Compare The Policy; GE2011

grahmkeatley

Morning;

www.comparethepolicy.com

Two of my friends have spearheaded this website. And I was only too delighted to help out.

Its aim was to create a simple, side-by-side comparison of published policy of the main parties involved in the General Election 2011. It was to cut the fat so to speak in providing a non-bias, concise and straightforward offering of what your vote would be placed in support of.

The whole idea of voting against someone instead of voting FOR someone or something needs to end. If you do not vote FOR something then you have no right to speak out in the next 5 years when you see nothing of worth to you being implemented. Because don't forget you didn't vote for someone offering what you want.

So make an educated vote this election.

www.comparethepolicy.com

If anyone has any input, feedback or suggestions; we would be open to hearing them. And more importantly; any published material with policy statements would be ideal to keep our comparison up to date and relevant as parties scramble for votes.

---

Compare The Policy was launched late hours on the 9th February; yesterday it appeared in Silicon Republic;

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/20342-politicians-beware-online/

And this morning on Page 4 of the Metro Herald a small article was dedicated to the comparison website.

I hope this is of use to people, and helps with being informed about what to expect this month and for the next 5 years.

Regards,
Graham

colmcure

grahmkeatley wrote: »

Morning;

www.comparethepolicy.com

Two of my friends have spearheaded this website. And I was only too delighted to help out.

Top class site, A1

holidaysong

Good site.

PomBear

Great idea, very informative, fair play

dodgydes

Good site, thanks for your efforts. Make sure to keep it impartial.

What about comparing policies from the last election?

grahmkeatley

Thank you for the good feedback. We have certainly enjoyed the process if only for our own improvement of knowledge across the board. Hoping to continue to impart that information across.

dodgydes wrote: »

Good site, thanks for your efforts. Make sure to keep it impartial.

What about comparing policies from the last election?

It will certainly be kept impartial. Of the people working on it, we have a broad political range ourselves and all wish for it to be as without bias as possible. Sticking to what the parties publish and state themselves.

We have approached each of the parties now so that they can have their own say in edits and contributions. So long as they can back it up with actual statements from themselves in policy/manifesto form. So hopefully some take us up on that.

As for policies of the last election - I dont believe it was something widely considered. From a personal point of view, I think it would create a context where bias would form.

-Graham

grahmkeatley

PomBear wrote: »

Great idea, very informative, fair play

We have implemented now a new tab page for Quick Compare Policy Table for direct "simple" questions. Similar to below;



For a full list please visit site. We definitely need more questions for this section. If you can suggest some, here or on the Facebook page we will try and get this list complete as I find it very useful for quick glance politics with all the back-up to the policies outlined in more detail in the sections.

There are in fairness situations where it’s not just a yes or no answer. For example, Labour and the ULA are both raising and lowering income tax for the rich and poor respectively. So are Labour raising income tax? The answer is yes, but not for all of us. Some things need to be described in a line or two which is why the site can't ALL be charts.

-Graham

Liam Byrne

The problem I would see with it is that one issue might have a higher priority for some visitors than others.

I know they can sort-of specify that via the answer, but still, it's an issue if each "score" is weighted the same.

In addition, the party it suggested for me is way out-of-bounds for policies and ethos NOT listed.

Kasabian

Who is independantly checking this site for accuracy?

grahmkeatley

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The problem I would see with it is that one issue might have a higher priority for some visitors than others.

I know they can sort-of specify that via the answer, but still, it's an issue if each "score" is weighted the same.

In addition, the party it suggested for me is way out-of-bounds for policies and ethos NOT listed.

I think you are talking about a different website on this. Votematic? Both were posted recently, but we do not suggest a party to you at comparethepolicy.

Kasabian wrote: »

Who is independantly checking this site for accuracy?

All information is linked to and comes from, primarily, manifesto and policy documents from the party website and literature. If anyone has any queries on information, I would encourage them to question and ask, and we will indicate exactly where it can be verified as we keep track.

-Graham

CDfm

Liam Byrne

grahmkeatley wrote: »

I think you are talking about a different website on this. Votematic? Both were posted recently, but we do not suggest a party to you at comparethepolicy.

It said I was "closest to" a party that - all things considered - I am a million miles from in reality.

grahmkeatley

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It said I was "closest to" a party that - all things considered - I am a million miles from in reality.

What said? The website listed in this thread; www.comparethepolicy.com has nothing that suggests to you what party you should be voting for...

-Graham

Riskymove

grahmkeatley wrote: »

All information is linked to and comes from, primarily, manifesto and policy documents from the party website and literature. If anyone has any queries on information, I would encourage them to question and ask, and we will indicate exactly where it can be verified as we keep track.

-Graham

in the quick comparer it suggests Labour wont cut public sector jobs, this is incorrect

grahmkeatley

Riskymove wrote: »

in the quick comparer it suggests Labour wont cut public sector jobs, this is incorrect

Labour have not stated in their manifesto, to my knowledge, that they will cut jobs in the public sector. They have stated that they will reduce the number of quangos, but have not indicated the reduction of people employed in the public sector.

-Graham

Riskymove

Reducing the public service pay billAs part of the process of fiscal consolidation, it is necessary to
reduce the public service pay bill. Our proposals are based on a reduction
of 18,000 in public service numbers in the period 2011-2014. Public
employment ceilings will be reassessed during the Comprehensive
Spending Review and Waste Audit to ensure that the maximum savings
are being achieved and that frontline services are being protected

page 15


they have also mentioned it in a number of tv debates/interviews

grahmkeatley

Riskymove wrote: »

page 15


they have also mentioned it in a number of tv debates/interviews

Thanks for that. Site has been updated to reflect.

Manifesto document seems to have altered in the last week from their previous Jobs policy.

-Graham

Liam Byrne

grahmkeatley wrote: »

What said? The website listed in this thread; www.comparethepolicy.com has nothing that suggests to you what party you should be voting for...

-Graham

OK - I'm completely confused now, because the other day I definitely had a site tell me who it incorrectly thought I was closest to. It must have been a different site.

Apologies for the confusion.

grahmkeatley

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - I'm completely confused now, because the other day I definitely had a site tell me who it incorrectly thought I was closest to. It must have been a different site.

Apologies for the confusion.

There is a site called Votomatic which surveys your opinion and matches it to parties. We now have it linked on this website, just a mix up, I guess.

-Graham

dashboard_hula

This is really cool, thanks

GusherING

In the education section, the Labour Policy is from 2002. WTF?

grahmkeatley

GusherING wrote: »

In the education section, the Labour Policy is from 2002. WTF?

While the manifesto mentions some aspects of Education, the policy as presented is still relevant and active for Labour. And they still present it as their Education policy.

-Graham

grahmkeatley

New Section on Ethical/Social Issues added, along with a host of new questions submitted and requested by some on the forums.

Also, note, if your question has not been added it is because we could find no single party to have made a significant comment For or Against the question statement.

More are welcome though. T-3.

Thanks,
-Graham