Not really. A currency is only worth what both the buyer and seller agree it's worth. Therefore, in reality, all money/currency is intangible and are merely represented by coins, notes, bank accounts or whatever is being bartered.

Unless you think we should all, and by all I mean every single one of us, should grow or farm the food we individually need to eat and make the tools we need to survive then there will need to be currency of one form or another. You can go that way if you like but I'd suggest it's not actually a step forward in society.

Far better to wait until after everyone's made their decision and upset them then.

"OK OK, I'll have the blue car. What do you mean there's no engine?"

The most bizarre outcome could be that neither Labour or the Tories will want to form a government. Cameron and Miliband will be to desparate to do a deal in order to keep their job. But behind the scenes there could be more greater reluctance to form what might be a very unstable government. Perhaps better to stay in opposition, change the leader and position the party for the second election. If you were Yvette Cooper or Theresa May, wouldnt that be a more appealing prospect?

It could be a case of "After you". "No, after you"

Yvette Cooper - are you serious? One of Brown's bullies, despised by most at Westminster!!

I've always voted Labour and I've chosen Labour on here, but I have toyed with the idea of voting for the Greens. I don't entirely agree with their stance on energy (I'm pro fracking for example), but other than that their policies are probably the closest to what I believe in.

However the reality is that it's as good as a spoiled ballot and whilst Labour aren't much to shout about they are the only party with a chance of ousting the Tories.

That said I won't lose any sleep regardless of who wins. Unless it's UKIP, in which case I'm moving as far away from this country as possible.

Party politics really doesn't work does it. I'm University educated, I have a Masters, I've worked for some big companies over the past 15 years. Do I consider myself to know enough to make a rational judgement about who to vote for? Can I decipher the myriad of playground jibes and propaganda? Can I balls, I'm as ignorant as everyone else. So how can most people know enough to vote? The truth is they don't. Most have a default colour. Be it Blue, Red or Yellow, they feel they 'should' vote for that party because of their upbringing and the bias imposed by it. They can spew off a list of stereotyped default positions for each party to suit their argument. The Conservatives abuse the poor and working class and destroy/privatise the NHS and help the rich or reward success depending where you stand, Labour stand up for the working class and keep the NHS magnificent and free or reward lazy unemployment as a career. Can they actually list three main policies the party they are voting for are going with this time? Can they reconcile their own beliefs on the welfare state, the economy, taxation or immigration with the most suitable vote? The majority don't even try. So what does voting for a party prove? I voted blue in the poll, if nothing else purely because I've had an argument tonight with the in laws about how their views on how Labour would solve the financial crisis by putting it back to what is was before the Conservatives got in. No real logic behind it, they just would as they are like Robin Hood and they'd take all the money back from the bankers and Pakistanis/Polish that had come and taken it over the last 5 years.

Why are you pro-fracking? Which areas of the country do you feel it would appropriate for? How would you dispose of the waste water?

If someone like you can't understand and decide how to vote, what hope for the rest of us?

Give over. Any person as educated as you are can educate themselves on the issues of the day and form a view, if they want to.

Unfortunately a lot of people are lazy and so listen to headlines taking them as the gospel truth. The spin doctors have worked this out and have long since realised slinging mud even if it is completely untrue works because mud sticks and subsequent denials by the other party are lost in the fog.

If you are telling me you can't spot tactics such as this I don't believe you. If you are not prepared yourself to see if there is any truth behind the headlines/spin that is your problem but the idea you can not "decipher the myriad of playground jibes and propaganda" doesn't wash.

If your incumbent is Conservative or Lib Dem you place more stock in what they do locally then how they vote on issues such as the bedroom tax and privatising the NHS?

Do you not think the fact he may have organised a bus pass for a pensioner pales into insignificance if he voted for the Bedrooms tax for example?

Why wouldn't an MP from a different party be equally effective locally but vote in parliament more in tune with your general views on wider issues?

In my area we have Tory MP. He came out in support of us when we campaigned against the local Tory council imposing transportation costs for disabled children to school post 16.

It still went ahead and if I were a cynic I'd say he knew it would and so could indulge in a bit of populism at zero cost to his parties position locally. Why would I say that? Well because I looked at his voting record in parliament and he has not once rebelled against or even spoken against any socially regressive legislation imposed by the government.

And that shows you are not voting for a local councillor but an MP.

An MP whose votes in parliament will affect you more than anything they do on a local level. Even in the unlikely event he votes against a government of his party because the policy would be bad locally it won't make a jot of difference because his will be the party of government and it will therefore have the majority to overrule his wishes. I am sure it will look good locally just as my MP's actions looked good but that is all it would be. Window dressing.

As I said you are not voting for a local councillor but an MP and if you want to make a reasoned judgement about who to vote for and not one based on tribal party loyalty then look at their voting record in the House and what the party he belongs to stands for.

If you do that and he is a Tory or Lib Dem I honestly can't see how you could vote for them if you have one iota of social conscience given what has happened to the disabled and disadvantage over the past five years regardless of what he has done locally.

Well that's my point, people are too lazy, myself included. It's not easy to interpret what each party is going for in terms of their approach to the big policies this time, none of the parties are going into any real depth about them. Try it out, ask a couple of people who they are voting for, then ask them why, most won't know. Most people who aren't too lazy are too busy, which supports my point. A huge percentage of those voting won't really know why or understand what they are voting for on each key issue. The parties at the moment are doing very little to get their policies across to the people, fuelling the switch off most people have around politics. People care about policies but are not being given anything to get engaged by. Huge sums are spent on branding, marketing and PR and I'd bet most people haven't a clue what is going on.

We've had the discussion before and I know you are passionate about the party political system that currently exists so I sort of expected your post



The incumbent that we have has proved his worth in working for local and national issues, in fact he was one of two MP's (the other was a Labour MP) who on the second to last day of parliament saw a bill of theirs passed into law (pub fair/market rents) which is by any reckoning a national concern and not bad at all for a back bench proposal.

Anyway, the Labrador puppy in this house has just eaten the Labour candidates newsletter this morning so I still don't know what his name is