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 - Nov 1st - 14th

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Nov 5, 2019.

?

Who will you vote for?

  1. Labour

    95 vote(s)
    22.6%
  2. Conservative

    104 vote(s)
    24.8%
  3. Liberal Democrat

    162 vote(s)
    38.6%
  4. SNP

    19 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. Green

    7 vote(s)
    1.7%
  6. Brexit

    15 vote(s)
    3.6%
  7. UKIP

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  8. TIG

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Plaid Cymru

    2 vote(s)
    0.5%
  10. DUP

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  11. Sinn Fein

    2 vote(s)
    0.5%
  12. Independant

    3 vote(s)
    0.7%
  13. Other party

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  14. Spoil ballot

    8 vote(s)
    1.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. danlightbulb

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 14, 2005

    Posts: 3,247

    No, if people want to remain above all else then they should vote lib dem. People should not sacrifice everything else in this country by putting corbyn in power. We may get a 2nd ref, but the rest of our country would be ruined. If enough people vote lib dem then theyll get in power wont they.
     
  2. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 15,825

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Evidence "rest of our country would be ruined" or just feels?

    Lets face it the last Labour government was excellent and only derailed by a dodgy war and banking crisis.
     
  3. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,376

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    No I absolutely mean unaware. I cannot think of anyone I know who was as well informed then as they are now. Or certainly at a minimum have the opportunity to be better informed, you can lead a horse to water and all that.
    The most obvious being the irish border, and the GFA and how that couldnt function in the ways people thought. It was barely mentioned during the campaigns, but I bet the vast vast majority are more aware of it, how it functions, and the pressures on it since the referendum. Hence every single one of them is better informed for starters.
    Signing trade deals to make us better off, it was going to be easy etc etc. I think everyone should now realise they changed.

    I think your struggling to understand my position and hence fixating badly on terms. Its an extreme position in relative terms where 52% see zero change which is contrary to what they voted for, and 48% see zero change for what they did vote for.
    Under most metrics thats an extreme event.
     
  4. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,376

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    I don't think you can go quite that far. They certainly stuck some plasters over wounds that needed a bit more action than the simple plaster.

    Working tax credits being an example of a policy that "fixed" a pay problem. It didn't fix the problem at all but it sort of gave a solution in the short term.
     
  5. danlightbulb

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 14, 2005

    Posts: 3,247

    No it wasnt. Taxes went up hugely under Blair and Brown. In the last 10 years weve seen the personal allowance rise considerably, benefitting a huge number of us, and austerity was necessary to pay for years of Labour overspending. Unemployment has never been lower than it is currently I believe? Labour made millions dependant on welfare. Lots of issues with Labour.
     
  6. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,466

    Location: London

    Austerity was necessary mostly because of the after effects of the 2008 crash. Yes this happened under Labour but it could have happened under any flavour of government as it was a global crash caused by years of failure to properly regulate the financial markets, globally.

    Current unemployment figures are a total sham. You do realise that a person only has to work for one hour a week to be considered employed? Yes, ONE hour. Also, those working as unpaid family workers and carers are considered employed. Plus the ever growing army of self-employed who can be in a situation with highly unreliable and insecure income but do not register as uneployed when they are without work.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan.../methodologies/aguidetolabourmarketstatistics

    After a decade of Conservative and Conservative coalition government we have even more millions dependent on welfare, even more millions in working poverty.
     
  7. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,376

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Not really true, the vast majority of the Labour "overspend" happened at the end of the term, and was directly as a result of the financial system crash.
    You do realise the tories were saying not enough was being done at that time?

    The possible valid criticism was that not enough was being "saved" whilst in the boom times. But few, very few governments since the war have run any kind of significant surplus so its pretty mute on whether running a small surplus would have made any material difference.

    As I said above, the welfare one was a sicking plaster it wasn't really the correct policy, but then the correct policies would have triggered just as much if not more reaction.
    Keeping housing affordable would have been the single most beneficial policy to target that. Ensuring a good supply of "council housing" triggers many people, but its an asset, it generates wealth but its seen as a bad thing by many.
     
  8. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 35,029

    Location: Co Durham

    If it was necessary why has the current govt decided to reverse the last 10 years of austerity in one massive giveaway? What did we go through 10 years of pain for?

    And the cost of a no deal brexit will be much worse than Labour's overspending so how are we going to handle that? ANother 10 years of austerity?

    Unemployment is only low due to the GIG economy as all those millions on zero hour contracts no longer count as unemployed.
     
  9. danlightbulb

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 14, 2005

    Posts: 3,247

    Austerity isnt a bad thing like its badged as all the time. Its necessary to have control over incomings and outgoings and to keep them balanced. This is called being prudent. There will always be more demand for money than money available. What we need is well costed proposals that we can afford and which deliver value whilst not being a sticking plaster.

    Thats the ideological position. Which party gets closest to it, its not labour imo, their proposals will cost far more than we have albeit many being badged as self funding or a restructuring of the establishment.
     
  10. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 10,110

    It depends on what is delivered rather than what is promised. I have never known an election when politicians did not promise the earth with cream and a cherry on top. It is merely part of the circus of elections. The Tories with a serial liar in charge cannot be trusted to deliver anything.
     
  11. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 15,825

    Location: Hertfordshire

    The Tories are proposing lots of spending from the same magic money tree and also giving a tax break to those that need it the least.
     
  12. danlightbulb

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 14, 2005

    Posts: 3,247

    I agree this is a problem. What are labour's spending, and tax proposals on the middle 50%?
     
  13. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,466

    Location: London

    There is nothing wrong with prudence and delivering value, but Austerity as implemented by the Conservatives is an ideological position, to further their ideology of low state, privatisation and deregulation, plus shifting the burden for all the cuts onto those who can least afford them, keeping a whole swathe of society down and junking their prospects.

    Austerity is corrosive on society, it erodes quality of life, opportunity, infrastructure, the support network of emergency services and welfare. It hollows society out to a brutal shell where everyone is envious and bitter about anyone who does manage to get a bit of support. Witness the backlash against the disabled and infirm in the last decade, with those most in need demonised, put through humiliating PiP assessments, benefits withdrawn, pushed to suicide or early death, labelled as 'workshy' and 'scroungers' etc. Is this the sort of bitter and twisted society we want? Because that's where austerity has taken us.
     
  14. danlightbulb

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 14, 2005

    Posts: 3,247

    I agree with the above however there are people getting benefits who dont deserve them. Its hard to flush those out hence the need for some degree of strictness in assessment. Theres no easy answer, perhaps giving money to genuinely workshy people to avoid people in genuine need missing out is preferable to you?
     
  15. McPhee

    Soldato

    Joined: Apr 17, 2009

    Posts: 5,180

    But how do you measure which candidates have a chance?

    Labour will tell you that looking at the 2017 results is the best way.
    The Lib Dems will tell you to look at any opinion polling which is favourable to them (regardless of credibility).

    It's quite difficult to know which way to vote in many constituencies. The Lib Dems chances appear to hinge on people's confidence in their ability to win, while Labour's hinge on convincing people that voting Lib Dem, Green, or Plaid is a waste of a vote.
     
  16. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 15,825

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Not sure they have released a full manifesto yet.....may be premature arguing about stuff yet. :)
     
  17. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 10,110

    As far as I have seen this is a tiny number compared to the numbers the right wing media tabloids come out with. The real threat to this country is the lack of opposition from media outlets. Some are merely party political sheets.
     
  18. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 15,825

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Isn't actual benefit fraud quite low? Its a problem but not sure its as big as its made out to be.
     
  19. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 6,369

    No. I asked if it was a typo, because as it stands it undermines your point.

    Why is it more important a referendum be honoured if more people were unaware of the facts at that time?

    Surely the opposite is true.

    The same for your point about maintaining the status quo being an extremist endeavour - if only a bare majority voted for a myriad alternatives, and many did so based on an a sense of knowledge, why is it "extreme" to suggest we should stick with what we have?
     
  20. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,466

    Location: London

    Absolutely preferable to me, because the genuinely workshy are a small minority compared to those who have genuine disadvantages and welfare needs. There will always be those who play the system, any system, always. But the numbers are very low, despite what the tabloids would have you believe, and we shouldn't persecute those in genuine need because of it. And the current system of assessments absolutely is persecution.

    Besides, who gets to decide who "deserves" the benefits? You? Me? Some poorly trained jobsworth employed by the DWP and given a target quota of assessments to reject per day?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.