Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?

  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
amigafan2003 said:
He compromised on his EU and Trident beliefs for the good of the party/country so I don't know why you think he wouldn't do the same when it comes to defense (especially when he's already stated he'll increase defense spending).

Your statement just smacks of hyperbole imho.
Click to expand...

Not sure on the EU stuff - on Trident he hasn't compromised at all - he has managed to palm off any personal moral responsibility and would have lost control of the party trying to enforce anything different - it would be a different story from the position of PM.
 
Efour said:
When you vote do you guys seriously take Into consideration if the elected prime minister will be forced to launch a nuclear attack, after we receive our 4 Min warning.

Are you mentally ill?
Click to expand...

I take defence seriously - I couldn't vote for a prime minister who didn't have a good balance on that perspective. I also consider it important that there is a policy of working towards a world where nuclear weapons aren't required but I'm not deluded enough to think we can shortcut to that end result.

MissChief said:
What is it they say? Walk softly (and talk softly) but carry a big stick? I have no doubt that if push came to shove he would approve military action, but he would do all he could to avoid that option. And that's no bad thing to me as military action and boots on the ground should always be a last resort.
Click to expand...

I generally ascribe to that but IMO Corbyn doesn't have the right balance of it - he'd continue to try and use the soft option until far too late even when its far past obvious to everyone else it isn't working.
 
Rroff said:
I take defence seriously - I couldn't vote for a prime minister who didn't have a good balance on that perspective. I also consider it important that there is a policy of working towards a world where nuclear weapons aren't required but I'm not deluded enough to think we can shortcut to that end result.



I generally ascribe to that but IMO Corbyn doesn't have the right balance of it - he'd continue to try and use the soft option until far too late even when its far past obvious to everyone else it isn't working.
Click to expand...

As opposed to "I'll fire them first" May?

Neither of them know what the future holds, so this whole saga is utterly benign nonsense.
 
Efour said:
When you vote do you guys seriously take Into consideration if the elected prime minister will be forced to launch a nuclear attack, after we receive our 4 Min warning.

Are you mentally ill?
Click to expand...

We won't get that 4 minutes warning if we have a PM who openly says they will retaliate, that's sort of the point. Things like the NHS and pensions suddenly don't matter when the UK is on fire and tens of millions are dead
 
StriderX said:
As opposed to "I'll fire them first" May?
Click to expand...

There is no way I'd vote for May as PM - but her stance over our nuclear deterrent only makes the world a safer place IMO - her statement leaves little doubt as the seriousness which those opposed to us would take note of. Unlike some I can't just blindly ignore other aspects of a prospective PM because they are a better option for some headline issues.

Neither May or Corbyn will bring the kind of changes to this country people hope for and both will do things that are very bad for this country. Unfortunately there aren't many good options but I'd rather not vote for either of those two - if we don't vote against the kind of thing those two parties bring to the table nothing will ever change even if we have to go through some pain in the mean time (depending on how other options worked out).
 
Efour said:
When you vote do you guys seriously take Into consideration if the elected prime minister will be forced to launch a nuclear attack, after we receive our 4 Min warning.

Are you mentally ill?
Click to expand...

His spinelessness should be taken into account along with his pro-IRA views, Hamas and Hezbollah views as 'friends' and his decision to surround himself with cronies who seem to hate the British state. That's before you even get to his manifesto wish list to Santa that he can barely manage to grasp the figures of. It all adds up to someone who is unfit to govern the country.
 
dowie said:
well they're already having to borrow to fund this nationalisation policy and it is almost certain that their plans aren't costed, we've already seen the impact of a 5% raise in income tax (at a higher level) and can see that it didn't work as intended, we can also see the examples of where the financial transaction tax has been tried in the past such as in Sweden

deficit reduction simply can't occur with the plans they have as they stand now
Click to expand...

But Corbynites don't want to hear this. I imagine a lot of people will increase their pension contributions via salary sacrifice to keep below the 80k limit. This would put a big hole in the finances. Ironically, the only people who wont be able to do this are public servants like doctors, head teachers and senior police officers. But who needs them though, right?
 
One area I don't really know anything about - people talk about Labour's manifesto as being costed, etc. but isn't a lot of it built on wishful thinking i.e. go after X (say tax avoidance/evasion or some area of inefficient spending) to fund Y where realistically going after X doesn't attain the headline figure (i.e. due to companies in response moving their operations offshore or changing how they do things) leaving you with a massive shortfall in funding Y?
 
Tephnos said:
Honestly, I'm not sure what Corbyn's views on MAD actually are. He deliberately dodges the questions but Labour already committed to renewing Trident, no? I'm thinking he may just be avoiding the 'yes' answer because he's trying pretty hard to attract the youth vote, and he'd lose most of it instantly if he said anything like that. The naive youth weren't around during the cold war so they just see nukes as nothing but a killing tool, they don't care for any tactical capabilities having them gives us.

I may just be giving him too much credit, though.
Click to expand...

We're renewing the V-class submarines which have 10 years until end of life. The Trident weapons system will remain in service until 2050.
 
well the railways would be done at end of franchise, so thats gradual, and also they could abort on that if it doesnt turn out well after a couple are taken over.

the tories havent costed their manifesto at all. or put many figures down at all. may didnt really answer andrew where the 8billion for the nhs will come from (borrowing/not fulfilling)

its almost like the tories didnt have a plan again (brexit), snap election and now the manifesto, last to be launched and dubious merits.
 
So what's up with the Tories publicly saying they won't raise taxes for high earners, but refuse to rule it out for low earners? Isn't that very obviously a vote-loser?
 
Rroff said:
One area I don't really know anything about - people talk about Labour's manifesto as being costed, etc. but isn't a lot of it built on wishful thinking i.e. go after X (say tax avoidance/evasion or some area of inefficient spending) to fund Y where realistically going after X doesn't attain the headline figure (i.e. due to companies in response moving their operations offshore or changing how they do things) leaving you with a massive shortfall in funding Y?
Click to expand...

yeah somewhat, but companies may already be doing that already anyways, and How much surplus should be added to account for shortfalls?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom