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 points behind at 32.3% of the popular vote, but because of the first past the post voting system, the Labour Party had a significant majority with 356 parliamentary seats […]
Continue Reading General Election 2010 Poll Results
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
View Comment
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.
View Comment
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
View Comment
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.
View Comment
“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
View Comment
“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
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
View Comment
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.
View Comment
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
View Comment
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
View Comment
Whilst I agree that the previous Tory governments wrecked apprenticeships they have a new Skills Policy that intends to expand and improve apprenticeships.
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…
View Comment
@ 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’.
Sorry – England is the most crowded country in Europe:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/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.
View Comment
“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://www.financialadvice.co.uk/news/12/ukeconomy/13226/Will-unemployment-peak-at-28-million.html
View Comment
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
View Comment
Interesting website that s attempting to predict the 2010 results based on official polls and past results etc, worth a look for those interested.
https://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
View Comment
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.
View Comment
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.
View Comment
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.
View Comment
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
View Comment
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
View Comment
“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
View Comment
“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
View Comment
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 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
View Comment
“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.
View Comment
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
View Comment
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?
View Comment
I won’t vote for any of them, I’m going to foul my paper. You should all do the same, they are all venal, self-serving hypocrites: just look at the expenses scandal. It is high time our democracy was altered to reflect the views of an informed electorate in the information age.
I can vote for None of the Above here, why is that option not on my ballot paper?
Join my facebook group, foul your paper.
View Comment
David – couldn’t see another way of contacting you and this article / survey seemed the most appropriate.
KwikChex.com is providing a resource that enables voters to more easily compare candidates in each constituency, based on individual policies, opinions, values and undertakings for the future. The principle to a great extent is that party policies are blurring (certainly with regard to the ‘big three’), trust of MPs is at an all time low – and voters don’t have an easy to compare, like for like candidate resource.
Don’t want to make this a commercial plug, but I would be interested in featuring your blog. You can see what we are doing on the site – and see contact details too, should you be interested /want to run an article etc.
View Comment