I don't think I will be voting... seems futile.

The current incumbent has a large majority. He also has blood on his hands. But voting for anyone else would give a stronger tory government, which is probably a bad thing.

So not voting seems for the best

Just came across this:

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlai90H1nz0]

Morons.

"I will not help get a positive atmosphere in the UK, but I wil bitch when my not taking part creates a situation where my brothers and sisters are denied their rights"

Utter utter morons.

http://www.q-news.com/VotingisHalal.pdf

MuslimBro wrote:

Just came across this:

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlai90H1nz0]

Computer says 'X' (er erhh!) to this rubbish.

If voting is shirk, then why did Allah swt grant us the right to vote 1400 years ago!

May Allah SWT guide them. Ameen.

Are people watching the election debate on Itv right now?

What do you make of it?

Here's what I got:

Brown is a lot of semi-inflated skin. He doesn't defend selling off the gold reserves, when gold was lower than ever before or since that precise moment. He can't defend selling off all the NHS land and making them pay rent to developers. He didn't really defend anything. He just kept producing fresh bullshit and when he couldn't, saying "I agree with Nick," an ugly smirk appearing on his face throughout as he played for his best bet, a hung parliament. Think about that: with the same arrogance it took to serve out Tony Blair's entire mandate before calling this election, he is now selling his party out to the Lib Dems. Clearly somewhere in that skin is a very big pair of balls. He can thank his lucky stars the forgettable Alistair Stewart was hosting, which intrinsically sets the bar low.

Nick Clegg performed well but kept looking me in the eye and I hadn't said a word. He was also annoyingly polished. Clearly more of a camera person than a people person. He kept taking broadsides at the "old parties", which is intelligent given his sudden promotion to full equality but I tired of it, it became a non-substantive tack. His policies are probably fine except he can't pretend to have balanced books he doesn't have.

David Cameron inexplicably said, on the matter of immigration, that he had spoken to "a black man" who had come to this country as a child. That was wierd. I was impressed by his sincerity and his steering clear of broadsides although we'll be looking to see if it's skin-deep. I don't have a pet fringe party so he gets my vote by default if he doesn't screw up, and in fairness I felt he was also by far the most competent speaker with the clearest policies.

On most of the issues I have personal preferences none of them spoke to.

Incidentally I took the ITV online survey on the issues to see who I would vote for if I were gullible and relying on public statements. I was upset with the outcome. I don't care that I agree with the Greens on policing and BNP (!) on the congestion charge. It didn't cover my issues. Maybe none of the manifestos really does.

The format and the debate were good viewing, and I think good for democracy, bad for (unelected) Brown. Considering there are two more of these to come Labour is finished.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

David Cameron inexplicably said, on the matter of immigration, that he had spoken to "a black man" who had come to this country as a child.

I have seen a poster about this mocking him before... just cannot find it.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

That was wierd. I was impressed by his sincerity and his steering clear of broadsides although we'll be looking to see if it's skin-deep. I don't have a pet fringe party so he gets my vote by default if he doesn't screw up, and in fairness I felt he was also by far the most competent speaker with the clearest policies.

Competent speaker but still lacking in policy. and he even ended by more or less saying policies are not imporant...

THe Lib Dems have lost their sheen for me when they voted in favour of the Digital economy bill. Actually they made it more draconian than it was before...

Yes ITV.

i did watch bits of it, but gonna watch it fully later on coz oviously i need to vote so wata no wt dey gota say 4 dem selves (im sayn dat in d nicest posible way lol).

we got 2 more tv debates left-look fwd to watchin em.

itz really hard im kind of torn betwen voting labour and conservative atm.

im defo not gna vote lib dem coz they wont have a clue wt 2 do since they not bin in power 4 like aggggggges , i fink it wd b 2 risky 2 vote em - thats just my opinion.

Did you see any substance in what Davic Cameron said? He was wishy washy.

I don't want another Blair in office and Cameron seems to be that, but with even less substance. He doesn't stand for anything and seems to be making wildly opposing promises because he thinks they will be popular. He talks of the need for budget cuts/tax rises but then will oppose the budget cuts/tax rtises by his opponents. Not credible.

At the same time I can't in good conscience vote for someone who was pro Iraq war, so I will most likely not vote at all.

they are a wasted vote - at best they will be either the lackeys of the labour party of the tories. Coalition government.

Besides, I am not against nukes and they also supported the digitral economy bill in the last elections. They actually made it mroe draconian that it was! and now they have the cheek to say if they win they will repeal it - its only been a few days since their cluelessnes when it came to technology became apparent.

If something is growing at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, it does not need extra protections - it is doing well for itself and adding draconian legislation that is proposed by interest groups that have their earnings coming from the very industry is bad for the people.

Lib Dems are clueless and naive. They do not get the idea of planning ahead.

Gordon Brown is 59.

s.b.f wrote:

Clegg is impressive still. Yes I am watching it still. What did people think about what they said on education?

That is because he is not a real option and he had a freedom that the other two don't.

Gordon Brown has to defend the past.

David Cameron it seemed had the aim of trying to look at ease but without detailing policy.

Nick Clegg can actually talk about the future without being burdened by other things.

His nukes policy was extraordinally naive - not preparing in advance means 10/209 years into the future people could suddenly be scrambling with no security. His policy simply does not fully plan to protect the British people. Nukes are a cat out of the bag and they cannot be put back in without significant "costs" to the parties that do. they wil spread and personally, I would back a "nukes for all" policy.

i kind of dont like the way David C acts. hes traeting it a bit like an INTERVIEW saying o can i thank u 4 your service to NHS n stuff like dat em watever :roll: (btw i aint seen all d debate yet).

pluS i think theres tooo many sides to him. In parliment hes bare rude n dat to the oppposition and in the debate hes acting all calm and polite - honestly thats sutin i H8 :doubt: .

hmm im gna have 2 watch all the 3 debates n then make my mind up. it myt end up being labour.

TBH all ov em have weknesses but its a matter of choosing which is the BEST outa the 3 lol.

( - interesting forum topic thanks S.B.F)

"nukes" - wats dat ???

they go boom and give everyone 'shrooms.

was handed a leaflet yesterday saying voting is prohibited its for kufar to do and we should strive for khilafah etc etc....don't think it's true because we're not living in an islamic state and if we don't vote how can we expect to bring about possitive change.

i'm not sure if i'm going to vote...partly because i don't nw the procedure....i nw you have a voting card where u tick for the general election and then local constituency but i dont nw where to get my voting card from lol...probably me just being lazy...and i would vote for labour...pointless voting for any third party expcept lib dems...even then don't want a hung parliament at any cost so labour it is.

It is/was the second debate tonight - on Sky one this time (started at 8pm I think).

Anyone watching? It is supposed to be centred on foriegn policy.

They've all upped their game, it's a slick debate. They're doing very nicely undermining each other and outlining policy. Hard to see who's winning the debate overall. They're doing well ganging up on Cameron and substantively. That might work in his favour. Brown is less in bed with Clegg than last week, and isn't smiling as much, in his favour. Clegg is a touch less smarmy than he was last time.

I didn't find Cameron smarmy on either occasion, I'm finding him earnest but far more human than Blair, that comparison fails on me. Brown is hard to stomach no matter what he says. I'm warming to Clegg but he's still horribly calculating.

So they are actually talking about policy then? That is a good move there.

and "I agree with Clegg" probably never worked out as Gordon expected last time... if its a better debate shame that its limited to people who have sky one.

I agree with Nick CLegg on Europe, but not on nukes, nor on climate change.

I think climate change should not be combatted. The earth is an equilibrium system.

You wrote:

... climate change should not be combatted. The earth is an equilibrium system.

It was a good debate. Clegg was confronted with having opposition policies, I felt, that were not entirely thought through. But Lib Dems clearly have become a force to be reckoned with and what happens at the ballot box is really up in the air. The strength of the Lib Dems will determine how Labour plays the next two weeks and in particular the next debate - whether they play all out for coalition or not. Cameron did a good job of emphasising the dangers of a hung parliament and how negative Labour is being suggesting otherwise, as well as responding very clearly to Brown's outright smears. YouGov suggests instant reactions favoured Cameron, then Clegg.

Salaam,
Does voting for a non-main party make a difference, or work as a protest vote? As in, is there any more point to it than not voting?

Normally, no. But this time the lib dems *may* be relevant.