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.
reading between the lines its expected they will raise taxes after the election if they win

Of course but any politician worth their salt would have simply lied about it and said no they aren't raising taxes at all. To say that rich people aren't getting taxed further and poorer people will be is a schoolboy amateur error
 
yeah somewhat, but companies may already be doing that already anyways, and How much surplus should be added to account for shortfalls?

I really don't get the thinking - its the same as May's proposed surveillance implementation - people don't just carry on doing the same thing when you change the rules, they change in response to them, and when you go to get whatever they are long gone - its a weird disconnect in thinking, that especially seems to be prevalent in those left leaning, that I can't wrap my head around at all.
 
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

I honestly don't even know why you think Britain is a threat. It used to be the USAs airbase I'd like to see a government pull away from the USA but this brexit nonsense has probably put us a step closer to the us in the longer term.
Intact as time goes on and the USA becomes less relevant on the world stage, I see them as being an agressor in a last ditch stand of point proving.
 
I honestly don't even know why you think Britain is a threat. It used to be the USAs airbase I'd like to see a government pull away from the USA but this brexit nonsense has probably put us a step closer to the us in the longer term.
Intact as time goes on and the USA becomes less relevant on the world stage, I see them as being an agressor in a last ditch stand of point proving.

The UK is still one of the foremost drawn upon for military advice/training, a large arms supplier (potentially could put us on the "wrong" side of a war), etc. etc. some aspects that are easy to overlook.
 
Of course but any politician worth their salt would have simply lied about it and said no they aren't raising taxes at all. To say that rich people aren't getting taxed further and poorer people will be is a schoolboy amateur error
Yes but people are idiots, and are going to have a nasty shock if/when the Cons win. Why anyone who isn't in the top 5% of earners would vote for them is beyond me.
 
Condemning Corbyn over not wanting to use nukes is crazy, if were in that position when nukes are even an option, we are already screwed.

I was originally going to back Conservative because prior to the snap election it seemed like the best option to get brexit over and done with.

Now after seeing both parties in action and what they have both had to say so far, Labour are a much better option for the vast majority of us. Conservative will only be helping the ones they care about. The top 5%.
 
Last edited:
Yes but people are idiots, and are going to have a nasty shock if/when the Cons win. Why anyone who isn't in the top 5% of earners would vote for them is beyond me.

While different segments of society both Labour and Tory look set to hit different areas of society hard over the next 4-8 years. I don't know why anyone would vote for either of them - even if you aren't in one of those targetted you will feel the knock on effect and not in a good way.

Condemning Corbyn over not wanting to use nukes is crazy, if were in that position when nukes are even an option, we are already screwed.

That is the whole point of nuclear weapons as backwards as it might seem - that you don't get to the point of using them - Corbyn's stance just undermines the whole doctrine and not in a good way. It might seem insane but the more convincing Corbyn appears like we might use nukes the less likely we are ever to come to a position where they were being looked at as an option.

Waits for someone to post that video.
 
That is the whole point of nuclear weapons as backwards as it might seem - that you don't get to the point of using them - Corbyn's stance just undermines the whole doctrine and not in a good way. It might seem insane but the more convincing Corbyn appears like we might use nukes the less likely we are ever to come to a position where they were being looked at as an option.

It's a totally moot point, no country is ever going to use a nuke, with the exception of North Korea and they'll be stopped in their tracks long before that.

Corbyn is trying to be more progressive in his views, he accepts nukes are a reality at present, but moving forward countries should join to together for nuclear disarmament.
 
It's a totally moot point, no country is ever going to use a nuke, with the exception of North Korea and they'll be stopped in their tracks long before that.

Corbyn is trying to be more progressive in his views, he accepts nukes are a reality at present, but moving forward countries should join to together for nuclear disarmament.

Nukes aren't just about other countries using nukes - there is a much bigger story about the global balance of power and deterrence of other things like the escalation of conventional war.

I'm all for people being more progressive when it comes to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, infact it is something I've advocated for a long time - but Corbyn categorically does not have the right balance on it and believes you can shortcut to the end result without being mindful of the real consequences of doing so - the irony being he'd happily sacrifice everyone in pursuit of a nuclear free world with the end justifying the means in his vision.
 
LUL all nuclear warmongerers ITT

No just people who understand the MAD doctrine and appreciate the decades and decades of relative peace we've been lucky enough to have thanks to nuclear weapons
It's a totally moot point, no country is ever going to use a nuke, with the exception of North Korea and they'll be stopped in their tracks long before that.

Corbyn is trying to be more progressive in his views, he accepts nukes are a reality at present, but moving forward countries should join to together for nuclear disarmament.

You do know before the advent of nuclear warfare millions of people died in conventional wars? Since then we've entered an era called the great peace, with no war between the major powers for 70+ years. Why would countries wish to remove the main reason for no large scale conflicts? You do know without nuclear weapons Russia could invade the UK with relative ease? America could beat Russia fairly confidently? Why would Russia and the UK wish to disarm? Nukes are an equaliser, Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded by Russia if it hadn't given up it's nuclear weapons.

This is the problem with the left, they're unable to see the forest for the trees.
 
The whole point is that even if he would never press the button that's fair enough but he's supposed to keep stumm and say yep he'd do it. That's it. If any actually start flying then we are into a different pretty doomed scenario.
 
Bloody new forum software... remembers posts I'd decided not to actually post, and then posts them when I'm not looking!!
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?
IDS was asked about that on C4 tonight. He refused to answer the question, saying instead that "Labour's land tax will cost working people thousands of pounds extra each year." The Labour chap laughed and said it wasn't true, but IDS would not answer questions about the Tory tax plans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom