• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

UK General Elections 2010


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Poll: ... poll (21 member(s) have cast votes)

...which Party is the best choice for advocates of radical life extension?

  1. Conservative (6 votes [28.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

  2. Labour (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Liberal Democrats (11 votes [52.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.38%

  4. Other (4 votes [19.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.05%

...which Party will/would get your vote?

  1. Conservative (7 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  2. Labour (1 votes [4.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.76%

  3. Liberal Democrats (9 votes [42.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  4. Other (4 votes [19.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.05%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 29 April 2010 - 05:21 PM


All ImmInst members and visitors should feel invited to vote in this poll, irrespective of US citizenship.

ImmInst does not endorse any political candidate or party.

#2 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 30 April 2010 - 01:50 PM

Well I didn't vote for any of them (did my postal vote today). A while back I didn't write to my MP and MEPs about LE. From seven people I got two responses. One from a Conservative MEP who thought the idea of trying to fight death was foolish, and from a Lib Dem MEP who said he would raise the issues when possible, no idea of course if he did, and don't imagine the lib dems as a party have a line on LE... But with the big spending cuts on scientific research in the UK we have just had, only a party that wants to increase public spending I'd see as helping, and all of those parties want to slash it, dramatically!

#3 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:42 PM

I voted for Lib Dems in the first, and for Labor in the second.

Here's my line of reasoning. As for life extension I think Labor would not be the best choice, since there's the problem of "hugeness" concerning this party - an idea such radical would not fit well in my opinion with their traditional voter's base who have to care about jobs being outsourced, general lack of financial security and so on, and for today extending life would mean primarly extending the retirement years. With all this, LE would just be covered deep by various other social issues, much more relevant to the UK citizens at the moment and would become the property of maybe one particular party's fraction. Conservatives are not the choice for obvious reasons I guess. I think Labour would better run the country because they are just more thougthfull kind of people ( for politicians of course ).

On the other hand, perhaps a party like the Liberal Democrats could make LE a kind of a hallmark for themselves, something that people would immediately associate them with, a sort of progressive edge, that would attract younger, more forward thinking voters, making the Lib Dem a "futurist" party.

Edited by chris w, 30 April 2010 - 03:43 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 thatperson

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 April 2010 - 06:59 PM

I'll be voting British National Party, although none seem to really have any connection to LE I suppose the British National Party will have a positive effect, merely by freeing up tax money for, and commiting to, increased funding for research universities.

Edited by thatperson, 30 April 2010 - 06:59 PM.


#5 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 30 April 2010 - 07:30 PM

I'll be voting British National Party, although none seem to really have any connection to LE I suppose the British National Party will have a positive effect, merely by freeing up tax money for, and commiting to, increased funding for research universities.


On the other hand they are a bunch of racists, and have already committed to spending cuts at any rate...

#6 thatperson

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 April 2010 - 07:52 PM

30,000 members and over a million supporters is hardly a 'bunch' lol. And they're not racist... Spending cuts in useless things such as Foreign aid, EU membership, Afghan/Iraq war. Rather than in the NHS, Education, and Research Universities

Edited by thatperson, 30 April 2010 - 07:52 PM.


#7 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 30 April 2010 - 08:19 PM

The bnp don't have that many members as the multiple leaked members lists have shown. That had a few thousand names on it, and their definition of membership was somewhat debatable at any rate. I'd define a member of a political party as a sub paying member and there are people on that list who were no longer members, or had rang up expressing an interest and that's all.

And a million supporters? How did you come to that? Many people vote for them as the BNP market themselves as old labour basically and sweep up the hordes of people that once thought of the Labour party as their party and now is simply not to dissimilar to the Cons, marginally better, but lets face it that's not saying much...

The BNP offer no solution, immigration has little to do with Britons problems. The problems Capitalism, and largely unregulated markets has caused the collapsing of the banking system. The ruling classes like us to spilt along national lines, it weakens the working class when we do.

I do however agree with you on cutting all those things you mentioned, with the exception of Foreign aid anyway. But I still wouldn't cut services, cutting all those things mentioned would be more then enough to fill the hole if we chuck in trident, and stop the rich finding tax loop holes, that would be an extra 60 billion a year just by closing up the tax loop holes! I'd increase public spending, get rid of all the private sector elements that run our public services that create bigger breocrascies and instead create world class public services, bish bash bosh!

Edited by captainbeefheart, 30 April 2010 - 08:21 PM.


#8 thatperson

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 April 2010 - 08:51 PM

The BNP had 13,000 paying members at the 2007 leak, I think it was 19,000 paid members in the second leak. And since march 2010 the membership has increased by over 7,000. so that's 26,000 at least and perhaps another 4,000 inbetween the second leak and the membership ban. 960,000 voters in June 2009 and with turnout at like 30% I think at least 40,000 of the remaining millions would have voted BNP.

Immigration is the number 1 issue for many people and nationally number 2 behind the economy, which itself is linked. Why not foreign aid? During the last year it was £9billion and all threee parties are planning to rise it to £13billlion. someone who donates £5 to chairty per month doesn't usually decide to make it £10 the month they go bankrupt. The parties are scraping every little penny they can to fix the deficit eating into schools, NHS, policing, when there is a simple £13 billion saving just there for the taking.

and stop the rich finding tax loop holes, that would be an extra 60 billion a year just by closing up the tax loop holes. I'd increase public spending, get rid of all the private sector elements that run our public services that create bigger breocrascies and instead create world class public services, bish bash bosh!

yeah that also lol

#9 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 01 May 2010 - 02:07 AM

Immigration is the number 1 issue for many people and nationally number 2 behind the economy, which itself is linked.


Is immigration the number 1 issue or *illegal* immigration the number 1 issue?

#10 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 01 May 2010 - 08:11 AM

The Conservatives are the lesser of the three evils listed, but voting is just a trap that supports the inherently irrational and corrupt collectivist system - don't waste your time.

If you're a UK "citizen", your best bet would be to start or join a political migration effort similar to America's Free State Project: move to some Commonwealth island, declare sovereignty, get rid of all taxes and governmental barriers, and become a haven for high-tech entrepreneurship that other "nations" wouldn't allow.


[...] The problems Capitalism, and largely unregulated markets has caused the collapsing of the banking system. [...]


Debunked elsewhere...

Edited by Alex Libman, 01 May 2010 - 08:15 AM.


#11 thatperson

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 May 2010 - 12:06 PM

Is immigration the number 1 issue or *illegal* immigration the number 1 issue?


No, Regular immigration, the lib dems immigration policy of "10 year hide and seek" is just a joke.

#12 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 01 May 2010 - 04:55 PM

voting is just a trap that supports the inherently irrational and corrupt collectivist system - don't waste your time.

hrm. dunno about that.

#13 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 01 May 2010 - 06:17 PM

Just think of all the time and money otherwise reasonable people waste on politics. We could get a country of our own for half as much!

#14 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 03 May 2010 - 03:53 AM

Given the resurgence of the Conservative Party, the increasing viability of the Liberal Democratic Party, the surprising decline---since its resounding victory in the 1997 General Election---of the Labour Party, and the multiple outcomes that this unpredictable shift in popular mood might produce, I have been following the election news with great interest.

Despite its regression in some categories of relative power and quality of life, the United Kingdom remains an integral player in the international system---largely owing to its undiminished influence in post-World War II international bodies that continue to stubbornly enjoy legitimacy in multilateral decisionmaking---in spite of reservations from emerging nation-states and the proliferation of regional actors. Since these international bodies still have no rival, the effects of domestic politics within the United Kingdom will be felt by all stakeholders in the international system---including the United States, with which it shares an enviable bond that has endured transatlantic squabbles and systemic changes in the distribution of power (e.g. the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a legally binding union of European states).

In order to avert the effects of a global recession that was especially felt in the United Kingdom, decisionmakers had little choice but to embark on an uncprecedented program of fiscal and monetary stimulus in order to prevent a precipitous decline in aggregate demand and national savings. Although decisionmakers can be credited with sparing its citizens from a unpredictable descent that may have led to utter ruin, its reputation among domestic and international actors has been unquestionably damaged, and will require restorative work that exceeds the daringness of the architects of the tentative recovery. But, with projected demographic changes, the reduced earning potential of UK households, the specter of a sovereign debt downgrade, and the imperative of brightening the fiscal forecast through painful reductions in government services and unpalatable increases in tax burdens, the flexibility of decisionmakers will be greatly reduced. If---as widely predicted---voter attitudes remain static, and produce an indecisive political outcome, the endemic problems of this unfortunate state will only multiply since parties vying for power will likely adopt a zero sum outlook that encourages a sacrifice of the national interest for the sake of political expediency. Such a climate is luxury that can be ill afforded, because the next few years are critical for changing the trajectory of a plane that that is admirably---but almost vainly---struggling to maintain altitude.

At this late stage, and in spite of their preferences, voters can still affect positive change, but it will require the sort of pragmatism that some may have formerly thought to be unthinkable. It will require a betrayal of deeply held political beliefs about the righteousness of their party's platform, and require a suspension of their greatest political hopes, which sustained their faith through repeated betrayals and failures of civil governance. Since the dangers that their fledgling nation-state faces are grave, it will require the voting public to first and foremost, reconcile their private preferences with the national interest, and support the party most likely to emerge victorious from the battleground. For all but the utterly apathetic, that will mean a vote for the Conservative Party. Such an outcome would be unfortunate, because the Conservative Party is only superficially different from its predecessors, and because the the unresolved contradictions in its platform and among its constituents deprives it of cohesiveness and coherence. However, the future of United Kingdom, and arguably, the strength of the international system depends on a domestic political outcome that is relatively free of tumult, and that enables the ruling party to govern effectively. So, if my opinion is not entirely clear, allow me to remove any remaining ambiguity: If I were residing in the United Kingdom, and entitled to vote in the imminent election, I would vote for the Conservative Party with great reluctance, but guided by a principled---but nonetheless dim--- hope that a clear victor emerges.

I think I've more than sufficiently answered the second question, but the first question will require further reflection.

Edited by Rol82, 03 May 2010 - 03:56 AM.


#15 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 May 2010 - 04:40 PM

Two votes for Conservatives in terms of life extension ? Isn't the fight against aging the least conservative thing in the world ? I know that today the Tories are not "medieval" anymore but still, I don't see how they could be in favor of LE. What were your reasons for that votes ?

Edited by chris w, 04 May 2010 - 04:43 PM.


#16 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 04 May 2010 - 05:21 PM

Two votes for Conservatives in terms of life extension ? Isn't the fight against aging the least conservative thing in the world ? I know that today the Tories are not "medieval" anymore but still, I don't see how they could be in favor of LE. What were your reasons for that votes ?


LE research isn't going to get far in a collapsing and/or socialist economy.

#17 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 04 May 2010 - 05:58 PM

In UK, the "Conservative" party (ex. Margaret Thatcher) is also the most "progressive".

(Political terminology and logic don't mix very well...)

#18 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2010 - 08:43 PM

Two votes for Conservatives in terms of life extension ? Isn't the fight against aging the least conservative thing in the world ? I know that today the Tories are not "medieval" anymore but still, I don't see how they could be in favor of LE. What were your reasons for that votes ?


LE research isn't going to get far in a collapsing and/or socialist economy.


Totally agree, besides conservatism is about individual freedom and less state control.

As for life extension I think Labor would not be the best choice, since there's the problem of "hugeness" concerning this party - an idea such radical would not fit well in my opinion with their traditional voter's base who have to care about jobs being outsourced, general lack of financial security and so on, and for today extending life would mean primarly extending the retirement years.


If Labour cared about their traditional voters, they wouldn't have presided over the biggest decline of manufacturing in the UK's history over the last 13 years. In 1997 manufacturing made up 20% of our GDP and now accounts for 13%.

Socialism never works because "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -

Edited by rashlan, 04 May 2010 - 08:45 PM.


#19 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2010 - 09:01 PM

No, Regular immigration, the lib dems immigration policy of "10 year hide and seek" is just a joke.


If you were really concerned about immigration, you would'nt be voting for the BNP as the have little to no chance of getting a single MP.
unlike the figures that Labour band about, only 30% - 40% of our immigration is from the EU with the vast bulk being from places like Pakistan.
Labour embarked on an open door immigration policy when they came to power in 1997.
The conservatives will cap immigration from countries outside the EU like they promise because it's in their interests, nearly 80% of immigrants vote for Labour.
Haven't you ever wondered why all the postal voting Fraud is carried out by muslims voting fraud in east London

Edited by rashlan, 04 May 2010 - 09:24 PM.


#20 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 May 2010 - 09:24 PM

Totally agree, besides conservatism is about individual freedom and less state control.


Yeah, freedom of fortunate individuals and more control from religion and "Tradition". Lovely.

Edited by chris w, 04 May 2010 - 09:57 PM.


#21 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2010 - 09:28 PM

Totally agree, besides conservatism is about individual freedom and less state control.


Yeah, individual freedom of the fortunate ones and more control from religion.


erm how do you come to that conclusion? Labour have eroded more of our individual freedom than any other party. Were you living in the UK under the last conservative government?

#22 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 May 2010 - 10:33 PM

Totally agree, besides conservatism is about individual freedom and less state control.


Yeah, individual freedom of the fortunate ones and more control from religion.


erm how do you come to that conclusion? Labour have eroded more of our individual freedom than any other party. Were you living in the UK under the last conservative government?


Who is the archetype, the grandpa Conservatist of modern western philosophy of politics ? Joseph de Maistre. Was this man for any kind of "individual" "freedom" ? The only reason why the Conservatives in Britain and many other parts of Europe ( but not my country ) are livable, is exactly because they ceased to be conservative about many social issues concernig freedom of personal choice. Being the original, oldshool Conservative is about tradition enforced elitism ( including caste like ), and strong religion/ethnicity derived bonds, about "natural order of things", not in support of any kind of experimental lifestyles like being gay or becomming a mind uploaded cyborg.

Conservatism is about bringing back what was lost during modernisation of western societies, "the good old, clean and decent times", and I always thought that transhumanism is pretty much the opposite, and damn, I am going to say this - about Change ;) .

Good luck convincing Margaret Tatcher we should defeat aging and death.

Edited by chris w, 04 May 2010 - 11:10 PM.


#23 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2010 - 10:50 PM

Totally agree, besides conservatism is about individual freedom and less state control.


Yeah, individual freedom of the fortunate ones and more control from religion.


erm how do you come to that conclusion? Labour have eroded more of our individual freedom than any other party. Were you living in the UK under the last conservative government?


Who is the archetype, the grandpa Conservatist of modern western philosophy of politics ? Joseph de Maistre. Was this man for any kind of "individual" "freedom" ? The only reason why the Conservatives in Britain and many other parts of Europe ( but not my country ) ale livable, is exactly becasue they ceased to be conservative about many social issues concernig freedom of personal choice. Being conservative is about tradition enforced elitism ( including caste like ), and strong religion derived bonds, not in support for any kind of experimental lifestyles like being gay or becomming a mind uploaded cyborg.

Conservatism is about bringing back what was lost in modernisation of western societies, "the good old clean times", and I always thought that transhumanism is pretty much the opposite, and damn, I am going to say this - about Change ;) .

Good luck convincing Margaret Tatcher we should defeat aging.



You're view of conservatism is as narrow as me calling all lefties communists. Conservatism is more about keeping institutions that work rather than destroying the pillars of society indiscriminately. Certain traditions are integral to the nations culture.
There are lots of types of conservatism and i can't see how you can make such a sweeping statement implying conservatism is about staying in the dark ages. What about Singapore? Hong Kong?

besides I'd much prefer to have the freedom to pay for services i want, rather than be taxed to death to pay for A single mother with 2 kids on the min wage working 16 hours for £80.00 per week having her income increased to £25,000 per annum with tax credits

Edited by rashlan, 04 May 2010 - 11:22 PM.


#24 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 04 May 2010 - 11:16 PM

Our kids will be out of school on voting day, their school is our local voting location. My eldest in Secondary school will be participating in a school vote and I'm quite interested in how the British youth will vote--it is a good indicator so far, in my opinion, that she and most of her friends or Liberal Democrat supporters. ;)

#25 thatperson

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 May 2010 - 11:19 PM

No, Regular immigration, the lib dems immigration policy of "10 year hide and seek" is just a joke.


If you were really concerned about immigration, you would'nt be voting for the BNP as the have little to no chance of getting a single MP.
unlike the figures that Labour band about, only 30% - 40% of our immigration is from the EU with the vast bulk being from places like Pakistan.
Labour embarked on an open door immigration policy when they came to power in 1997.
The conservatives will cap immigration from countries outside the EU like they promise because it's in their interests, nearly 80% of immigrants vote for Labour.
Haven't you ever wondered why all the postal voting Fraud is carried out by muslims voting fraud in east London


Barking is a real chance, stoke central/Dagenham&Rainham are also real possibilites. Also your logic doesn't work, Why would I vote for a party advocating potentially unlimited immigration?
The conservatives have already failed, first saying "it will be in the 10,000's not 100,000's" and now they say it may be as high as 120,000. Conservatives Can't Cap immigration, it's just a blatent lie. Only UKIP or the BNP can stop immigration. And only the BNP want to.

LibLabCon, It's really hard to say which one is the lesser of the three evils, virtually the same.

#26 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2010 - 11:24 PM

No, Regular immigration, the lib dems immigration policy of "10 year hide and seek" is just a joke.


If you were really concerned about immigration, you would'nt be voting for the BNP as the have little to no chance of getting a single MP.
unlike the figures that Labour band about, only 30% - 40% of our immigration is from the EU with the vast bulk being from places like Pakistan.
Labour embarked on an open door immigration policy when they came to power in 1997.
The conservatives will cap immigration from countries outside the EU like they promise because it's in their interests, nearly 80% of immigrants vote for Labour.
Haven't you ever wondered why all the postal voting Fraud is carried out by muslims voting fraud in east London


Barking is a real chance, stoke central/Dagenham&Rainham are also real possibilites. Also your logic doesn't work, Why would I vote for a party advocating potentially unlimited immigration?
The conservatives have already failed, first saying "it will be in the 10,000's not 100,000's" and now they say it may be as high as 120,000. Conservatives Can't Cap immigration, it's just a blatent lie. Only UKIP or the BNP can stop immigration. And only the BNP want to.

LibLabCon, It's really hard to say which one is the lesser of the three evils, virtually the same.

Of course that can cap immigration, just not from the EU. We have currently got a deficit of 13% of our GDP and next year its projected to be higher than greece's, I just don't think voting for the BNP is going to help things.

Edited by rashlan, 04 May 2010 - 11:29 PM.


#27 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 May 2010 - 11:24 PM

Certain traditions are integral to the nations culture.


Isn't aging and death also integral to being human ? And I wouldn't mind destroying them.

To say that certain traditions are integral to a nation's culture is exactly like saying "humans age and die" - it doesn't mean anything about wheter this is something to be valued. If in certain parts of the world they mutilate girls by cutting out their clitori, it is integral to those cultures and horryfing as well. But the conservatist ( not libertarian ) would say that this should not be changed since it was always like that. Sorry, but no matter how twist the definition of "conservatist" things that go against the order of nature ( like curing aging ) are anti - conservative.

Singapore is a good example of merging capitalism with "traditional values" and with authoritarism (no real citizen influence on the government, getting death penalty for any ammount of illegal drugs, fines for swearing or spitting in the street ). I wouldn't say this is pro individualistic. But sure, they make an honest buck.

Edited by chris w, 04 May 2010 - 11:36 PM.


#28 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2010 - 11:34 PM

Certain traditions are integral to the nations culture.


Isn't aging and death also integral to being human ? And I wouldn't mind destroying them.

To say that certain traditions are integral to a nation's culture is exactly like saying "humans age and die" - it doesn't mean anything about wheter this is something to be valued. If in certain parts of the world they mutilate girls by cutting out their clitori, it is integral to those cultures and horryfing as well. But the conservatist ( not libertarian ) would say that this should not be changed since it was always like that. Sorry, but no matter how twist the definition of "conservatist" things that go against the order of nature ( like curing aging ) are anti - conservative.

Singapore and Honkong are good examples of merging capitalism with "traditional values" and in the first case - with authoritarism ( like getting death penalty for any ammount of illegal drugs ).


Your still associating conservatism with an extremely narrow definition of it and i just don't think it applies to the discussion.

#29 rashlan

  • Guest
  • 124 posts
  • 20
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2010 - 11:37 PM

Our kids will be out of school on voting day, their school is our local voting location. My eldest in Secondary school will be participating in a school vote and I'm quite interested in how the British youth will vote--it is a good indicator so far, in my opinion, that she and most of her friends or Liberal Democrat supporters.

What makes you think that them voting Lib Dem is a good indicator? Which of their policies do you agree with?

#30 thatperson

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 May 2010 - 11:39 PM

Voting BNP will help things rashlan. The Conservatives want to throw £13 billion pound out the window in the form of foreign aid. At a time when the government is saving every pound it can, we can't afford to waste £13 billion, that's jsut for starters, let alone the Wars that the conservatives wan't to keep us in. oh and the multi billion cost of EU membership.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users