to think there is hardly and difference between the two main parties and their leaders

[brt100]

I mean their policy s are only slightly different and I doubt things would be any different regardless of who got into power in the last ge.

Both of the leaders are increadably wealthy and have never had to go hungry or cold.

Some of their policies are pretty different indeed when you look at them properly. And whether things would be different - well, it depends on whether those policies are things you care about.

Even in my local elections I am finding the difference significant, particularly in their approach to dealing with the extreme shortage of school places. The two parties most likely to control the council have very different ideas of how to deal with that - and the outcome has a big impact on me, my family and my community.

YABU - why don't you read up on their policies and find out? There are significant differences between the major parties in both ideological and practical terms. The hilosophies behind each party are very different, and it does make a difference who is in power. What about important things that don't make the headlines but have a big impact on how people live: employment rights, how healthcare is funded and managed, legal aid, schools policy, education funding, regulation of industry? There are significant differences between the parties on these issues, but you need to do some proper reading and thinking about them.

Train makes a good point in that parties are much more than their leaders, both ideologically and practically.

Some of the most radical party leaders there have ever been, who have made the biggest inroads into improving equality and fighting the effects of poverty, were not themselves from poor backgrounds but were people who cared about inequality and hardship even if it didn't affect them.

YABU

Have you looked at the manifestos and policy announcements that both parties have issued, studied the ideological differences between the parties, explored their historical and geographical routes and support bases and then thought about how all these things will influence policy and decision making?

Or have you thought 'nah that seems like too much like hard work' and having seen the leaders of the respective parties on TV concluded 'they are both white posh blokes in suits the parties they represent must be exactly the same.'

Pure laziness on your part OP

imho, they are two cheeks of the same arse.

Lol I'm lazy for thinking they are pretty similar?

You do know the difference between policy's offered in power and out? The Tories would have spent as much and labour would of cut as much IMO.

Oh, I don't know - Cameron and Farage strike me as quite different

Yep, absolutely. Polarisation in politics is a well established doctrine. I think working out in practice what they will be likely and able to do is more accurate than getting hung up on manifesto promise rhetoric and marginally different headline grabbing policies.

Both Labour and Conservatives will do anything to get into or stay in power, irrespective of what is best for the country or morally right. Getting into power and staying there has become the main aim and ethics are cast aside. Both parties would like to cut benefit dependence and make economic cuts as they can see it would benefit the economy in the long term and therefore more people, but cannot do so because it would mean political suicide and attack from the moronic "economic cuts are evil and right wing" mantra.

Hence we have two similar parties with two mealy mouthed spokesperson leaders and a country that trundles along slowly getting worse with a lower standard of living in the past that no-one can do anything about.

Hence UKIP appeals to some because they speak out with some conviction and Scotland thinks it can do better on its own by being even more left wing.

Lower standard of living than in the past? - what past are you referring to? I grew up in the 70's and 80' s and people where I was had much less than they generally have now. Sure Victorian Britian and the Middle Ages probably had less too.

Political parties are as different as night and day here. But they still manage to accomplish absolutely nothing once they're in office.

Lol I'm lazy for thinking they are pretty similar?

Given that you appear to have reached that conclusion just be looking at pictures of the leaders of the two parties, yes. Can you come up with any actual evidence for what you're saying? Without anything to back it up your opinions (and anyone else's) are of absolutely no value.

You do know the difference between policy's offered in power and out? The Tories would have spent as much and labour would of cut as much IMO.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here: is it that parties act differently in opposition than they do in government. To an extent you are right, but there are real different ideological differences between the two parties. Whoever won the last election would have had to reigned in spending, but Labour advocated reducing the defect more slowly to avoid the economy going into shock.

Let's take the 1997 Election. Labour introduced the minimum wage (Conservatives opposed it) introduced Sure Start programmes (Conservatives opposed them), gave independence to the bank of England (Conservatives opposed it) and granted devolution to Scotland and Wales (Conservatives opposed that too).

Whether you think these changes were for better or ill, they showed clear ideological and practical changes between the parties.