Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Freakbro]

It doesn't really prove causation though does it, as if you have a nuclear capability, then you're also going to have a fairly modern, powerful and effective conventional military force too - which is just as much, if not more, a deterrent to invasion than nuclear weapons....that we say we wouldn't use anyway.

Turn it around, how many countries that don't have nuclear weapons haven't been invaded?

 

[elmarko]

It still undermines your argument.

Besides, the lack of invasion of modern western developed nations has more to do with globalisation & NATO than simply possessing nuclear weapons. Spain is part of NATO but lacks nuclear weapons, are they under the threat of conventional invasion?.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Let's stop pretending Osborne is an economic authority - the conservatives are far more ideological than the Labour party in their savage reduction in the size of the state and spending on public services. Most economists agree that their economic policy this parliament has been bad for the country, reducing GDP by 5-14% without reducing the budget deficit. That's probably the biggest loss of wealth by any chancellor ever.

That's fine as long as we're not pretending that Vince Cable had the slightest clue how to improve things once he saw the state of the Treasury or that Ed Balls can count higher than "potato" without removing his shoes and socks.

 

[robgmun]

Said that we'd start getting some 16% for UKIP

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/586460760232042497

First one

 

[Mr Jack]

Said that we'd start getting some 16% for UKIP

This is exactly the kind of silly over-interpretation of minor variations in a poll that we're talking about.

And, in a fantastic bit of irony this is the tweet immediately before the one robgmum linked.

 

[Judgeneo]

Let's stop pretending Osborne is an economic authority - the conservatives are far more ideological than the Labour party in their savage reduction in the size of the state and spending on public services. Most economists agree that their economic policy this parliament has been bad for the country, reducing GDP by 5-14% without reducing the budget deficit. That's probably the biggest loss of wealth by any chancellor ever.

Most econmists agree that economic policy globally has been awful, this is not unique to the UK.

Ask them WHY its bad, and they will give a huge variety of answers. We are suffering from a global demand crisis, and no one really knows how to fix it.
The US's position is that there is an oversupply from China and Germany, others argue that high levels of private and public debt discourages spending, others that tax rules are discouraging companies from unleashing their record levels of cash reserves, others still that the wealthy are hoarding too much wealth and redistribution is necessary to boost global demand.
There is no consensus on the best next steps.

Using this its quite easy to frame a question that makes the majority agree that "austerity policy" is bad.

 

[robgmun]

This is exactly the kind of silly over-interpretation of minor variations in a poll that we're talking about.

And, in a fantastic bit of irony this is the tweet immediately before the one robgmum linked.

I'm far from the only one, the BBC doesn't even count all the polls so there polls or polls is a joke

 

[ubersonic]

It doesn't really prove causation though does it, as if you have a nuclear capability, then you're also going to have a fairly modern, powerful and effective conventional military force too

Like North Korea's spaceships?

 

[Freakbro]

Like North Korea's spaceships?

Haha

As of 2013, with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on Earth

But then, with that many men, they could have toothpicks and no-one is going to invade them

 

[Schlong&Stable]

It still undermines your argument.

It doesn't undermine the argument at all, because British political and military posture towards the Falklands in the early 80's suggested that they had no interest in defending the Falklands. This is why our conventional forces also failed to deter them, because they didn't believe we would act.

No one is saying that just by having nuclear weapons you'd impervious to invasion. There must also be a belief that you would use these weapons to defend your nation. This was not a realistic proposition for the Falklands at that time, or even today in fact. It was absolutely realistic if someone attacked the UK proper at that time.

Besides, the lack of invasion of modern western developed nations has more to do with globalisation & NATO than simply possessing nuclear weapons. Spain is part of NATO but lacks nuclear weapons, are they under the threat of conventional invasion?.

This is a gross oversimplification of the issue and utterly illogical. By your reasoning, Spain presently has no need of conventional forces because (as we agree) they do not presently face a conventional threat. But what if that threat did materialise in say five years time in a post-NATO world? You cannot expect to whip up a powerful conventional force overnight, so Spain would probably be overrun. The same applies to nuclear weapons, if you don't have them you cannot exactly whip them up overnight. If Russia decided to start to threaten us with nukes, we'd be defenceless.

Plus, there is no guarantee the US would even use its nuclear weapons to defend Spain, the UK or anyone else in NATO for that matter. Would you really put our national defence in the hands of Washington?

The UK maintaining a strong nuclear capability means WE are able to protect ourselves. We are not reliant on our 'allies' and we cannot be bullied by our enemies.

Oh and its generally accepted that NATO would have been little more than a paper tiger without nuclear weapons, because the Soviets had a massive advantage in Europe in terms of conventional forces. It was the threat of nuclear weapons than guaranteed the Soviets (and Americans) would do everything they could to avoid an escalation.

 

[KingOfTheDaves]

I would hazard a guess the general tech savvy type is a bit more clued up on the ins and outs of the real world and economics and can appreciate there is no such thing as a free lunch, it's safe to say based upon past records in office, the Conservative party is far more in tune with this view than the Labour Party.

Woah, I think that it is an unnecessarily insulting comment to suggest that the people who vote Labour do so because they are not intelligent enough to vote Conservative.

Maybe people vote Labour because they wish to contribute more to the disadvantaged members of society rather than the 'me and mine' attitude of the Conservative party.

 

[scorza]

Woah, I think that it is an unnecessarily insulting comment to suggest that the people who vote Labour do so because they are not intelligent enough to vote Conservative.

Maybe people vote Labour because they wish to contribute more to the disadvantaged members of society rather than the 'me and mine' attitude of the Conservative party.

This, I think a lot of forum members struggle to empathise with other people so are locked into the narrow individualism promoted by the Conservatives, whereas the Labour party tend towards the collectivism end of the spectrum.

 

[Freakbro]

Why do so many poor people vote Tory, then? They're not doing so out of a "'me and mine' attitude", if they're poor and would actually do quite well out of a system which contributed more to the disadvantaged members of society?

Because they have dual afflictions, being poor and stupid?

 

[arknor]

Why do so many poor people vote Tory, then? They're not doing so out of a "'me and mine' attitude", if they're poor and would actually do quite well out of a system which contributed more to the disadvantaged members of society?

citation needed.

labour don't contribute more to the disadvantaged members of society ? wasn't it labour who brought in atos etc and started making disabled people commit suicide?

according to statistics the supposed fraud rate of claimants is in single figure digits and couldn't get any lower.


I wouldn't say labour have been a poor peoples party for over a decade

 

[Fulax]

So it's wrong to say people vote Tory because they're intelligent but just fine to say they vote Tory because they're selfish?

Meanwhile: another day, another Daily Politics interviewee who can't answer the question "How much will this policy cost?"

 

[thep02]

I'm voting UKIP...!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup if I had a right wing mind set I'd vote UKip too, tbh I like a lot of their libertarian thoughts and peaceful freedom loving thoughts, but I can't go along with the scapegoating of immigrants and other weirdry.

 

[D.P.]

Why's their poll of polls a 'joke'? They're not complaining it's a poll of all polls. What combination should they chose? What's wrong with their combination? What are they trying to show and why's their method a bad way of doing that? Why would including the polls you want included improve it?

It is a joke because it doesn't give the results the rob wants so instead he is hand picking individual polls that suits his fantasy and ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Something he has been doing for months now. He is truly insane.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Is anyone else tremendously excited - at a school playground level - to see how the results pan out?

I mean, obviously ignoring the very real and serious impacts that a change in, or indeed no change in, government set-up can affect, how much of you just want to say "Yeah, told you so, nailed it because party {x} got {y}"

Be honest.

 

[D.P.]

Why do so many poor people vote Tory, then? They're not doing so out of a "'me and mine' attitude", if they're poor and would actually do quite well out of a system which contributed more to the disadvantaged members of society?

In the UK it is harder to see but in the US it always just boils down to religious idiocy at their own expense.

In the UK I would be interested I. Seeing the actual break down of voter habits by income decile and age.

I expect many "poor" Tory voters are actually pensioners for starters.


The other thing in labour is pretty much the conservatives anyway, they are both center right parties. Labour are currently further right than most Conservative parties over the last century. It is hard to separate them idea logically these days.

 

[spudbynight]

Perhaps they figured if they tried to argue in favour of zero hours contracts and tax cuts for millionaires it wouldn't go down well with the electorate so they're decided to take a different approach.

Tax cuts for millionaires like Milliband?

I think there should be kitchen tax on those people with two kitchens.