would have to take into account the current situation in Britain today, not some ideal of what they want it to be like.
If you think a dentist can be trained over night, feel free to have your teeth pulled by a fool like you with a pair of pliers!! I’ll stick to trained professionals who know how to perform a root canal for example after years of training.
UKIP policies on immigration make far more sense than the BNPs, at least they appreciate economic immigration does have a long term roll in modern Britain (still wouldn’t vote UKIP).
Do you not understand to stop economic immigration completely we’d first need to bring back things like apprenticeships, rebuild our manufacturing industries etc… We can’t stop immigration this summer and hope we’ll be alright when businesses can’t find skilled British workers, because we currently have generations of British born people who lack a decent education or skilled training!
Note: we don’t need every single British born person to have a decent education or training for a skilled job, there will always be a need for those who don’t want a good job/career and are happy to do unskilled jobs. Right now we have too many unskilled British born people and not enough well educated/trained British born people and yes I agree it’s partially (a significant part) the fault of consecutive Conservative and Labour governments (in particular Conservative governments IMO).
Labour are at least trying to take a step in the right direction with the lofty goal of having 50% of our young people in education or training. It’s a shame Labour didn’t have policies like this from day one of gaining power to reverse the damage done by the previous Conservative governments :-(
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Whilst I agree that the previous Tory governments wrecked apprenticeships they have a new Skills Policy that intends to expand and improve apprenticeships.
http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/Skills_Policy_Paper.ashx?dl=true
or this brief quote from the Policy
“Creating 100,000 additional apprenticeships every year with a £775 million injection of funds”
If the Conservatives win in the election (which I expect they will) lets hope they follow through on this policy as we really do need apprenticeships encouraged in Britain, so many young people are being let down by a lack of opportunities.
David
Indeed, the words are there (one of the reasons I am voting for them) just need to see them put in to action.
LOL.
Please please show me some figures to prove immigration does not benefit Britain economically.
Britain is the TENTH most densely populated country in Europe.
Between August and October the number of unemployed was 2.49 Million. (So I can assume you are just making things up.)
What would you consider to be the right amount of people in Britain and why?
I don’t anticipate a sensible reply…
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
@ Laura.
The alleged £6billion annual benefit of immigration was exposed in a House of Lords committee report as being untrue. The committee, which includes two former chancellors and several former Cabinet ministers, came to the conclusion that the economic benefits are ‘small and close to zero in the long run’.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs.cfm
Sorry -- England is the most crowded country in Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html
You’re right, unemployment is not currently 4m. Unemployment is currently 3 million, but is expected to reach 4 million.
A sustainable amount of people in Britain was worked out to be something like 30-35 million, I beleive. However, I would consider 45-50 million to be the ‘right amount’ for this Island.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
“You’re right, unemployment is not currently 4m. Unemployment is currently 3 million, but is expected to reach 4 million.”
Actually that’s still wrong it’s currently 2.5 million and expected to reach 2.8 (which is a downward revision) by the CIPD.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have today issued a revised forecast regarding unemployment in UK with a suggestion it could peek at 2.8 million in 2010. While an increase from the current 2.5 million to 2.8 million would obviously be unwelcome, it is a sharp reduction in the Institute’s initial forecast of 3.2 million peak. So is the UK economy recovering quicker than many had expected?
Source: http://financialadvice.co.uk/news/12/ukeconomy/13226/Will-unemployment-peak-at-28-million.html
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
no the expected trend in the middle of 2010 or early 2o11 is an increase in unemployment as vat rises and wages drop /plus the extra tax needed to pay off the interest on the trillions(or Billions) borrowed to pay off the banksters.We are far from out of this recession> have to be blind not to see it!France and germany still have manufacturing sdso they are out we have nothing to sell except the dartford tunnell
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Interesting website that s attempting to predict the 2010 results based on official polls and past results etc, worth a look for those interested.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/
I was looking at that site this afternoon, was looking for a source of all the parliamentary constituencies that are considered marginal seats and will decided the general election.
Thinking about adding a discussion page for each one, lot of work though and based on the lack of discussion on many of the policy pages might not be worth the effort!
Interesting site though.
David
I’ve dropped these comments into a new comment thread because WordPress only allows comments to go 10 levels deep.
David
Jaymie Cain Steele said:
“Global warming; man made, natural or a bit of both?”
“Global warming; man made, natural or a bit of both?”
Interesting one, I think I have said before on this site that I haven’t actually looked at enough of the evidence from either side of the debate to make a definate choice.
But history does show that the climate does have it’s own paterns of shift so partly natural, however from some of the stuff I have read it would seem that we since the industrial revolution have contributed to speeding up that natural cycle, although no one (that I have read) seems to be able to agree on exactly how much we have contributed and how far we have pushed to normal cycle in terms of years.
But personally I do believe that which ever way the actual facts turn out (we know science does tend to change it’s opinions as technology and knowledge improves etc), if there is any chance that we have contributed to speeding up the cycle and by making changes now we could slow down those effects then we should do that.
I think it would be a bit ridiculous to assume that as the world population has grown and the speed in which we burn away the planets natural resources that we haven’t contributed in some way.
But from another perspective we could look at it by taking climate change out of the equation and saying that we know that the world natural resources are actually finite and we are using them up at the highest rate ever so we therefore should be investing in new technologies now and planning for the future otherwise at some point down the line if we do keep sticking our head in the sand and saying we don’t need to worry about it or just blame some New World Order type conspiracy for making it all up etc etc then at some point the lights will go out.
So whether or not we are causing the natural cycle of the planet to speed up is in my opinion neither here nor there as we will actually need these new technologies in the very near future to replace the natural resources we have almost used up.
So effectively I guess I am saying that the Climate Change debate (to me) is irrelevant really if we think from a long term perspective of what we will need in order to keep the world alive in the future.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Don’t you find it at all ironic and strange that the politicians who preach about global warming have many shares in global warming technology? E.g. Carbon clean technology.
I think the problem mainly with global warming isn’t about technology limiting us and putting us in an obscure position, I’d say its the fact that whenever tests are done they are usually tampered with, for whatever reason.
For example many adverts preach that the earth is heating up; and yet from 2007 onwards the earth has actually cooled down by over 1 degree which is quite a lot in terms of global cooling.
Also no real debate has ever been allowed between the skeptics and the followers since most followers are the politicians with shares in this technology. In many polls you will find that over 50% of the average people polled said they don’t believe in global warming or that there is not enough evidence to decide.
I find it incredibly ironic that on the same year there is the climate summit it snows in Winter -- as it naturally should -- and the country comes to a stand still. Labour complain about global warming and want the weather to be natural and ‘normal’ and yet every single time it snows, as far back as I can remember and I’m only 17, there has always been a deficiency in salt and grit. An incredible irony in my eyes personally.
‘The world is heating up’ then it snows during the conference and after.
‘We need less-extreme weather’ so it snows during Winter and the country is crippled.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Which is why I tend to look at it from the perspective of the world having finite resources and we need to develop new ways of producing the electricity we need and new fules for cars etc.
This has to be done no matter which side of the climate change fence you choice to sit on it’s just the fact that we are using up the resources and need to find alternatives anyway.
And personally I think any political party that tried to get that message across instead of debating climate change would win more voters.
To me debating climate change is a bit like the debate of does god exist, no one can offer 100% proof either way so whats the point in the debate, look at it from the real world point of view of we need replacements for the natural resources and the sooner we get going on that the better.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
A debate on global warming/climate change is something I can get my teeth stuck into :-)
Studied science at University (molecular genetics) and I had a healthy mistrust of the concept of global warming when I was younger (much less so now as more evidence has accumulated), not that it couldn’t happen, but that what we are doing would be enough to have a dramatic and long term effect on the Earth as a whole. I still have my doubts, the oceans alone can absorb so much CO2 and more importantly we’ve had much, much higher levels of CO2 in the past.
Not looked into it in great detail, but considering more CO2 in the atmosphere means plants grow better (look at how big plants from the fossil record used to be), there could be ‘beneficial’ effects from higher levels of CO2 (higher yields from farming). Not suggesting we should take a risk though especially considering if climate change is occurring we are looking at more extremes in weather!
“For example many adverts preach that the earth is heating up; and yet from 2007 onwards the earth has actually cooled down by over 1 degree which is quite a lot in terms of global cooling.”
You are seriously going to decide if global warming is real based on a couple of years data, seriously? Making a statement like the above and some of the other things you said shows you do not even understand the concept of climate change.
This is a planet we are talking about here, not a 3 bedroom house with a dodgy thermostat! We have to look at temperatures over a long period of time, it will fluctuate, in a perfect world we’d take hundreds of years to be 100% certain if what we are seeing is completely natural (and of course it could be), but if we did wait a long period of time before acting and the worst case scenarios are true, well oops.
What is very clear from the data and any reputable global warming scientist will tell you (even those who say it’s not man made) is temperature has risen over all recently and we should be concerned. If it’s mostly natural do you really think it’s a good idea to pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
No matter what you believe (unless you believe in a coming ice age?) we should be reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Only reckless fools would argue otherwise, so for me it doesn’t really matter that much if it’s man made or natural (future historians will decide), what matters is we don’t make it any worse.
“I find it incredibly ironic that on the same year there is the climate summit it snows in Winter”
If you knew what you were talking about you’d know climate change models predict a change in weather patterns, so it’s not only going to be just warming, we’ll see more dramatic weather patterns, that could be colder periods during winter and hotter periods over summer, over all trend warmer.
That’s how climate change works, more extreme weather patterns and I think what you are missing is temperature changes are going to be relatively small, it’s not going to be a case of average 45 degree summers in Britain, it’s a few degrees increase in the future, you aren’t going to notice the difference between an average UK temperature of 3 degrees over winter and 4 degrees 10 years later say (hypothetical numbers BTW), but to our planet, if it’s all man made it’s a big change for such a short period of time (decades) and could (in the very worst case scenarios) cascade to even higher temperatures.
I think we’ll cope with a few degrees, it will make some places harder to live, but as a species we’ll adapt, but to be safe we should act now just in case. Also makes a lot of sense not to waste our limited resources, I can see future generations looking back at us burning fossil fuels for warmth and wondering what the hell were we wasting it when it’s a valuable limited resource.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
You seem to degrade whatever I say instantly on no basis at all. Now I remember why I just didn’t bother with this site.
My point was that what is advertised about global warming is a lie. The earth has not heated up recently (in the past 3 years) whereas advertisements and politicians say it has. That was all I had to say.
Also the temperature of the world was cooling up until 1990 and has only risen for 17 years. So you’re claiming bullshi* yet again David since temperature hasn’t increased recently (within the immediate time era) and it hasn’t increased recently in the long run (over the last 100 years its cooled down)
Bored of commenting already, especially to an abnoxious moderator who for some reason doesn’t understand his role.
Perhaps you’re simply to biggoted to properly read or understand what I say, who knows, anyway I’m off with this website, its unreliable, cheap, most of the pages are simply lies (especially the bio about the BNP…’the BNP want to take away the right for people to vote’ what utter crap. You seem to forget I work for the party.) If people want an alternative to some poxy-hobby site I’d suggest you go on the webpage ‘yougov’; an official governmental website that is probably less-so filled with lies and people who dismiss you.
Adios.
Anyone cares to email me my email address is Jaymiecain@hotmail.co.uk
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
“So you’re claiming bullshi* yet again David since temperature hasn’t increased recently (within the immediate time era) and it hasn’t increased recently in the long run (over the last 100 years its cooled down)”
Which reputable scientific sources can you call on to back up the claim global temperatures have decreased over the last 100 years?
For example what does the satellite data show regarding temperature changes in the upper atmosphere?
All serious scientific evidence points to global warming.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
“most of the pages are simply lies (especially the bio about the BNP…’the BNP want to take away the right for people to vote’ what utter crap. You seem to forget I work for the party.)”
If the loosing the right to vote under a BNP government isn’t true please explain what the BNP 2005 general election manifesto was referring to then?
Below is all references I could find to National Service policy in the 2005 BNP general election manifesto, I’ve bolded the loosing the right to vote bit, so you can’t miss it:
And from the more recent BNP Defence policy:
So National Service hasn’t been dropped from current BNP plans.
I wouldn’t be able to do National Service (disabled) would I loose the right to vote?
I also don’t see why my kids should have to do military service to be allowed to vote, the right to vote is democracy in action, adding arbitrary rules like having to do military service is NOT British!
Millions of eligible voters might not take up their right to vote at every election, but I have a feeling the majority of the 60% or so eligible voters who do vote would never vote in a party who plans to link voting rights to military service!
So far every BNP supporter I’ve asked about this has ducked the issue. I am not making this up, it’s not from a left-wing UAF source, it’s directly from the BNP website. The BNP leader Nick Griffin must have passed this policy prior to the 2005 general election and more recently for the Defence Policy page.
I should add a new article about this with a poll.
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
When I voted BNP in the eu election last year i hadnt seen the national service policy. I would not voted BNP if i knew this and wont vote for BNP now.
Bl@@dy stupid idea link military service with votnig.
Im now voting UKIP to get us out of europe.
John
as a former s.n.c.o in the parachute regiment,and a member of the b.n.p.i am against national service in a military context,but 1year in civilian work would bring the nation closer together: disabled, legal immegrant,and indigenous
As a BNP supporter how do you feel about military National Service being linked to the right to vote?
I like the concept of National Service, I agree we need to do something about our young people and could see a form of National Service useful.
I’d never even consider linking it to the right to vote or gun ownership though, just doesn’t make sense. How does being in the military prepare you for voting, I don’t understand the link?
I wouldn’t use compulsory National Service either, maybe if a 16-25 year old isn’t in work for a period of time, isn’t training or in education (doing nothing productive) then maybe link a form of National Service/community work to whatever welfare benefits they receive. Refuse to do something productive without a good reason, cut the benefits considerably.
I realise things like this have been tried before and failed, so not sure how to make it work on a large scale without it costing a fortune. I think the mistake in the past is trying to generate new work with these schemes which are costly to run (they pretty much need ‘guards’ to make sure the young people turn up/do the work!).
Having young people working in charity shops and existing non profit businesses could be a way forward?
There should be no large scale investment in people to watch over those participating in such a scheme, have the charity/non profit business rate whether the individual is working hard or not. If not remove them from the scheme and cut their benefits 3 months and try again, fail twice cut benefits further.
If some young people choose military National Service, great, but it should be a choice and linked to penalties/rewards.
Like with many things BNP, National Service is a good idea, but why so extreme with linking it to voting rights!!!
I was reading BNP supporter comments on the main BNP site and apparently some BNP supporters like the idea of military National Service because they think Muslims won’t want to do it and this will result in less emigrating here and others seeing the BNP voluntary repatriation scheme (pay settled immigrants to leave Britain) as more enticing than the military. One commenter on the BNP site went as far as to say Muslims should NOT be allowed to have their prayer times while serving!
This http://scotland.bnp.org.uk/2008/01/public-military-national-service-in-the-21st-century/ is from the Scotland BNP section of the BNP site (so official BNP, not a BNP supporter comments):
PUBLIC & MILITARY NATIONAL SERVICE IN THE 21st CENTURY
David
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
“Having young people working in charity shops and existing non profit businesses could be a way forward?”
This has also been tries before several times each one failing both under the previous Tory “Project Work” programme and under the current Labour “New Deal” programme.
Having spent a lot of time working (and being involved in designing some of these programmes) the bulk of the problems with our 18-25 year olds not wanting to work stems mainly from their parents not having worked for many years, youngsters see benefits as a right and not something they have to earn the right to claim.
The only real effective way to make an impact on youth unemployment (currently 1 million 18-24 years olds on the JSA register) is to change attitudes to work and benefits, in my opinion military service also won’t have any effect because attitudes need to be changed.
This country has a history of youth unemployment which goes through generations of parents not working and the kids seeing that they don’t need to work, we need to make more effort in the education system showing kids the value of working both for themselves and their families, British people have too much of a benefit dependancy culture that no previous Government has managed to change.
Enforcing military service isn’t the answer, all I see that achieving is training teenagers to use guns and then giving them permission to have one, the other issue then comes up once they have done their stint they come back out to NO jobs available and we are then arming the younger generation living on run down council estates weapons can you see what’s going to happen then?
Schools use work experience placements for a few weeks in the last year of schooling, I think we need to make that longer, with the introduction of “Staying On” in 2013 that should be the ideal platform to introduce 16 to 18 y/olds to the world of work make these work placements longer (maybe 6 months at a time) in different companies to give the opportunity for kids to try some career ideas.
But give them incentives to do these placements, related qualifications to the placements, and similar to the current cash incentives kids staying on in education get (can’t remember the name of it) the kids staying on through this system should also be given them, so we then have a form of payment linked to the work related training, the kids get used to having a wage.
Only by changing the attitudes of the younger generation can we make any serious in roads in to stopping youth unemployment, military service doesn’t instill work ethic in my opinion.
And besides that according to other BNP sources (website etc) the military service includes people working on farms and other such jobs, so they would be completing not really military service but enforced unpaid labour (as the BNP don’t mention anywhere that people will be paid during this service) so we have to assume it will be unpaid.
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Common misconception climate change means warmer winters in Britain, it could mean colder winters.
———-
Many climate scientists think that Britain, and other parts of western Europe, will actually get colder as a result of climate change.
We are the same latitude as Labrador, in Canada, and we benefit from the warming effects of the Gulf Stream.
At the end of the last Ice Age, when the ice sheet covering North America melted, more fresh water reduced the salinity of the north Atlantic surface water and therefore less ‘dense water’ sank and moved towards the equator. This reduced, or even shut-down, the Gulf Stream. Temperatures in north-west Europe fell by 5C in just a few decades.
That’s not what’s happening the next few days, but it’s a mistake to think that climate change means warmer winters.
From the Green Party Press Office
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Ah global warming issue.
Firstly. People always get confused about the term ‘recently’. Time is relative.
If I say I ran a bath recently, that means probably in the last 30 minutes.
If I say I mowed my lawn recently, that could mean in the last 2-3 weeks.
If I say I got a new car recently, that could be up to a few months ago.
If I say a asteroid passed by earth recently, that could be a few years ago.
In global warming terms, the earth is several billion years old (Or at least 4500 years old if you believe the bible word for word :D). Recently is in the range of 10-15 years.
Secondly I do agree there is a ‘altercation’ of the details from global warming, however this as nothing to do with corrupt politicians or the such, but something that as always plagued science, that unless you give conclusive undeniable evidence (This rarely happens), if you harbor a theory that contradicts the norm its is generally ignored since people prefer ‘safe’ thinking.
The cooling down of the 1990′s is now attributed to the sun spot cycles we didn’t know about previously. Although this does give another issue against global warming. There is a lot about the planet and the universe we don’t know, and the current temperature rise could be nothing to do with CO2 emissions but an unknown science.
However that being said we are adding far more CO2 into the air then is naturally created in such a sort period of time, and it is natural to think this could have adverse effects.
In conclusion we can’t say for sure whether Global warming is false or not. However… Isn’t it better to stay on the safe side?
Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll
Leave a reply to Who Will You Vote For In The 2010 General Election Poll