1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: General Election 2019 voting intention - Dec 1st - 7th

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Dec 2, 2019.

?

Who will you vote for?

  1. Brexit

    5 vote(s)
    1.5%
  2. Conservative

    96 vote(s)
    29.4%
  3. DUP

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Green

    2 vote(s)
    0.6%
  5. Labour

    113 vote(s)
    34.7%
  6. Liberal Democrat

    84 vote(s)
    25.8%
  7. Plaid Cymru

    1 vote(s)
    0.3%
  8. Sinn Fein

    1 vote(s)
    0.3%
  9. SNP

    12 vote(s)
    3.7%
  10. TIG

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. UKIP

    1 vote(s)
    0.3%
  12. Other party

    4 vote(s)
    1.2%
  13. Independant

    3 vote(s)
    0.9%
  14. Spoil ballott

    4 vote(s)
    1.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Roar87

    Soldato

    Joined: May 10, 2012

    Posts: 5,973

    Location: Leeds

    Poorer families already get access to loans and support for University, it's actually better to be from a poor family from what I've heard, it's people just above that who struggle because they're expected to support children at University even though they're only on a modest income.
     
  2. doodah

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 21,547

    Location: London

    The US government and the industries it will represent have leverage, we would have just left a huge trading bloc and are the ones that need a trade deal a lot more than America. We want access to >300m people? The UK will need to do X, Y and Z first....
     
  3. loftie

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 17, 2009

    Posts: 906

    ^This adds nothing to the discussion, literally.

    ^This is an example of a response that is good. @Evangelion True, my ignorance is showing on those points. I'd probably still argue while it has a major influence, it's not a major religion. Maybe I'm just sticking to the numbers too much and seperating it's influence and the number of Jews globally. *shrugs*

    Disclaimer: My maths could be wrong. I encourage you to check it tbh.

    Right, the holocaust. Killed ~1/3rd of the global Jewish population. If you take the number of Jewish people in 1880, according to the Jewish virtual library, which is 7,800,000 and looked at the number increase in 20 years to 1900 you get ~36%. If you apply that number every 20 years to get to 2020, there'd still only be ~67m Jewish people world wide. Both the number of christians and muslims have grown at a lower rate than the 36% example used above.

    I stand by my I didn't realise there were so few Jewish people globally, ignoring the events of the last century with my back of napkin maths, I was expecting it to show the population to be at least a few hundred million not 67 million.
     
  4. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Essex

    Why did you expect it to be a few hundred million?
     
  5. Roar87

    Soldato

    Joined: May 10, 2012

    Posts: 5,973

    Location: Leeds

    Why would that mean US drug companies charge us more for goods we're already buying? I'm so bored of this scare mongering.
     
  6. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,416

    No, they're not literally getting nothing... they're literally getting less than nothing and a accelerated loss of the jobs they currently enjoy along with their social safety net probably under threat.

    But it's OK because it'll hurt immigrants or something, works every time, get the middle class scared of the poor and get the poor scared of themselves.
     
  7. robfosters

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 1, 2010

    Posts: 33,103

    Location: Welling, London

    Campaigning in this election has been very meh. It’s almost as if the parties have decided that it’s all a bit pointless as voters have already made their minds up. They’ve all been terrible. The party coaches have been, tbh, more wally wagons than battle buses.

    Not helped by the fact that no one seems to be believing a word any of them say.
     
  8. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 14,836

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Everyone gets loans. Would assume its the extra costs involved that can cripple people on low/average incomes.
     
  9. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Essex

    The implication that tariffs would lead to higher prices is misleading. I believe the actual issue is that the USA tends to push for longer IP protection in trade deals. The result is that newer drugs that are covered by the IP are protected for longer, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge more as there are no legal competitors. Whilst the UK does have a period of IP protection, I believe it is shorter.

    I think this is in a nutshell what the major issue is.
     
  10. Harlequin

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 17, 2004

    Posts: 3,096

    Location: Eastbourne , East Sussex.


    Because Trump has said directly, the UK pays too little for the drug prices and wants to charge the UK more post Brexit. CVS and United health have incomes greater than that of a number of EU countries.
     
  11. loftie

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 17, 2009

    Posts: 906

    In all honesty, dunno. I suppose I assumed that with there being so many christians and muslims that had the events of the 20th century not happened there'd be more Jews than the 67m the maths pointed to. Not that I have any real knowledge of any religion to be honest or their history.

    Probably as is generally the case with my assumptions or gut feelings - they're wrong :D
     
  12. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 6,003

    Because the USA is only interested in one thing...PROFIT, PROFIT above everything else.
     
  13. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,416

    It really is amazing that anyone could try to imply that the leader of a country, especially a narcissist who loves lying, but also loves winning, would make a fair proposal to a country of 66 million. While we may have a large pharmaceutical industry, it doesn't make every drug the NHS needs, and the Tory party wont be telling it's electorate that they can no longer buy X, Y and Z drugs from the US (even if they're only source) just so we can 'protect the NHS', they desperately want that trade deal so Brexit isn't a complete shambles. They'd lose far too much credibility with their core support.

    Utterly ludicrous position to think that just because we're allies that the US will be cuddly and nice, ridiculously offer us a lovely gold plated deal when they have every possible desire (need) to leverage their immense position over our position of total weakness.

    It's the same failed brinkmanship that the Tories have used over the past three years with the EU surround exiting without a transitional deal, only to abandon their allies in Northern Ireland permanently, for which the EU is now entirely happy to conclude a deal that could mean exiting at the end next year... The Tories will fold in the end as it always does, only someone deeply partisan (and or stupid) would ignore the context of recent times to imply that just because it hasn't happened yet, that it's not likely to occur from what we understand about each player's position. It's a sad, unimpressive tactic.

    It really is all about mitigating and compartmentalising their failure as a political entity, they cant even discuss the last 9 years because it's been an utter disgrace, they're the equivalent of the procrastinating student, leaving all the work at the end to be done terribly and excelling on nothing else in the meanwhile.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  14. doodah

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 21,547

    Location: London

    Have you seen how greed and short term gains work over there? It's all these companies care about, it's why insulin costs three times as much over there. It's why Obama had to introduce a law to make sure health insurance providers were spending >80% of their costs on actual healthcare. Do you honestly think we would get treated with kid gloves whilst they are stripping their own dry?
     
  15. Harlequin

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 17, 2004

    Posts: 3,096

    Location: Eastbourne , East Sussex.

    80% of bankruptcies in the USA are healthcare cost related
     
  16. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 22,734

    Location: Cornwall

    Yes, they get used to working with each other, forming stable governments, and thinking about the long-term future.

    It's awful :p :p

    It's not going to happen tho because neither Labour nor the Tories want it. And one of those is always going to end up in power.
     
  17. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 22,734

    Location: Cornwall

    Yeah but it's 20x harder to re-nationalise something than to sell it off (below market value to your mates).
     
  18. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,416

    No it isn't, especially with rail companies who are simply contracted for a period. The difficult part is actually having the power and conviction to do so.

    I feel it's only the perception that it's easier to privatise something, as it's out of your hands, but it's still generally important and necessary infrastructure, people are going to be annoyed at being forced to spend disproportionate amounts of money on poor service and still blame the government for it. Though they'll also blame the company for the most part, it doesn't mean the government is let off with it, as it's one of the only ways of showing discontent about a situation, it has to have a non-zero effect on their voting.

    After all the government regulates these industries and the natural order of things errs towards not angering your electorate, though maybe the shared blame is enough to stupefy the voters enough... probably due to the idiocy of partisan tribalism. I feel if every party agreed that nationalised infrastructure was to be protected (and were... genuine about it), that they'd find a way to not destroy it purposefully or burden it with politically connected Unions. But that's definitely asking too much.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  19. Usher

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 30, 2004

    Posts: 3,202

    Really, is all this below not true then? you will say no it's probably Daily Mail stuff I expect but it's all legit.
    So taking into account that Cameron froze CT in his first week of office I'm supposed to believe they will ramp it up higher than a Labour government which is guaranteed to do it in order to fund a spending romp and a benefits free for all. Labour was supposed to be a party for the working man but it's more likely for the unworking man. You know that bloke who is unable to work but somehow manages to play football on Sunday mornings don't you?

    LABOUR-run town halls are demanding powers to impose crippling council tax rises, parliamentary documents have revealed. Evidence submitted to a Commons committee showed that a string of local authorities run by the Labour party have pressed the Government for restrictions on the local levy to be lifted.

    The Tories warned that the demands showed how Left-wing councils could be freed to hammer local taxpayers with tax hikes worth more than £200 a year if Labour seized power after the next general election.
    According to the documents, Labour-run Birmingham Council said: “There is need for additional flexibilities in local authority funding, for example through lifting of restrictions on Council Tax increases.”

    Salford Council demanded “fewer restraints” on the setting of Council Tax.

    And Sheffield Council said: “The Government could relax the referendum limits with regards to Council Tax, in order to allow authorities the ability to decide the most appropriate levels for them.”

    Under current rules, councils wanting a significant rise in Council Tax must trigger a local referendum on the issue to get a mandate from voters for the increase.
     
  20. FortuitousFluke

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2011

    Posts: 3,922

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    Good practice is to link to the article and/or reference it.

    Like this:

    Here is a Guardian article which refers to Salford Council whilst examining the fact that the majority of Councils worst hit by Tory austerity cuts are Labour supporting (conversely the best insulated are Tory supporting)

    I also provide the link for your perusal:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/24/deprived-urban-areas-shoulder-burden-of-funding-cuts

    Drastic cuts to local government funding have seen the UK’s most deprived metropolitan areas “shoulder the burden of austerity” while some more prosperous counties have flourished, according to new research.

    Analysis by the TUC and public service union Unison of central government funding for local councils in England since 2010 highlights a yawning chasm between urban and rural areas. It shows that , overall, councils in England are spending £7.8bn a year less on key services than they did in 2010, which equates to a cut of £150m a week.

    The analysis reveals that the 20 councils with the biggest funding gaps are overwhelmingly metropolitan boroughs in London and the north of England. Of these 18 are controlled by Labour; only one is Conservative-run.

    In contrast, the 20 councils with the smallest funding cuts are overwhelmingly all Conservative-controlled county councils. Of these, 16 are controlled by the Conservatives and just two are Labour-run.

    The analysis – using methodology employed by both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Cities – found that Labour-run Salford Council is spending 38% – or £99m a year – less on key local services than a decade ago. That works out to £479 a year less per resident.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.