Clueless who to vote for in the the UK GE?

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Practically all the parties are the same, Labour are as bad as Conservative, if not worse.

Read the thread, read my posts - I think most of us have a very low, and I mean VERY, low opinion of all our major party's and our politicians.

Whilst I recognise that this Labour party are as riddled with self-serving, self-advancing , Eton - Oxbridge types as any other political party, I do however have a particular dislike for the current administration that has needlessly and quite callously targeted the most needy and vulnerable in or society.
In addition I find it hard to forgive a party who under Thatcher's leadership completely decimated manufacturing in this country, sold off 'the family silver', promoted the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude that is now endemic in this country, fuelled the housing boom / boost cycle and instigated so many other policies and programmes that have been detrimental to the ordinary people of this country.

Of course most of those policies were continued and expanded upon by every administration since - but I really struggle to forgive Thatcher and the Tory's for that - I guess many people will not quite get that.

Only idiots cannot see that and would route for any UK political party.....

I don't think most of us are 'rooting' for any particular party - some of us are just commenting on our own personal special dislike for one party - I for one have no time for any of them.

....and only the small minded would comment on how awful one party was without recognising the exact same traits in them all.

Again, read all the thread - I think most of us recognise that.

The political ''voting'' system isn't a real choice, wake up to reality!

We know.

a reply to: valiant

It is quantitative research by a Dr of Economy.

www.cps.org.uk...

Compelling evidence of bias in BBC news reporting is uncovered by economist Dr. Oliver Latham in Bias at the BEEB? A quantitative study of slant in BBC Online reporting.

This paper uses objective, quantitative methods, based on the existing academic literature on media bias, to look for evidence of slant in the BBC’s online reporting.

These methods minimise the need for subjective analysis of the content of the BBC news website. As such, they are less susceptible to accusations of partiality on the part of the author than approaches using case studies.

The paper first looks at how often BBC News online cites each of 40 think-tanks in any article between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2013; and then compares the number of BBC think-tank citations to those of the same think-tanks in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph (taken as representative of left-of-centre and right-of-centre publications, respectively).

The statistical evidence is clear:

The BBC citations of these 40 think-tanks are “more similar” to that of The Guardian than that of The Daily Telegraph.
In particular, the number of articles on the BBC website mentioning a given think-tank is more highly correlated with its number of mentions in The Guardian than its number of mentions in The Daily Telegraph.

Regression analysis also shows that coverage in The Guardian is a much stronger predictor of coverage by the BBC than is coverage in The Daily Telegraph.

The results suggest that if The Guardian prints an extra 10 articles citing a given think-tank, that think-tank can expect to be mentioned in an additional 7 articles on the BBC News website. In contrast, 10 extra articles in The Daily

Telegraph translates to only 3 extra BBC website hits.

Once we control for the coverage a think-tank receives in The Guardian, the number of hits it receives in The Daily Telegraph has no statistically significant correlation with its coverage by the BBC.

These results are robust to a number of alternative specifications, including controlling for single-issue and foreign-policy think-tanks.

The paper then looks at the “health warnings” given to think-tanks of different ideological persuasions when they are mentioned on the BBC website.

It finds that right-of-centre think-tanks are far more likely to receive health warnings than their left-of-centre counterparts (the former received health warnings between 23% and 61% of the time while the latter received them between 0% and 12% of the time).

A higher proportion of left-of-centre think-tanks than right-of-centre think-tanks are referred to as “independent” by the BBC.

This quantitative analysis of think-tank citations and the use of “health warnings” is consistent with existing evidence that the BBC exhibits a left-of-centre slant in its online reporting.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

... For a right wing think tank!

As i've said already, my own eyes and ears see a right wing bias!

There's no point flinging this back and forth, we clearly don't agree.

Left wing, right wing; red, blue; ding, dong; it matters not what colours the BBC are wearing this week. They are and always have been the establishments' whore.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Scouse100

Or the left wing BBC?

It is directly from their manifesto not newspaper spin.

No wonder the UK is a mess, too many fools buying into idiocy.

OK fair point, I was preaching going direct to the source, so to avoid going off on one to argue the BBC's bias here it is straight from the horses mouth...

See 5.53

news.sky.com...

The story you posted consists of quotes cherry picked from the manifesto framed with insinuation. Taking quotes out of context comes as second nature to these rags.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth

Practically all the parties are the same, Labour are as bad as Conservative, if not worse.

Only idiots cannot see that and would route for any UK political party and only the small minded would comment on how awful one party was without recognising the exact same traits in them all.

The political ''voting'' system isn't a real choice, wake up to reality!

How utterly arrogant of you.... have you actually read the thread??
We ALL KNOW that the party political system is crap in this country... we all know that they're mostly a self serving elite who couldn't give a crap about us... none of us are "dim" or "small minded" and you just sound extremely insecure coming out with stuff like that.

The point is, as Freeborn and others have said.... The Tory party hate the poor even more than the other parties.
They target, purposely, the poorest, most vulnerable in society and make their life even more difficult.
From students with fees, to Remploy closures and cutting benefits for the disabled to hitting pensioners where it hurts and leaving them to choose whether to heat or eat.
Closing community projects, community care programs, outreach centres and all manner of necessary things that millions relied on.
Food bank use has rocketed while the gap between rich and poor has never been greater and the number of food banks and people living under the poverty line is at an all time, record high.

They are scum... they look after big business, decimate community programmes and actual communities and constantly work toward making their city friends and lobbyist friends and arms manufacturer friends more and more money.

Yes ALL of the parties are corrupt, they're mostly all self serving.

But at least Labour or the Lib dems and the greens, will actually look after the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

I am neither of those things, nor am I a pensioner, disabled or on benefits... but I, like many others actually give a **** about other people and want there to be proper safety net in place and want those at the top to pay their fair share.
Those with the broadest shoulders MUST and SHOULD bear the greatest burden.

The Tory party believe the polar opposite.

Let's syphon money from the poorest, let's cut all benefits and help to those that need it most and let's give tax breaks and more money to big business and more money to millionaires.

Do you know what??

**** THAT.