Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[Amp34]

Actually i can see Lib Dem getting more than Labour and perhaps combined they could outnumber the Tories. I doubt it though and historically both Lab and Lib Dem need a higher proportion of the votes to get the same number of seats as the Tories.

Can you clarify that point?

Labour need fewer votes to get more seats and it's been so for a while - it's part of the reason the Tories want to change the constituency boundaries (the current boundaries disproportionately benefit labour). Labour held seats are generally smaller than conservative held seats.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/02/why-are-boundary-changes-bad-labour

No idea how the lib dems fit in however.

And despite those "natural disadvantages" most of the country is blue. Can't believe that they are being allowed to redraw the boundaries to benefit themselves in 2018. Should be done by an independent commission.

And I don't see Labour/Libs combining. The Tories will have a majority, even with 40% of the vote, because of archaic FPTP.



That too. My vote here in Maidenhead is basically wasted.

They aren't being allowed to do that. The independent boundary commissions are coming up with the boundaries. The reason most of the country is blue is because England as a whole is quite conservative compared to Scotland, Wales and NI, and we have just come out of a 3 term labour government.

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

Will Corbyn resign when he loses this election catastrophically and allow a decent opposition like the other Miliband to return?

 

[Angilion]

Given the situation you'd expect the Lib Dems to go it all guns blazing - but around here and the neighbouring areas its turned into what is basically a shambles like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-39690628

Really buying a house and its too much work? why was she even in politics.

They really need to get their act together and fast.

If that was put forward as satire I would dismiss it as too unrealistic to be good satire.

Either she didn't want to be an MP in the first place or there's some political shenannigans going on and she's being "allowed to retire" to avoid something. Even so, it's a dismally flimsy excuse even in comparison with the traditional "to spend more time with their family" excuse.

 

[Angilion]

Has Tim nice but dim Farron admitted that he looks down on gays yet? if he was with UKIP they'd be getting slaughtered as a homophobic party.

Since when has UKIP been making theological pronouncements?

You're aware that's what Tim Farron is being criticised for not doing, right? It has nothing to do with homosexuality. He thinks religion should be kept out of politics. Why do you disagree with that?

 

[Angilion]

He clearly believes it's a sin otherwise he wouldn't be refusing to answer simple questions like "Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?" and claiming personal and political beliefs are two different things.

Nonsense. Any politician who thinks that religion and politics should be kept secret would want to refuse to answer that question in a political context because the only way to answer that question is to make a religious pronouncement in a political context, i.e. to bring religion into politics.

In any case, he answered that question last week. His answer was "no". Of course, it didn't stop people making untrue statements and false accusations which some other people have unfortunately believed.

He answered the question "do you believe homosexual sex is a sin?" today. His answer was again "no". Of course, that won't stop people making untrue statements and false accusations either and some other people will unfortunately believe them. The truth, sadly, doesn't seem to matter very much.

I am genuinely curious as to why an apparently large number of people are demanding that politicians bring religion into politics. You're one of them, so I'll ask you now since I have the chance. Also, why only Tim Farron? Why aren't people demanding that Teresa May and Jeremy Corbyn make purely religious rulings as part of their political campaigning? Also, do you apply this only to Christianity? Should the candidates make theological rulings about Islam too? How about Hinduism? Wicca? If not, why not?

 

[Dolph]

It isn't really that simple and it is flawed - as @satchef1 pointed out who decided what counts as English only issues and what about issues that directly affect England but then have a knock on effect in Scotland etc.. it is a flawed system that only partially addressed the concerns of Scottish MPs getting to vote on English issues


frankly a federal system along the lines of say Canada would be a much better solution IMO and would likely put an end to any risk of the UK breaking up

The second part of the system would be to ensure that devolved parliaments were responsible for raising money they spend (local councils too). That solves the problems caused by the current funding formulas, increases accountability and stops much of the game playing between levels.

The problem with a federal system is that, implemented so each head of the population has equal value at a national level, it doesn't and cannot solve the issue of perceived english dominance. If implements so each country has equal weight, you end up giving a much greater weight to Scottish or Northern Irish voters, which is definitely not fair.

 

[Gabbatek]

Satire. This is how the tory mindset is and what they have achieved but everyone is so oblivious to their cruelty.

Your ignorant or dishonest view is not the same as reality.

I've been slagging off the tory's and saying vote labour for pages now and as soon as i pretend to be one of you lot apparently i'm ignorant and dishonest. That's pretty much what the tory party is

As posted already

Exactly

Somewhat reluctantly I have provisionally opted for Labour. Even though as stated previously I have no love for the left wing ethos and Corbyn in particular I cannot in all honesty vote for a Tory party which, freed from EU constraints, will likely trample the rights and pensions of normal working people into the ground at the earliest opportunity.

Yep, once they don't have to deal with the eu courts to over-rule their evil plans everyone who is bellow middle class will be screwed

Oh really

 

[Azza]

Jeremy Hunt on Radio 4 saying using Brexit as the apparent saviour of the NHS.

Basically saying all public services are dependandt on getting a good Brexit deal.


Shame so many people were effect by some letters and numbers on the side of a bus.

 

[Dolph]

I've been slagging off the tory's and saying vote labour for pages now and as soon as i pretend to be one of you lot apparently i'm ignorant and dishonest. That's pretty much what the tory party is

During our last exchange, I suggested you review my posting history before making judgments. I'm guessing you haven't done so with your continuous representation of 'the disabled' as a homogeneous, helpless group who exist only because of a dependency on the state and Labour government and who are just victims of a Tory government.

This is offensive nonsense that both damages the rights of disabled people as individuals and their respective prospects as a wider set of groups within society.

 

[Vern1961]

But our pensions have already been trampled on. There's no company in the FTSE 100 that now offers a final salary pension and many other big companies are closing or have closed any sort of defined benefit scheme to new comers, state pensions have been nerffed time and time again over the last 17 years, annuity rates are at an all time low. The best pension news we had was Georgre Osborne plan to allow people to take out all of their retirement money from their pension plans, from there they could invest it in financial products that offered much better returns.

Railway pension scheme is still final salary (one of the few remaining) and I'm beggared if after nearly 40 years of paying in contributions (plus AVC/BRASS) I will vote for any party with the jealous green eye poised to snatch it away at the last moment.

 

[TomHark]

The problem with a federal system is that, implemented so each head of the population has equal value at a national level, it doesn't and cannot solve the issue of perceived english dominance. If implements so each country has equal weight, you end up giving a much greater weight to Scottish or Northern Irish voters, which is definitely not fair.

The American system tries to solve this by having Congress elected by population and the Senate equally by state regardless of size, so we could do something similar maybe. I would also consider splitting north and south England into two separate devolved areas.

 

[Greebo]

Can you clarify that point?

Labour need fewer votes to get more seats and it's been so for a while - it's part of the reason the Tories want to change the constituency boundaries (the current boundaries disproportionately benefit labour). Labour held seats are generally smaller than conservative held seats.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/02/why-are-boundary-changes-bad-labour

No idea how the lib dems fit in however.



They aren't being allowed to do that. The independent boundary commissions are coming up with the boundaries. The reason most of the country is blue is because England as a whole is quite conservative compared to Scotland, Wales and NI, and we have just come out of a 3 term labour government.

Thats purely on how they are split. Lets say they are two equal blocks of tory and Labour voters or 100k each. The Tory seats would be 4 seats of 25k voters and the Labour would be 5 seats of 20k voters. Or so it is claimed and why they want to adjust the electoral seats. My point it they dont need to do that as already it is massively in their favour the number of seats they get compared to the vote but obviously the Tories would like another 50 of so majority.

However, you only need to look at the votes in the last general election and how they are spread out and mainly at the marginal seats.

AT the last election Labour gained 1.5% of the vote but lost 26 seats yet the Tories gained 0.8% of the vote and gained 24 seats. The Tories got 36.9% of the vote which pro rata should be 239 seats yet that got them 331 seats.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

In general, for the exact same over percentage of the vote across the country. 40% of the vote for Tories will equate to more seats for them compared to 40% of the vote going to Labour.

So even if now labour and Tories both had 40% in the polls, Tories would get a lot more seats although obviously not a majority.

I can see the point with the boudnary changes but in theory it does allow for the Tories to get the most number of seats but not have the most number of votes or even 3rd place in votes. Which is why I hate FPTP.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

That's my thought process at the moment, although as the polls show wavering support for independence it's now being spun that this isn't about independence. Just like the 2015 claim of a vote for the SNP isn't a vote for independence or another independence referendum

The only parties banging on about independence are the Unionists. The Tory leaflet I got posted through the door made reference to independence over twenty times. The leaflet from the SNP simply outlined what they intend to do should they win control of the council with no reference to independence whatsoever. Council elections are coming up first and the Tories seem to be happy to target the Labour voters who are pro-unionist.

As for support wavering, I think you will find that support has continually been neck and neck with the 'we want to be dependent' camp. One rogue poll showing a drop in support for independence flies in the face of continued months of polls showing it slowly gaining momentum.

 

[Freddie1980]

Railway pension scheme is still final salary (one of the few remaining) and I'm beggared if after nearly 40 years of paying in contributions (plus AVC/BRASS) I will vote for any party with the jealous green eye poised to snatch it away at the last moment.

Railways still final salary? That partially explains why fares are so expensive.

 

[Freakbro]

Why is TM going around saying she needs a large majority in the HoC to get a good Brexit deal.....she already has the mandate for A50, with overwhelming support in the HoC and her Govt are already in charge of negotiating the Brexit deal.

Yes, it has to be scrutinized by the HoC.....but as long as it's a good deal she's not going to get any opposition is she......so maybe she needs the large majority in the HoC because she is expecting a bad Brexit deal?

Or more likely she is just being disingenuous and using Brexit as a cynical campaigning ploy to get her large majority so she can ram through every other policy they want to do, that has nothing to do with Brexit at all

 

[grudas]

Why is TM going around saying she needs a large majority in the HoC to get a good Brexit deal.....she already has the mandate for A50, with overwhelming support in the HoC and her Govt are already in charge of negotiating the Brexit deal.

Yes, it has to be scrutinized by the HoC.....but as long as it's a good deal she's not going to get any opposition is she......so maybe she needs the large majority in the HoC because she is expecting a bad Brexit deal?

Or more likely she is just being disingenuous and using Brexit as a cynical campaigning ploy to get her large majority so she can ram through every other policy they want to do, that has nothing to do with Brexit at all

She knows the brexit deal will be bad, it's pretty obvious! She has two choices, either a bad brexit deal or upset people because of "soft" brexit. Aka freedom of movement etc left.

 

[do_ron_ron]

I'd also like to see a ban on the scots MP's being able to vote on matters that only concern england, how insane they can interfere

For two hundred plus years English MPs were able to vote on purely Scottish matters and not a chirp but let the reverse be true and it is "how insane".

 

[do_ron_ron]

That's my thought process at the moment, although as the polls show wavering support for independence it's now being spun that this isn't about independence. Just like the 2015 claim of a vote for the SNP isn't a vote for independence or another independence referendum

It isn't though. There are a lot of issues and it is who would be best to fight for the interests of Scotland. The trouble with this election is that the press and other vested interests are reducing this election to a re-run of the Ref. on both sides of the border. The EU Ref in England and the Indy Ref in Scotland. It suits especially the Tories to make it that due to their inept handling of the NHS, education, roads, armed forces, etc, etc. A nice diversion tactic. It would only be later when it is done and dusted when people will wake up and remember about the other things.
The 2015 election did say 'if things changed' and campaigning that only in the UK will Scots be in the EU to the UK is leaving the EU is a big change.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Generally I take quite a dim view of people using emotional blackmail around disability as justification for a dishonest position.

I don't see anything dishonest in his obvious satirical statement and the Tories have treated the disabled very badly.

 

[Gabbatek]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politic...ar-taken-away-as-he-can-use-sat-nav-1-4990367

So glad us Tory's outsourced pip and disability living Allowance. Stops thousands of people scabbing cars who really don't need it. Love seeing them getting their cars and mobility scooters taken away

(Sarcasm) vote labour, stop the torys making the disabled pay for austerity.