They've been on better hours until recently, my company bounces up and down in terms of what rotas they offer. As of a fortnight ago they got slashed, it may rise, it may stay like this til Christmas or longer, we only find out with perhaps a day or two notice. It's pretty erratic.

Outlaw wrote:

Joint Cameron, Miliband and Farage as top performers?! Whuuut general public what are you doing.

It's all over the place.

other polls have Ed up top and Sturgeon up top.

Basically with 7 people you get so close to the margin of error its basically pointless.

Does everyone here know who're they're voting for or are there a bunch of undecideds here?

Rather selfishly I'm too wrapped up in studies to have had time to read into it at the moment, but that'll change when I've dunked this essay on Wednesday... As long as I can get a decent revision plan in place. Totally naive, but better than lying I guess.

Also let's be brutally honest, I'm shit at politics and will remain undecided until the last minute and probably vote Greens - I'm woeful at all this.

Labour 4 life but that's more for my hate of the conservatives then my love of Labour.

Outlaw wrote:

Does everyone here know who're they're voting for or are there a bunch of undecideds here?

I'd personally vote for Tempy or Skerret.

Gonzo as foreign secretary.

Brooks wrote:

SNP dude gave an LSE thing the other week iirc, it was encouraging. Glad to learn she smacked it at this thing. http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=2979

Aye whether you support her or not, she's a very good speaker and a convincing politician. I remember pointing a camera at her years ago at the SNP conference shortly before they came to power in Scotland, and the speech she gave was frankly brilliant. You could tell their time had come.

My constituency went from Labour to Conservative last time after Cleggmania and I don't want to split the non-Tory vote, so Labour. Haven't put much thought into who I'd vote for if we had PR.

equinox_code wrote:

Bennett wasting words with meaningless shite like "i think people should vote for what they believe in"

Is it wasted words though? On this very page, we've got people saying they are voting against the Tories, which isn't voting for what they believe in, it's voting to stop something they don't.

A problem for the minor parties, particularly the Greens, is people not voting for them because they won't form a government. The Nationalist parties can sidestep that, but the Greens can't so it's a message they want to push.

I will vote Labour. My vote is in a Labour safe seat and I'd like to vote Green but I'm not going to. After the election, the largest party are going to claim the mandate to govern. Labour and the SNP may be able to form a majority. But the Conservatives could easily be the largest party. Defending against losing power in this situation is built into Tory rhetoric already with the smearing of the SNP's potential to destabilise the Union and create havoc (something that also probably bolsters support for them in Scotland). And despite this talk of not wanting to destabilise the country, the Tories will run whatever fragile government they have to to to stay in power.

Anyway, for that reason every vote for Labour is important in building the overall number of people that vote for them. The biggest problem a Labour govt will have is seeming legitimate if / when the Tories get a larger share. It's too important to not let the Tories back in to piss about with smaller parties.

I can't understand the Green love.  I've read a few articles into their policies lately, dipping back as far as 2010-2012, because I saw how popular they seemed to be here.

I can't get behind a party that thinks homeopathy has a place on the NHS (I live with a nurse; I think she'd explode if it was suggested she had to offer people homeopathic alternatives to efficient, proven, peer-reviewed medicines, and the NHS already does a very good line in patient choice here), is rabidly anti-nuclear (although the last interview I read with Bennett on it, she seemed to suggest that it was because it takes less time to erect a wind turbine than it does to build a nuclear power station, and seemed very shonky on any sort of science, facts or figures), are anti-GM because it involves corporations, rather than for any scientific reasons, and have a teenager's understanding of defence at best.

Looking at last night's debate, I was outrageously impressed by Nicola Sturgeon.  Not only did she come across well but she seemed to have real substance.  But I look at the Greens with the same confused look that I give UKIP voters; there's just nothing there of any real weight, is there?

Lots of Green voters around here; what appeals to you?  All I can see is if you have your own, more sensible reasons for not being fond of nuclear power, then you might vote for a party that is also against it.  Although they don't appear to have any sort of alternative that will work?

I_R wrote:

They're going to be the only viable alternative to Labour for anyone on the left in England.

So are most people voting for broader, ideological reasons than specific policies?

Pretty much what IR said. Labour have pretty much given up on trying to challenge neoliberalism in any way, shape or form. The market rules and they attempt to be socialist off the back of that. At least the greens seem to be putting people first and (to some extent) questioning the neoliberal consensus that the main parties have settled on.

Although their positions on nuclear and homeopathy can fuck off.

Abandon all your principles and assume your core vote will carry on voting for you anyway.