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

Who will you vote for?

  • Conservatives

  • Labour

  • Lib Dem

  • UKIP

  • Other (please state)

  • I won't be voting

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Angilion said:
I have about as much faith in Corbyn to get a good deal out of the EU as I have in May to do so, which is none. They would approach it differently, but the EU is in a far better position than the UK and who the UK PM is won't change that in the slightest. There's no reason for the EU to give the UK a sweetheart deal and plenty of reason for it to not do so. Right now, the officially UK position is that it shouldn't pay money it's already agreed to pay and that the EU will cheerfully go against its own interests to favour the UK. Why would it do that? The main thing the UK has is banking, which could be done in Paris or Frankfurt or half a dozen other places in the EU. If the UK does a hard brexit, especially one without any kind of deal, why would transnational banking interests stay in the UK rather than move to the EU (i.e. a much bigger and much more international market)? Especially when the EU offers the banks a sweetheart deal, which it should do because that would be in its own interests. Then there's the smaller but still very significant matter of foreign business interests in the UK. Why keep them there when there's a much bigger market nearby? Of course they wouldn't immediately shut down and eat the loss that would result, but it would be in their own interests to transition to the EU over time. The UK can't even feed itself, let alone sustain its own economy against a much bigger market. We need deals with other places and the EU is the most important by far because of its size and proximity. The EU doesn't need the UK. You can't get a good deal with a bad hand regardless of how bull-headed you are and regardless of how many people think that's what strength is.

When it comes to internal government, I'd rather have a person picked at random off the street than May. Even if that person is a baby too young to even speak yet. I'd rather have Siri than May. I'd rather have an empty chair than May. China and North Korea are taking lessons in internal government from the UK now. That's how authoritarian May is and how skilled in propaganda. I think Corbyn would be rubbish at the job, but I think he'd do less harm.

Right now, I'd rather have the Queen act in her own name with her own authority than either of those two being PM acting with her authority. Queen Elizabeth II is a much better ruler than Queen Theresa I. But I'd rather have a liberal (real liberal, classical liberal, not the grossly illiberal modern corruption of liberalism that's spewed out from the USA to infect here too) PM acting with the strength of consensus and co-operation.
Click to expand...

Corbyn would do just as much damage just in a different way - a lot of international business and the financial industry have a significant presence or are HQ'd here precisely because we are one of the most stable and secure countries in the world and Corbyn would undo a lot of that.
 
Rroff said:
Corbyn would do just as much damage just in a different way - a lot of international business and the financial industry have a significant presence or are HQ'd here precisely because we are one of the most stable and secure countries in the world and Corbyn would undo a lot of that.
Click to expand...

May is already doing a good job of that herself
 
Hades said:
We don't get child benefit because my salary is too high even though my wife's salary is way, way below the threshold. That's absolutely fine by me and I consider it fair as we don't need that money to look after the kids. I'd rather it go to someone else who needs it more than us. But if you're able to put it into an account for the future then you clearly don't need it either. So perhaps either that threshold should reduce to disqualify more people, or it should increase to allow every parent to save for their children's future and taxes increase accordingly?
Click to expand...
The child benefit threshold being linked to the higher earner's salary has always struck me as somewhat unfair. A family with two working parents where both earn £50k (i.e. total salary £100k) can claim the full benefit. However, a family where one earns £60k and the other £20k gets nothing. I work but my wife doesn't (looking after our son was basically a full-time job until he went to nursery; we're now expecting our second, so the same will apply) and I earn over the threshold so have to pay some of it back.

I actually don't think that I should really be able to claim benefits in this situation. I can afford to keep my family; I can't afford as big a house as I'd like but them's the breaks. The one thing that I *do* feel is done right with child benefit is that my wife gets national insurance credits while we're claiming. I'd be happy if we didn't get any money but continued to get the NI credits -- I wouldn't have to do a self-assessment then! I think that a shakeup is due so that the people who really need it get the assistance. I don't think anyone can *really* argue that the 2x £50k family needs it.
 
stewski said:
You disagree with the current legal/regulation around people's behaviour regarding the use of money/property, as do I. You however, would like to paint your opinion as perfect, whilst re distributive alternatives are akin to sexual or religious persecution. You present no evidence of why these are equal in any way, but genuinely believe it to be the case, despite any real evidence of such.

Rationally speaking, your fringe view based on "ideological belief" possibly feels good to write, but does show you for what you are!
Click to expand...

This is his tiresome other hobbyhorse repeated many times down the years on this forum. It is the taxation thing, you know the multi-billionaire should pay the same level of tax as his cleaner. The fact that no country in the world has adopted this does not penetrate.
 
McBain said:
I see Diane Abbott has been making a fool of herself again, this isn't anything new.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...icy-in-car-crash-live-interview-a3528136.html

Confused as to why Corbyn would have a known racist as the shadow home secretary. Surely that's not doing Labour any favours?
Click to expand...

Even the costing provided by Corbyn is wrong, the cost of employing 10,000 people in a role with an average salary of £30,000 is not £300 million. It is at least 14% higher due to employers NI contributions, without considering other costs such as recruitment, training, equipment, and so on.

This isn't ideological, it's basic maths.
 
Dolph said:
Even the costing provided by Corbyn is wrong, the cost of employing 10,000 people in a role with an average salary of £30,000 is not £300 million. It is at least 14% higher due to employers NI contributions, without considering other costs such as recruitment, training, equipment, and so on.

This isn't ideological, it's basic maths.
Click to expand...

Actually what they aren't telling you is more telling and why they are having trouble with the figures (aside from the usual not thinking it fully through) - it makes a good headline but I bet the intention would be to fund it by forcing savings elsewhere - usually with unreasonable/impossible cuts to other areas and not costing in for 10,000 full time roles but making up some of that figure from part time and/or community support type roles.
 
Last edited:
konicky said:
Not sure whether to laugh or cry, how is she in charge of anything !?!
Click to expand...
Tom_ed1987 said:
I heard that interview this morning. It really is quite astonishing that she is one of the prominent figures of the opposition. Completely clueless.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the interview itself is cringeworthy.

She literally doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.
 
Tom_ed1987 said:
I heard that interview this morning. It really is quite astonishing that she is one of the prominent figures of the opposition. Completely clueless.
Click to expand...

Sadly some in this thread can't see the blindingly obvious - but Labour are largely in disarray and shouldn't IMO be rewarded for it if they can't get their act together.
 
Gigabit said:
You should be planning your finances more than 3 months in advance if you're having kids!
Click to expand...

lets be honest if your a grown up and have your own place you should be planning more than 3 months ahead kids or not. having worked in the homless sector for a couple of years its shocking how many people involved in giving advice have issues with that one let alone the people they are trying to help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom