Who would you vote for in a General Election? January 2021

[backontrack]

Yes, that's also very worrying.

Yes, it really is...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I went LibDem, but I have to say, without a lot of enthusiasm.

Tories... Absolutely no way until they rediscover the meaning of the phrase 'ethical values' and stop lying about everything and trying to trash our constitution whenever it suits them.
Labour... Better than the Tories and Keir Starmer seems decent, but too much legacy from Corbyn. Too many Labour members (and a few MPs) who seem to hate the market economy, see everyhing in terms of class war and the need to build some utopian (and utterly impractical) socialist promised land.
Greens... Their hearts are in the right place, and they are absolutely right to put the environment, climate change and biodiversity loss etc. as top priority. But their brains seem to disengage whenever it comes to figuring out practical policies to actually Govern the country. Good as a protest vote, but not much more.

So all that's left is the LibDems... Historically not a bad party, and philosophically I probably have a lot in common with them. But at the moment they seem to verge between directionless and still trying to fight yesterday's Brexit battle. On the other hand, at least they have a pretty good record on the environment, and they are reasonably pragmatic rather than idealistic. Which to my mind makes them the least bad option by quite a long way.

 

[GusB]

For me it has to be SNP again. I don't agree with them on every issue, and in particular I haven't agreed with their decisions on lockdown, but in this neck of the woods it's a two-horse race, and we need to get rid of the DRoss. I expect my MP to be focussing their attention on their full-time job and not refereeing football matches.

If the Greens stood a candidate in my constituency I would consider casting my vote their way, but I know they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting in.

As someone who supports the cause of Scottish independence, I have to bite the bullet and vote for the party which is most likely to deliver it.

 

[Starmill]

I think Ross is planning to contest a Scottish Parliament seat isn't he, and I seem to recall he said that if elected he'd stand down as an MP.

 

[Morgsie]

I'm a fully paid member of the Lib Dems yet I live in a Constituency that went from Labour to the Tories at the last General Election.

 

[GusB]

I think Ross is planning to contest a Scottish Parliament seat isn't he, and I seem to recall he said that if elected he'd stand down as an MP.

Yes, as the elected poisoned chalice holder Scottish Tory Leader, I believe that is his intention, and after he gained my local seat for Westminster at the last election I thought he would have a decent chance of winning the Holyrood seat.

However, the effects of B****t are yet to be fully realised. There was a big backlash here about the number of Poles, Lithuanians etc. coming over here and "taking our jobs" - manufacturing jobs that were needed because of the success of the likes of Baxter's and Walker's, but were shunned by much of the local population because of the perceived low wages. These jobs don't have to stay here - they can be transported to anywhere on the globe that has labour cheap and willing enough.

The traditional recipes of Ena Baxter and Joseph Walker mean nothing when your brand goes global and it suddenly becomes cheaper to manufacture elsewhere, especially if it means that your goods are going to be held up in a big lorry park in Kent.

 

[PeterC]

I went LibDem, but I have to say, without a lot of enthusiasm.

Tories... Absolutely no way until they rediscover the meaning of the phrase 'ethical values' and stop lying about everything and trying to trash our constitution whenever it suits them.
Labour... Better than the Tories and Keir Starmer seems decent, but too much legacy from Corbyn. Too many Labour members (and a few MPs) who seem to hate the market economy, see everyhing in terms of class war and the need to build some utopian (and utterly impractical) socialist promised land.
Greens... Their hearts are in the right place, and they are absolutely right to put the environment, climate change and biodiversity loss etc. as top priority. But their brains seem to disengage whenever it comes to figuring out practical policies to actually Govern the country. Good as a protest vote, but not much more.

So all that's left is the LibDems... Historically not a bad party, and philosophically I probably have a lot in common with them. But at the moment they seem to verge between directionless and still trying to fight yesterday's Brexit battle. On the other hand, at least they have a pretty good record on the environment, and they are reasonably pragmatic rather than idealistic. Which to my mind makes them the least bad option by quite a long way.

Much the same as my views although my constituency would, in the words of Alan B'stard, "vote for a hatstand if you stuck a blue rosette on it"

 

[quantinghome]

Labour... Better than the Tories and Keir Starmer seems decent, but too much legacy from Corbyn. Too many Labour members (and a few MPs) who seem to hate the market economy, see everyhing in terms of class war and the need to build some utopian (and utterly impractical) socialist promised land.

There has been a massive turnover in Labour membership in the past year. The most die-hard Corbyn supporters have left, former members have rejoined, and new members have signed up either to support Keir Starmer's leadership bid or after he became leader. The times are changing.

 

[Spamcan81]

I've put Labour as they are the ones with the best chance of defeating the Tories in my constituency. Not a great chance admittedly but they consistently poll better than the Lib Dems. To be honest I'd vote for just about anyone to get this corrupt and inept shower out of power.

 

[yorksrob]

Anyone who was prepared to lift lockdown.

 

[Whistler40145]

I'm a fully paid up member of The Labour Party, I've only ever vote for them.

I'd rather scrub the Town Hall steps than vote Tory, their all self centred, more interested in what they can do for themselves.

As for Boris Johnson, he's the biggest joke on the planet

 

[Typhoon]

Whoever is best placed to get rid of the useless lump who currently lives at 10 Downing Street and his bungling, self serving and unapologetic colleagues.

 

[Kite159]

I will probably spoil my paper. None of the parties appeal to me (like voting between eating poo or drinking vomit).

Sadly as this area is strong Tory it won't make any difference. They could put a potato with a blue ribbon and it will get elected.

 

[Scotrail12]

I live in an SNP echo chamber but would never vote for them, I think I’d still refuse to vote for Wee Nippy in particular if it was a matter of life and death and she was in any form of power. May well just spoil the ballot.

As for other parties - Greens also a waste of time, no idea what the deal is with Lib Dems, Labour keep picking the worst leaders and whilst there are some Tories that I am fine with, I just can’t with any of the current cabinet.

 

[Halish Railway]

Ugh, I HATE ALL OF THEM.

- Tories are simply incompetent and I'd quite like to see my a******e MP Wobbie Moore gone and John Grogan back in parliament.
- Maybe Labour, I quite like Keir Starmer as a person. I would rip him to shreds over being the cheerleader of Labour's catastrophic 2019 Brexit policy, although on reflection there was no way to win on Brexit due to the conflict between various stakeholders. Maybe if he persues a Blair/Brown style economic policy and purge the party of wokeness then I could see myself voting for Labour. Hopefully they would be more willing to invest in the railways than the Tories, putting the state to good use.
- I don't mind Nige, I just think that its some of the loonies and fruitcakes that he attracts that brings him down.
- The rest of the parties are irrelevent shampagne socialists.

#notolockdowns

 

[birchesgreen]

They could put a potato with a blue ribbon and it will get elected.

Isn't that Ian Duncan Smith?

 

[GusB]

Isn't that Ian Duncan Smith?

That's one tattie I'd be happy to mash

 

[Kremlin Stooge]

Abstainer/paper spoiler here. I used to be a regular LibDem voter until 2010, when I watched aghast as events unfolded in the garden of Downing Street. Mr. Clegg, if I had wanted a Conservative-led government I’d have voted for such. Haven’t voted since, not even the EU membership referendum as I felt the binary choice on offer vastly over-simplified a profoundly complex question, given an option of remain in but use all tools at our disposal to try and drive real institutional reform from the inside wasn’t available.

The Green Party don’t seem to have the political maturity or coherence to attract my vote. There remains a prospect that they are a “water melon”, green on the outside, red all the way through. They also face an uphill struggle stopping the other parties cherry-picking their policies.

I’m also deeply suspicious of Farage and his motivations, as well as some of the company he keeps.

I don’t know if anyone has tried to form a “Spoiled Paper Party”, I gathered a few years ago that trying to form a party called “None Of The Above” wasn’t permitted for some reason.

 

[DanNCL]

In the last general election I voted Lib Dem and would do so again in a new general election - the only reasons I wouldn't would be either if there were a major change in the party that I wasn't happy with, or if I were for whatever reason to move to somewhere in a marginal constituency where voting Lib Dem could help the Tories win the seat, in which case I would vote tactically for Labour.

 

[arbeia]

No problem voting on the day for whatever Party give me the policies that matter to me as an individual. I find it the easiest way. I don't like certain individuals, but it doesn't preclude me for voting for their party. I sleep at night!

 

[Paul Jones 88]

None of the current parties would inspire me to cast a vote.
I would like to see a new party that would improve the pay and conditions of the British workers, invest in new infrastructure such as eight laning motorways, rebuilding railways to modern standards, creating state run facilities to build trains, a nationalised network of factories to manufacture vehicles for the police, fire, ambulance, council and government, much more focus on mathematics and information technology at schools, much more physical education at schools.
A robust approach to law and order, permanently breaking up gangs, whole life tariffs for ALL sex offenders.

 

[takno]

None of the current parties would inspire me to cast a vote.
I would like to see a new party that would improve the pay and conditions of the British workers, invest in new infrastructure such as eight laning motorways, rebuilding railways to modern standards, creating state run facilities to build trains, a nationalised network of factories to manufacture vehicles for the police, fire, ambulance, council and government, much more focus on mathematics and information technology at schools, much more physical education at schools.
A robust approach to law and order, permanently breaking up gangs, whole life tariffs for ALL sex offenders.

That's a pretty extensive list of requirements, and some of them are far from the political mainstream. If you ever find a party that's willing to commit to even quarter of them, then bear in mind that they are almost certainly cynically lying to you and wouldn't make any of them happen when in power.

 

[cactustwirly]

I'd vote Labour. Why?

Easy: they're a major party who actually gives a toss about the climate emergency. Which is going to make COVID-19 look like absolutely nothing by comparison. This pandemic will ease up one day, but we can't leave the climate alone. We need fossil fuel divestment within the next fifteen years - or, at the very least, net zero.

The climate crisis still isn't treated like the vast problem that it really is on here. It isn't respected and my generation's fears aren't respected. But the climate is still a be-all end-all, and I'm part of an increasing demographic for whom it is THE defining issue at the ballot box. I truly despise lockdowns (and I'm finding this one extremely difficult, let's not beat around the bush here), but I hate - and fear - rising sea levels and global temperatures far, far more. You know, probably because they'll be rising continuously throughout my adult life. And because I want to be able to have kids.

The Tories aren't doing anything about it, and Labour are the only other party in England who could get in (plus they had the most coherent, transformative climate plan last time around, even more so than the Greens who basically junked their whole raison d'être in favour of urban remainism). So I'm voting for climate action in any scenario - which means voting red.

(And I haven't even mentioned the biodiversity crisis, either...)

I think you're misunderstanding the climate issue.
The UK government implimenting a

I'd vote Labour. Why?

Easy: they're a major party who actually gives a toss about the climate emergency. Which is going to make COVID-19 look like absolutely nothing by comparison. This pandemic will ease up one day, but we can't leave the climate alone. We need fossil fuel divestment within the next fifteen years - or, at the very least, net zero.

The climate crisis still isn't treated like the vast problem that it really is on here. It isn't respected and my generation's fears aren't respected. But the climate is still a be-all end-all, and I'm part of an increasing demographic for whom it is THE defining issue at the ballot box. I truly despise lockdowns (and I'm finding this one extremely difficult, let's not beat around the bush here), but I hate - and fear - rising sea levels and global temperatures far, far more. You know, probably because they'll be rising continuously throughout my adult life. And because I want to be able to have kids.

The Tories aren't doing anything about it, and Labour are the only other party in England who could get in (plus they had the most coherent, transformative climate plan last time around, even more so than the Greens who basically junked their whole raison d'être in favour of urban remainism). So I'm voting for climate action in any scenario - which means voting red.

(And I haven't even mentioned the biodiversity crisis, either...)

You come across as very Naive.
All that zero carbon policies do is export the problem elsewhere, to places like China and India.
Everything requires fossil fuels in one way or another, unless you want to go back to pre-industrial times.

The best way to solve the climate crisis, is to work internationally, with countries like China and India to reduce their CO2 output.

 

[backontrack]

Everything requires fossil fuels in one way or another, unless you want to go back to pre-industrial times.

The entire point is that this is the thing that we need to change.

There has been a consensus among the scientific community for several years now that total divestment of fossil fuels is a necessity. Why? Because their findings bear it out.

I'm not naïve; you're wilfully ignorant about the state of the issue, and it is the same kind of ignorance and obstructionist logic that pervades this government and many globally.

Zero carbon policies do not export the problem elsewhere, because the problem will exist elsewhere whether or not zero carbon policies are implemented here. (It's not exactly complex logic...) But if prominent western governments do adopt zero carbon policies, we reduce our total carbon footprint and international countries become more likely to do the same. "Working internationally" with other nations (interesting that you mention China and India, yet the highest per-head polluter in the world is the US) is useless unless we put ourselves on a matching footing.

Today, the Guardian is reporting that we have reached the fastest overall ice melt speed since global records began - and we are now matching our worst case-scenario forecasts. Seeing as several major cities are already on track to be underwater by 2050, I'd argue that your fears of a "pre-industrial" regression are the least of our concerns. +1.5° looks increasingly fantastical unless major governments announce Green New Deal-style undertakings within the next decade. Quite simply, we don't have any choice by this point. We're going to have to start preparing for fossil fuel divestment, and investing unprecedented amounts in renewable energy, with an eye on reaching domestically net-zero emissions by 2035. It's literally the only way.

(Well, unless we all choose to lay down and die.)

 

[cactustwirly]

The entire point is that this is the thing that we need to change.

There has been a consensus among the scientific community for several years now that total divestment of fossil fuels is a necessity. Why? Because their findings bear it out.

I'm not naïve; you're wilfully ignorant about the state of the issue, and it is the same kind of ignorance and obstructionist logic that pervades this government and many globally.

Zero carbon policies do not export the problem elsewhere, because the problem will exist elsewhere whether or not zero carbon policies are implemented here. (It's not exactly complex logic...) But if prominent western governments do adopt zero carbon policies, we reduce our total carbon footprint and international countries become more likely to do the same. "Working internationally" with other nations (interesting that you mention China and India, yet the highest per-head polluter in the world is the US) is useless unless we put ourselves on a matching footing.

Today, the Guardian is reporting that we have reached the fastest overall ice melt speed since global records began - and we are now matching our worst case-scenario forecasts. Seeing as several major cities are already on track to be underwater by 2050, I'd argue that your fears of a "pre-industrial" regression are the least of our concerns. +1.5° looks increasingly fantastical unless major governments announce Green New Deal-style undertakings within the next decade. Quite simply, we don't have any choice by this point. We're going to have to start preparing for fossil fuel divestment, and investing unprecedented amounts in renewable energy, with an eye on reaching domestically net-zero emissions by 2035. It's literally the only way.

(Well, unless we all choose to lay down and die.)

The Green New deal would be a disaster for the UK. It's red state socialism dressed up as a green policy. Since when has reforming banks got anything to do with climate change?

I'm a realist. Unless you want to live in a medieval style mud house, carbon emissions are necessary. It's impossible to make raw materials such as steal without carbon ( in the form of coal)
Without steel you can't construct buildings, cars or trains.

Then you have plastics which make up almost everything from food packaging, interiors, furniture, computers and chemicals. It's not practical to ditch them yet.

Without the two, fundamentally the economy will collapse, causing mass starvations and deaths.

I believe it's possible to reduce carbon emissions, but cutting them to zero is impossible without wholesale changes to lifestyles which would be untenable for most people.

 

[Bevan Price]

Probably Labour, but it is a bit early to contemplate general elections. With a large majority, and Corbyn gone, the tories are likely to hold on to power as long as possible, rather than risk losing seats gained in 2019.

 

[Journeyman]

Much as I hate the current government, I'd be extremely annoyed if an attempt was made to call an early election. The Fixed Term Parliament Act was supposed to avoid this, and the Tories have abused it twice. Neither the 2017 or 2019 elections should have been held.

 

[backontrack]

The Green New deal would be a disaster for the UK. It's red state socialism dressed up as a green policy. Since when has reforming banks got anything to do with climate change?

I'm a realist. Unless you want to live in a medieval style mud house, carbon emissions are necessary. It's impossible to make raw materials such as steal without carbon ( in the form of coal)
Without steel you can't construct buildings, cars or trains.

Then you have plastics which make up almost everything from food packaging, interiors, furniture, computers and chemicals. It's not practical to ditch them yet.

Without the two, fundamentally the economy will collapse, causing mass starvations and deaths.

I believe it's possible to reduce carbon emissions, but cutting them to zero is impossible without wholesale changes to lifestyles which would be untenable for most people.

To quote Saruman:

"So you have chosen...death."

(No, but seriously: this is fanciful red-scarism that fails to properly understand the threat that the climate crisis actually poses. You can attack individual components, but the GND is the only solution that actually realises the scale of the crisis. You can propose alternative solutions but nothing that actually rises up to the challenge. We are talking about a fundamental, massive to change - because otherwise we threaten civilisation itself. It's interesting seeing your answer reach for increasingly absurd mud-house imagery in the face of such a serious crisis - but I think you'll find the trouble is that it's not a viewpoint you're strawmanning, but a very daunting emergency situation. Still, I doubt the oil tycoons will mind your strange defence - as if billions worldwide aren't going to die. Yes, I know it's going to be unprecedentedly difficult, but trust me: you don't want to wait and see on this one...)

 

[cactustwirly]

To quote Saruman:

"So you have chosen...death."

(No, but seriously: this is fanciful red-scarism that fails to properly understand the threat that the climate crisis actually poses. You can attack individual components, but the GND is the only solution that actually realises the scale of the crisis. You can propose alternative solutions but nothing that actually rises up to the challenge. We are talking about a fundamental, massive to change - because otherwise we threaten civilisation itself. It's interesting seeing your answer reach for increasingly absurd mud-house imagery in the face of such a serious crisis - but I think you'll find the trouble is that it's not a viewpoint you're strawmanning, but a very daunting emergency situation. Still, I doubt the oil tycoons will mind your strange defence - as if billions worldwide aren't going to die. Yes, I know it's going to be unprecedentedly difficult, but trust me: you don't want to wait and see on this one...)

So how would you build proper houses, that meet modern building regulations, without steel then?
The GND is a solution, but not necessarily the right one.
I don't doubt the climate crisis is a problem, but it needs practical pragmatic solutions.

 

[backontrack]

So how would you build proper houses, that meet modern building regulations, without steel then?
The GND is a solution, but not necessarily the right one.
I don't doubt the climate crisis is a problem, but it needs practical pragmatic solutions.

Steel production isn't inherently tied to fossil fuels in the long-term, just in the short-term. We're going to have to rise to this crisis in a truly transformational way; things are going to change. I didn't say that GND was perfect; I said a Green New Deal-style package is literally the only solution I've seen that is big enough to be a proper response to the situation. And that's still true. None of the "practical pragmatic solutions" I've seen mentioned actually respect the scale of the climate crisis, which is itself equal to a form of denialism - it's denying the scale of the crisis, suggesting that scientists are overestimating (when in reality their findings are generally drawn from the lower end of their estimations in order to generate a more reliable number).

Anyway, this is all getting off-topic... (and I find this topic particularly distressing, so I'd rather not linger on it anymore for the sake of my rather frazzled neurons), so let's move on.

It's interesting that the OP chose to include UKIP in the poll. Aren't they essentially a spent political force in this country these days? It'll probably be a protest vote for some, but the party is a very minor force in this country now. I'm not even sure who the party leader is at the moment (I just googled it and it's Neil Hamilton, apparently on an interim basis).

If there was a new election, I'm sure Farage would register a new party vehicle for himself, though...