Poll: General election voting poll round 3

[Uther]

Smacks of desperation to me, suddenly 8 billion for the NHS and RTB. I think the Cons can see the election slipping away.

 

[thep02]

Under the Coalition fines administered by the benefit's system have surpassed those issued by the courts

Something is very, very wrong here.

Yup psychopath tories attacking the English poor.

 

[estebanrey]

That result includes children of immigrants, who are otherwise known as British Citizens, and not immigrants themselves. That is entirely expected since immigrants are less likely to be children or OAPs, i.e. that are much more likely to be net contributors who will also have children.

No it doesn't include children born in this country to immigrants. You've gone from deliberately misunderstanding how numbers work, to plain out lying now.

54% of the population growth since 2001 is due to migration, FACT. A child whose born here later to an immigrant didn't migrate so how can they be included in migration figures.

 

[estebanrey]

Are you intentionally that stupid or dos it come naturally?


There were 813K children born and 177 net migrants. End of, there is nothing else to discuss.

How many immigrants were there?

 

[Lifelong]

Who knows?

What matters is that, right now, many businesses and institutions such as the NHS would cease to function without immigrants. When/if the labour demand decreases, so will the number of immigrants.

You mean its cheaper to import labour than to invest into our own?

The same labour that will NOT decrease if the demand decreases, due to the simple logic that their native land will also see a decrease and along with a reduced quality of life...

 

[Rroff]

Labour support is up in the most recent update, UKIP seem to have dropped.

Absolute values are meaningless on a bias forum, but the movement is interesting. Will be interesting to see how it changes over the next week or so.

While not a hard and fast rule, the party that sees a sudden increasing surge leading into the final days before an election is rarely the one that actually wins.

That said I would not want to call UKIP on this one - on the day they potentially could see a fairly big swing either way - either people defecting en mass at the last minute towards them as a last minute decision or people jumping ship en mass at the last minute before they sink.

 

[elmarko]

While not a hard and fast rule, the party that sees a sudden increasing surge leading into the final days before an election is rarely the one that actually wins.

That said I would not want to call UKIP on this one - on the day they potentially could see a fairly big swing either way - either people defecting en mass at the last minute towards them as a last minute decision or people jumping ship en mass at the last minute before they sink.

Indeed.

It's a more interesting than the usual election due to the number of other factors related to potential coalitions. Makes it much harder to predict. I find the shifts between support an interesting thing to study, as it's a good indicator as to which policy 'promises' (not that any of them will stick to much) resonate with the electorate.

 

[D.P.]

How many immigrants were there?

Much more, which is why I said net.

 

[estebanrey]

Much more, which is why I said net.

So why aren't you adding births to immigrants if you're only interested in counting how many "new people" we have?

Births + Net Migration is meaningless. You either do

Births and Deaths - Migration
or
Births + Immigration

You can't cherry pick which bits you want to subtract and ignore other bits when it suits. You don't want to offset births against deaths, yet you think it is entirely reasonable to then offset immigration against emigration. Double standards.

 

[thep02]

This is the root cause of Japan's current economic woes. An ageing population, a low birth rate and strictly-controlled immigration.

The anti immigrant brigade don't seem to get the idea that we are saving £200000+ per new adult who instantly starts pumping equity into the country via their labour, if they stay here rather than returning home to live the good life in the sun when they retire their old age costs still don't equal anything like what they contributed.

Literally their only negative is that they may look a little different or not be instantly understandable like a good Brit would be if say they moved from Glasgow to London looking for work.

 

[D.P.]

So why aren't you adding births to immigrants if you're only interested in counting how many "new people" we have?

Births + Net Migration is meaningless. You either do

Births and Deaths - Migration
or
Births + Immigration

You can't cherry pick which bits you want to subtract and ignore other bits when it suits. You don't want to offset births against deaths, yet you think it is entirely reasonable to then offset immigration against emigration. Double standards.

You seem to be looking for something which is not there.

You want to know where 1/5th came from, that is quite simple, net migration compared to birth rate. Of course that is the net result emigrations and immigration because that is what one is interested in comparing. If emigration exceeded immigration then you wouldn't be having this conversation.



The death rate is important, but the death rate can only be applied to the total population, not the birth rate because the death rate includes the death of immigrants.

If you had the break down of birth and death rates for British vs Non-EU immigrants vs EU immigrants then we could have a much more interesting conversation.

 

[McBain]

I got your point my point was your prejudice was wrong.

I was well aware it wasn't Labour's policy in the first place, before saying it reeked of Labour. I wasn't assuming it was Labour's policy in the first place, merely stating that it's the kind of thing i'd expect from them.

If I had seen this policy for the first time, i'd swear down it was Labour. It's the kind of crap they usually go for, which makes it all the more surprising Cameron is looking at extending it.

 

[thep02]

You didn't get my point. I was well aware it wasn't Labour's policy in the first place, before saying it reeked of Labour. I wasn't assuming it was Labour's policy in the first place, merely stating that it's the kind of thing i'd expect from them.

If I had seen this policy for the first time, i'd swear down it was Labour. It's the kind of crap they usually go for, which makes it all the more surprising Cameron is looking at extending it.

Dude i did! My point was labour don't do the ridiculous policies you imagine, tories do, the prejudice I spoke of was your pre conceived notion that labour is thick, my point back to you was NO it's the tories who are thick, d'ya geddit?

 

[Chris1712]

Does anyone else feel they'd vote differently if we weren't stuck with FPTP? I'm almost certainly voting Con but it's primarily to keep Labour out.

I'd love to vote for a party that actually looked to help the middle classes that so many people fall into. As a young recent graduate my highest priorities are housing & saving, but no one gives two hoots about that. Policies are geared towards pensioners and those on 'low' incomes.

Why is there nothing being done about the housing market? Oh wait, lets enable people on low incomes to buy our old council houses - meanwhile us in the middle actually working our socks off are suffering the effects of the government doing all they can to enable demand (HTB ISA, 20% off etc.) but NOTHING to do with helping supply (avoid building on Greenbelt, keep the money in the hands of pensioners and people who disproportionately benefited from BTL etc.)
On top of that I'm trapped in a hellish rental market run by crooked agencies and millionaire landlords. In my ~7 years of private rents I've only had one landlord that owned less than 10 houses, abhorrent.

Just drives me mad, there's nothing in any party for me, even though I'm arguably what they all seem to want the general population to be (degree educated, STEM, white collar average wage).

 

[D.P.]

Does anyone else feel they'd vote differently if we weren't stuck with FPTP? I'm almost certainly voting Con but it's primarily to keep Labour out.



I am definitely considering tactical voting and PR or AV would help reduce that.

 

[thep02]

@Chris1712 yup fooh sure, I hate labour but the ******* tories keep making me vote for them, proper proportional representation not the **** pile they offered us for that poxy vote, our population is way to complacent to force the self serving established parties to take notice though.

 

[Tunney]

I think there's got to be a serious debate about PR. The Conservatives and LibDems have shown that coalition government isn't anything to be scared about.

 

[deuse]

So why aren't you adding births to immigrants if you're only interested in counting how many "new people" we have?

Births + Net Migration is meaningless. You either do

Births and Deaths - Migration
or
Births + Immigration

You can't cherry pick which bits you want to subtract and ignore other bits when it suits. You don't want to offset births against deaths, yet you think it is entirely reasonable to then offset immigration against emigration. Double standards.

Is this what you mean http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migra...y-report/february-2015/stb-msqr-feb-2015.html

 

[Chris1712]

My preferred outcome would actually be another Con/LD coalition, but with a bit more LD bit less Con. I'd say I'm socially liberal but economically 'right', unfortunately that doesn't really exist in the UK?

 

[Schlong&Stable]

My preferred outcome would actually be another Con/LD coalition, but with a bit more LD bit less Con. I'd say I'm socially liberal but economically 'right', unfortunately that doesn't really exist in the UK?

The current Tory party leadership legalised gay marriage. They are certainly not socially conservative.