Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
"Other people do the same stupid thing" is hardly the rock solid defence you apparently imagine it to be.
The BBC don't count all the polls in a systematic way that they describe in their methodology; this is fundamentally different to picking the individual poll results you like. The reason they don't include every poll is because the different pollsters release at different rates so doing so would bias the poll towards the pollsters who release at a faster rate. Now, I'd argue that it would be better to weight the polls according to release rate in order to counteract this effect but it doesn't actually make too much difference because multiple pollsters are averaged so the exact value from each has a small effect on the result.
Soldato
The traditional poor/working class Tory voter in my generation was always the 'Essex Man', someone who used to vote labour but was sold Thatchers vision of self determination and a smaller state. These days society is far to complex and diverse to have any one single socio-economic group hold as much sway as the Essex man, Mondeo man etc have had in the past.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
No, they let the tabloids do their thinking for them.
Soldato
Na, that's a bit to simplistic a view. Tabloids try to write what they think their readers want to see, the same goes for some broadsheets such as the Guardian.
Speaking of the Guardian have they come out yet and declared who their backing? Surely their not going to be backing the Lib Dems again?
Where as http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ says a high of 13.2% and was updated today
Or are you just going to discredit polls that don't agree with your opinion as normal?
The great thing about insulting Labour voters is that if they're poor you can call them something-for-nothing scroungers and if they're rich you can call them champagne socialists. It's a win-win situation for idiots.
Soldato
Look, they are all as bad as each other. All full of empty promises! Maybe its better the devil you know? Conservatives will more than likely be in power again. What is the alternative? Really?
Soldato
I fully expect LibDem supports to vote Labour or Green.
Tory voters will vote Tory or UKIP.
Labour supporters, state clients and public sector employees will vote Labour as turkey's don't vote for Christmas.
The end result of this will be a Labour + SNP coalition which will last about 6 months before the honeymoon's over and this government has to be dissolved.
Tory voters will vote Tory or UKIP.
Labour supporters, state clients and public sector employees will vote Labour as turkey's don't vote for Christmas.
The end result of this will be a Labour + SNP coalition which will last about 6 months before the honeymoon's over and this government has to be dissolved.
Soldato
Only good thing about Ukip for me is their policy on immigration!! Something has to be done about the influx of immigrants into this country.
Nobody can say that it hasnt had a negative effect on housing, health, wages etc!! You be mad to believe otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nobody can say that it hasnt had a negative effect on housing, health, wages etc!! You be mad to believe otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This.
There's bugger all difference between the Tories and Labour in reality, they are both centrist parties looking out the the middle classes. One of them is going to effectively be in control after the election.
Soldato
How are you defining Middle Class?
Good point, hadn't read it that way.
Such a hopeless attitude. Really this is the best time for "alternatives" in generations. If only people actually vote for them instead of tactically or "abstaining".
If immigrants have had net negative impacts on housing, health, etc. that's the fault of the government IMO. Immigrants contribute more than they take out - if that wealth isn't being distributed properly, or new houses aren't being built, etc. then that's not their fault.
In other news, found this interesting map that shows each constituency and when it last changed hands.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/safe-seats
Amazing how many have been safe for 50, 75, 100+ years. I'm glad I don't live in Shropshire North - Tory since it was established in 1832!
Last edited:
As far as I tell its:
Cons - Poor public services but money in your pocket
Lab - Well funded public services but we're going to raise taxes, Wallace
Would this be fair to say?
Soldato
I haven't noticed being any better off over the last 5 years, but I also didn't notice any new form of stealth taxation either.
I fully expect to be shafted by a Labour government with a household income of over £100K PA.
That's what the the media has conditioned us to believe. The reality from my PoV is that very little has changed when governments have (when I was in the UK and not a dirty immigrant of course)
Soldato
Are you suggesting we would engage in a nuclear strike if nation X invaded us with a conventional army.
I don't believe remotely this is the case.
Personally, I think there are too many assumptions here.
The real threat of nuclear weapons is global instability, war & the fact so many nations already posses them.
The NPT had an aim for eventual disarmament, something which angers at the moment the members who have not taken steps to gain there own. There is also the argument that while nation X has nuclear weapons, this promotes proliferation in nation Y to compete.
If we want to play far flung & paranoid made up scenarios such as Russia invading I could make one up which is equally believable with the direct opposite conclusion.
Besides, a base deterrent could be maintained with a number of hidden remote silos at a much lower cost than trident.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...12745/20130716_Trident_Alternatives_Study.pdf
Associate
The key part to take from that report :
If I may quote sir Humphrey: "Trident is the best, & Britain should have the best."
Where is the proof of that?
Immigration in to the UK is extremely low in comparison to other developed countries.
Housing issues would exists even if there wasn't a single immigrant, the problem has nothing to do with immigration. In fact immigrants are helping to resolve the situation by increasing GDP, creating job and providing labour for builders.
Immigration doesn't reduce wages for native workers. It has been proven that immigration ,if anything, INCREASES the wages of native workers.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.epi.org/page/-/bp255/bp255.pdf&hl=en_US&embedded=true
What happens is the immigrants compete with each other and they are the ones that suffer marginally reduced wages, not the natives. Moreover, certain demographics of native worker experience significant wage increases, typically those with moderate education because they get bumbled from being a bottom-line worker to a position with more responsibility, e.g. managing immigrant workers on minimum wage.
This is to be expected, unskilled immigrant workers typically do menial work that will always be paid at the national minimum wage.
And that is with regards to unskilled immigrant. EU immigrants from form a large variety of demographics, they are much more likely to be skilled workers than Brits, and are much more likely to have a university degree. That is why they are net contributors to the economy. EU immigrant paid 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits, compared to native Brits who cost 11% more in benefits than they paid in taxes!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24813467
You are very much wrong, you would be mad to want to reduce immigration and blame immigrants for the state of Britain when they are having a massive positive effective, boosting the economy, increasing GDP, creating jobs, raising wages for native British workers and improving British competitiveness in the globalized workforce.
- Status