Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[estebanrey]

I thought it was related to Brittany/was to distinguish Great Britain from Brittany, rather than being called that because of its size in relation to Ireland.

It's both, but the first usage was in relation to the British Isles and Ireland...

The classical writer, Ptolemy, referred to the larger island as great Britain (megale Britannia) and to Ireland as little Britain (mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD).[23] In his later work, Geography (c. 150 AD), he gave these islands the names[24] Alwion[sic], Iwernia, and Mona (the Isle of Man), suggesting these may have been native names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest.[25] The name Albion appears to have fallen out of use sometime after the Roman conquest of Great Britain, after which Britain became the more commonplace name for the island called Great Britain.[18]

After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Celtic immigrants from the British Isles.[26] The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee." As noted above it was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland."

 

[D.P.]

I want the UK to be just a trading partner, like back in 1973 when we joined,

The Eu is primarily concerned with trade and the UK greatly benefits form the trade agreements in place do you really want to loose all that and start negations again? How well do you think the UK will be able to negotiate against a much bigger EU?

I dont want open door immigration, that kills our youngsters chances of jobs

Any proof of this? Immigration increases GDP and creates jobs. Immigration simply does not have a big effect on youth unemployment, which is depressed for a number of social and economic reasons.

, NHS is suffering, Schools needing extra staff to translate, houses to expensive, rent OTT all because we are overpopulated. We need to control what comes in, in a manageable way.

And that is largely true regardless of immigration. NHS has been woefully under funded and mismanaged for decades. It would collapse with out immigrant staff. Do you know a cost breakdown of school translation vs increased GDP form immigrants? Housing costs have very little to do with immigrants, we are simply not building enough houses and other economic measures are artificially inflating them. Similarly immigration has little to do with rental prices but the fact that rental practices in the UK are not regulated appropriately. Britain is no where near overpopulated, what there is is a concentration of people in the SE that requires distribution across the country. Immigrants aren't having a significant effect here, it is all a side-effect o the London Effect. We need polcieis that will help people and companies relocate to other cities, projects like the HS2 which the UKIP want to scrap.

OZ do have more going in, but they only accept people who have skills that Australia need, they dont need an unskilled burger flipper. We have plenty of ukskilled that can do that type of work.

But that simply isn't true, the immigrants to the UK are dong unskilled work because that is what jobs are available and in demand requiring staffing.

Paul Nuttall comment was a personal one, not UKip policy, UKip will put in an extra £3 Billion

The economics behind their statement has no basis in reality. Supposedly the money will comes from leaving the EU, expect leaving the Eu will be incredibly expense through lost trade, weaker trade negotiations, increased trade costs, reduced economic power etc. Look at the increased GDP that the UK experienced as being part of the EU:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pxr_nNKy5.../s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-05-24+at+09.52.12.png


and then there is the question of trust, do you really trust their PR campaign when evidence liek this exists:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ore-acceptable-to-the-electorate-9993050.html

You cant spend what you dont have, if you do you need to pay it back, look what Labour did last time, spend, spend, spend, now we the people are paying it back with heavy Austerity.

You can spend what you don't have, it is called a loan. If borrowing increases GDP and quality of lif why would you be oposed to it, especially if it can reduce the deficit at the same time?

Correct with you on cuts, I dont agree with everything UKip, I want HS2, UKip will stop it.

I understand the manifesto thanks, no party can offer you everything you want.

Things like the HS2 project are paramount in resolving some of the issues you are concerned about. The UK needs to distributed the workforce outside London, HS2 is an effect way to help achieve that.

 

[Mr Jack]

Things like the HS2 project are paramount in resolving some of the issues you are concerned about. The UK needs to distributed the workforce outside London, HS2 is an effect way to help achieve that.

Historically, improving transport links to London doesn't achieve that; what it does is drain work and workers into the capital. You the seem the same in other countries: big cities feed off small habitations around them.

"HS3" on the other hand - connecting together the big cities of the north - is likely to be a good idea. Connections between cities that are big enough to hold their own tend to benefit all those connected.

 

[D.P.]

Historically, improving transport links to London doesn't achieve that; what it does is drain work and workers into the capital. You the seem the same in other countries: big cities feed off small habitations around them.

"HS3" on the other hand - connecting together the big cities of the north - is likely to be a good idea. Connections between cities that are big enough to hold their own tend to benefit all those connected.

True wrt HS2, but it does allow workers to live further out and commute into London and thus does help reduce the over-crowding issue within London.
HS3 is definitely going to have a more substantial effect if it can be green-lighted.


Even that is a just a tip of the ice-berg though. There needs to be greater incentives to get companies to base themselves in cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Aberdeen etc.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Perhaps renaming Great Britain as Swine Jism Island might put a stop to several immigration issues?

 

[estebanrey]

The Eu is primarily concerned with trade and the UK greatly benefits form the trade agreements in place do you really want to loose all that and start negations again? How well do you think the UK will be able to negotiate against a much bigger EU?

Countries are like people, they buy things based on availability and price not whether they are part of a big club or not.

Non-EU countries don't buy things from the EU, they buy things from countries who may or may not be in the EU.

If country A (inside the EU) needs something from country B (non-EU), they don't call off the deal because they're not in the same club.

Any proof of this? Immigration increases GDP and creates jobs. Immigration simply does not have a big effect on youth unemployment, which is depressed for a number of social and economic reasons.

I don't have any stats but when I left school in 1996 I got my first job in a local Burger King. Nearly everyone that worked there was British and had just finished school/starting University. For some, like me, it was money to help me through college and for others it was their first real job. This was the case for all of the fat-food chains in my area.

Today, none of the restaurants are staffed by British people. My old place is now exclusively run by Eastern Europeans.

So where have all these school leavers gone? What jobs are kids leaving school doing now?

But that simply isn't true, the immigrants to the UK are dong unskilled work because that is what jobs are available and in demand requiring staffing.

But why is that? In the last 50 years the UK has gone from a manufacturing country to a serviced based one. So how can it be true that we now need more immigration to fulfil a shrinking manufacturing/labour intensive base?

Things like the HS2 project are paramount in resolving some of the issues you are concerned about. The UK needs to distributed the workforce outside London, HS2 is an effect way to help achieve that.

How? You think factory workers in Manchester are going to start applying for jobs in London because they can now get there 30 minutes quicker?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Wait, there are still factories in Manchester?

 

[estebanrey]

nvm

 

[Mr Jack]

Let's flip the EU argument around. If it is such a good idea then why is there no 'African Union', why isn't there a central body that controls trade between China, Japan and Korea?

You're talking about very different regions with the very different histories. What's telling is that so many countries want to get into the EU.

Why even in the closest to it, the USA, do the individual states have more control over their own laws than we do?

They don't.

 

[D.P.]

Countries are like people, they buy things based on availability and price not whether they are part of a big club or not.

Non-EU countries don't buy things from the EU, they buy things from countries who may or may not be in the EU.

If country A (inside the EU) needs something from country B (non-EU), they don't call off the deal because they're not in the same club.

Countries are very, very different to people, i think that is where you are going wrong.

If a non-EU country wants to trade with an EU country then they find it very easy to trade with all EU countries and moreover, the whole of the EU becomes a very powerful economic force that can negotiate trade agreements in their favour. If an EU country wants to trade with another EU country they can do it with reduced costs and complexity, i.e. freely. A small country has much reduced bargaining power compared to the EU in its entirety.

I don't have any stats but when I left school in 1996 I got my first job in a local Burger King. Nearly everyone that worked there was British and had just finished school/starting University. For some, like me, it was money to help me through college and for others it was their first real job. This was the case for all of the fat-food chains in my area.

Today, none of the restaurants are staffed by British people. My old place is now exclusively run by Eastern Europeans.

So where have all these school leavers gone? What jobs are kids leaving school doing now?

Non of them? I find that hard to believe. There are ore jobs of that nature than ever before and the youth of today can still apply, whether they do or not has nothing to do with immigration. If immigrants are happy to do those jobs and they apply then it is natural they will end up doing those jobs.

Are British born youths still applying to those jobs in the same numbers, or are they apply to different jobs or not applying for jobs at all?

But why is that? In the last 50 years the UK has gone from a manufacturing country to a serviced based one. So how can it be true that we now need more immigration to fulfil a shrinking manufacturing/labour intensive base?

That is a myth, there is still substantial manufacturing and farming in the UK, and they aren't the only areas where unskilled workers are needed, you have already pointed out one areas with the food service industry where immigrants are now required to fulfill many of those roles.

How? You think factory workers in Manchester are going to start applying for jobs in London because they can now get there 30 minutes quicker?

No, but someone who works in London can now live further outside London reducing London's population density.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Let's flip the EU argument around. If it is such a good idea then why is there no 'African Union', why isn't there a central body that controls trade between China, Japan and Korea?

Why even in the closest to it, the USA, do the individual states have more control over their own laws than we do?

If the EU is so brilliant and advantageous to everyone who lives in it, why has no other part of the world seeked to copy it?

There is an African Union...

http://www.au.int

I understand that it has managed to achieve progress approaching the cube root of very little.

 

[D.P.]

You're talking about very different regions with the very different histories. What's telling is that so many countries want to get into the EU.



They don't.

Not only that but there is an African Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union

There is hope for a central Asian Union modeled after the EU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Union

And A south American Union:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations



Funny how geographically proximal countries are all wanting to be part of a Union to reap the benefits.

 

[Mr Jack]

Funny how geographically proximal countries are all wanting to be part of a Union to reap the benefits.

I was being generous and only including organisations that are highly similar to the EU. Although thinking about, many of these other unions have a lot of similarities to organisations such The Council of Europe that preceded the EU.

 

[estebanrey]

Countries are very, very different to people, i think that is where you are going wrong.

If a non-EU country wants to trade with an EU country then they find it very easy to trade with all EU countries and moreover, the whole of the EU becomes a very powerful economic force that can negotiate trade agreements in their favour. If an EU country wants to trade with another EU country they can do it with reduced costs and complexity, i.e. freely. A small country has much reduced bargaining power compared to the EU in its entirety.

But how?

When Japan signs a deal with Germany to supply a million BMWs they signed it with Germany, not the EU.

The EU is not synonymous with a large company that can take advantage of its size through economies of scale and scope, the EU is still just a large collection of smaller countries, all of whom will sign the deal which benefit their country most, not the larger group.

Trade within the EU is only 'easier' if you have the same currency, which we don't. Outside that the only complexity is exchange rates which is simple multiplication.

Non of them? I find that hard to believe.

That isn't the point though, in the 90s fast food joints in my area were mostly staffed by British people, now they're mostly not.

There are ore jobs of that nature than ever before and the youth of today can still apply, whether they do or not has nothing to do with immigration.

Of course it does. If getting a low paying job is easy, people have no excuse as to why they aren't applying for them. Make their chances of getting the job less by increasing the numbers they're competing against and they are less likely to apply.

If immigrants are happy to do those jobs and they apply then it is natural they will end up doing those jobs.

Are British born youths still applying to those jobs in the same numbers, or are they apply to different jobs or not applying for jobs at all?

The question is what comes first, the horse or the cart. You are painting a picture of lazy English youth who refuse to do certain job thus creating the need for foreigners to come in and do them, but you are ignoring the possibility that English youth are sick of applying and not getting them because of cheaper labour being imported to compete with them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's all to do with immigration. I think there have been a number of factors like encouraging 50% of young people to go to University (who then do rightly think working in Burger King is beneath them) but that is another left-wing/Labour initiative.

That is a myth, there is still substantial manufacturing and farming in the UK, and they aren't the only areas where unskilled workers are needed, you have already pointed out one areas with the food service industry where immigrants are now required to fulfill many of those roles.

I didn't claim we had no manufacturing and farming, I said we have a lot less of it as a proportion of GDP than we did which is a fact. When our economy was almost solely based on these things we didn't have or need a free movement of people to support it, we now have less and you claim a need arises. How?

No, but someone who works in London can now live further outside London reducing London's population density.

We should be encouraging people to work closer to home, not further away.

 

[Mr Jack]

Trade within the EU is only 'easier' if you have the same currency, which we don't. Outside that the only complexity is exchange rates which is simple multiplication.

No, this is incorrect. The two major things that make trade with the EU easier from within are (1) a common regulatory framework and (2) the complete lack of trade barriers.

 

[elmarko]

You don't win an election by moving right.
That was Hague and Duncan Smiths and that creature Howard's error, you move centrally, that mean right votes right, and the centre wins it for you.

This election now we have a party with a single policy as a blip, they will suck up votes from extreme right and left accordingly. Hurting conservatives more than Labour, but both will take a swipe. You don't shift right to placate this bunch. Not over a single policy, as you lose the middle which wins elections.

Correct.

This is why Labour moved to the right & the Conservatives moved to the left (on some social issues anyway).

You need mass appeal with first past the post, something which the Greens, UKIP & the BNP all lack to wield any power. For either Labour or the Conservatives to pander to these groups will cost them swing seats which results in a lost election.

 

[estebanrey]

(1) a common regulatory framework

Let's take an example, the recent EU ban on Vaccum Cleaners over 1600 watts.

Outside the EU, a British manufacturer could make some cleaners under that, which it sells to EU countries and others above it which they sell to everyone else.

In the EU, they have no choice and have to conform to what Brussels dictates. If China wanted to buy a million 2,000 watt vacuum cleaners not a single EU country could provide them.

How does that make trade easier for the British company?

and (2) the complete lack of trade barriers.

When two countries need goods from each other there are no trade barriers. Any barriers that do exist are put in place by the governments to protect their own interests. So again, how is it in a country's interest to not be able to limit trade on things they depend on or their own economy?

 

[Freakbro]

Trade within the EU is only 'easier' if you have the same currency, which we don't. Outside that the only complexity is exchange rates which is simple multiplication.

Spoken like a person who has no experience of importing/exporting goods, you really think it only comes down to calculating a currency exchange?

Have a read of this and then come back and tell us it's no easier trading within the EU than outside of it

https://www.gov.uk/exporting-goods-from-the-eu-to-a-third-country-outside-the-eu

That's what it used to be like with every individual country within the EU, each with it's own different import laws/duties etc. It was an administrative nightmare, you obviously have no idea how the free trade agreement within the EU has simplified the matter.

 

[Glaucus]

As soon as he mentioned the vacuum regulations, it was clear he didn't have a clue about anything.

 

[Monkeynut]

As soon as he mentioned the vacuum regulations, it was clear he didn't have a clue about anything.

Falling into the fallacy of watts = ability to suck stuff up, I guess.