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.
Wow - so Survation have their final poll as Tories on 42%, Labour 40%, Lib Dems 6% and UKIP 5%.

That gives a Labour 314 seats (vs 301 for the Tories) seats but 12 seats short of a majority.
 
Basher said:
I'm not asking for sympathy. For me, I would rather strive to be more successful (I earn less than my companies average) and earn more than support policies which aim to punish the 'wealthy'. The attitude of many seems to be increase the tax burden of the wealthy, rather than strive to be wealthy yourself.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on those working and saving for a house to have it taken away for social care.... Meanwhile those that cant dont save get it for free?
 
snapdragon said:
One thing that's really hit home when reading through this thread.

There are a great deal of folks who have previously and would normally vote Conservative who are now seriously going to vote Labour, in my time at OcUK I've never seen such a swing, I applaud those that have mainly for being honest when they simply could have kept their heads down, bravo to them! not for switching but for being honest and open and actually providing some of the most balanced post's in here.

I can't help but recall the Brexit poll, pretty much everyone thought the remain camp had it nailed on, when I woke up at 5am the next day and saw the result I was genuinely stunned! I've got the feeling it's going to be a hung parliament between Labour / SNP.
Click to expand...

Had the election been a few weeks ago, I'd have happily gone for Tories, now I'm almost certain I won't. Those poll things to see who you side with most put me with Lib Dem pretty much every time with Labour next and Tory down the bottom - not entirely sure they can really be relied upon and are not unbiased.

I've warmed to Corbyn greatly and felt more and more alienated by May. I'm not quite sure I bring myself to vote Labour so that really only leaves Lib Dem. Also voting Tory would mean I'm voting for Stephen Crabb who lost the Tory leader race quite spectacularly and has some odd link to a gay can be cured group.
 
wildman said:
but but but......... that's just politics of envy you are just envious and want to punitively punish the rich.................. am i doing it rite ?
Click to expand...

Everyone else just isn't working hard enough, it's all about how much you earn and not what you actually do.
 
Macro said:
If he earns £150kpa that's £7.5k per month after tax. To be fair to him high earner then also tend to pay into private medical care, personal pension, often have to pay for expensive season tickets into place link London as well as a substantial mortgage if he lives in London/South East. Although without doubt it's still a great salary depending on where he lives I doubt he's swigging champagne every day especially with cost of living in London/South East (as well as some other areas around the country). We also should take into account as well as paying more tax etc someone at that level is unlikely to get any state handouts/benefits etc or be a burden on the NHS so he'll be contributing substantial and unlikely to be taking much back out of the system.

No disputing it's a good salary to be on but just some perspective that it's not 4 ferraris on the drive money.

Just to add that also means he already pays £54k per year in tax and £6.5k in NI to fund things - not bad when you talk about moral obligations to contribute to the greater good.
Click to expand...

It may not be 4 ferraris but it definitely puts him into the top 1% of the country which you only need £128k per annum to meet that criteria.
 
Macro said:
If he earns £150kpa that's £7.5k per month after tax. To be fair to him high earner then also tend to pay into private medical care, personal pension,
Click to expand...

He won't be paying much into a personal pension with a salary of £150,000, thanks to taper relief reducing the annual pension contribution allowance.
 
Azza said:
Guess you'd need to look at how much the 'top 1%' earnings / salary / wealth has increased over that time as well.
Click to expand...
At a quick glance it's an interesting article. Is hows the mess the Tories have gotten themselves into by trying to be all things to all people. They get hammered by left wing labour for not funding enough public services and not taxing the rich enough and then get hammered by the middle class and top 1% for no longer being the party of low tax.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Wow - so Survation have their final poll as Tories on 42%, Labour 40%, Lib Dems 6% and UKIP 5%.

That gives a Labour 314 seats (vs 301 for the Tories) seats but 12 seats short of a majority.
Click to expand...

what was survations track record like on previous elections and the referendum. As much as I would like to see a hung parliament in order to force politicians to work together, I think this could be a classic underestimation of the penetrative nature of the Daily Heil's bile and people just being shy about coming out and saying yes I will be voting to Tory as i am looking forward greatly to my reduced civil liberties and to watching the final crushing of the poor.

Ayahuasca said:
Everyone else just isn't working hard enough, it's all about how much you earn and not what you actually do.
Click to expand...

sorry I will try harder in the future to get my Mayesque rhetoric correct
 
It's really interesting to read the first dozen or so pages of the original thread. I myself said:

"Wow this is very exciting - unfortunately I can't see this being anything other than landslide to conservations. There is no credible opposition leader :/

There will probably be a mild swing in favour of lib dems."

And now look where we are!! I agree, have never seen such a slide to labour on here pretty much ever... in ~12 years.

Even I'm going to vote labour :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
snapdragon said:
One thing that's really hit home when reading through this thread.

There are a great deal of folks who have previously and would normally vote Conservative who are now seriously going to vote Labour, in my time at OcUK I've never seen such a swing, I applaud those that have mainly for being honest when they simply could have kept their heads down, bravo to them! not for switching but for being honest and open and actually providing some of the most balanced post's in here.

I can't help but recall the Brexit poll, pretty much everyone thought the remain camp had it nailed on, when I woke up at 5am the next day and saw the result I was genuinely stunned! I've got the feeling it's going to be a hung parliament between Labour / SNP.
Click to expand...

A couple of my Scottish mates (one in Inverness one in the Ayrshire area) have been telling me the local Scottish press are mentioning a swing up there back toward labour. No idea if there is anything in this but that could be huge.
 
Hades said:
Genuine question. If the percentage of tax for the wealthy is continuing to go up and if there are always calls for them to pay 'just a little bit more' then at what point does it stop?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...s-trebled-since-1970s-telegraph-analysis/amp/
Click to expand...
Thats just because the top 1% earn so much more now.

https://fullfact.org/economy/income-tax-are-top-1-really-paying-more/

Knowing what each income group contributes to the government's income tax take doesn't tell us very much about how much people are coughing up from their own pockets. Looking at the effects of taxes on household income tells a different story.

Back in 1980 the top 10% of earners paid 19% of their earnings in income tax. In 2011/12, they also paid 19% of their earnings in income tax. There has been barely any change for the last 35 years.
Click to expand...

People are also affected by far more than just income tax. The Office for National Statistics are able to measure the effects of benefits and pensions, as well as other 'direct' taxes such as National Insurance and Council Tax.

Even once these are factored in however, the lot of the highest earners hasn't changed a great deal. After earnings, minus taxes and plus benefits, the top 10% currently walk away with 70% of their original income (their 'disposable income'). Back in 1980, they took home 69% of their original earnings.[/quote]

So the top 1% may will be paying threes times f the total tax revenue than they did in the seventies but they are paying exactly the same proportion as they did back then ergo the earnings of the top 1% must have increased by approximately three times more than the rest of the population has.

Thats what people are complaining about. About how wide that gap has become.

If the rest of the countries earnings had gone up by the same proportion we would be running a surplus budget and would never have needed austerity and you could even afford to drop the tax rate for the top 5%.
 
There was an interesting piece on BBC breakfast this morning which I half watched as I only realised it was worth watching when it was almost done, so excuse the not quite so perfect figures

They took an average wage person (think £27k) and worked out that after the main taxes (Income/NI/VAT/fags/booze etc) they paid 35% in tax
They took a higher earner and Im quite unsure here, but was something like £50k and worked out under the same measure they typically paid 34%
 
Basher said:
I'm not asking for sympathy. For me, I would rather strive to be more successful (I earn less than my companies average) and earn more than support policies which aim to punish the 'wealthy'. The attitude of many seems to be increase the tax burden of the wealthy, rather than strive to be wealthy yourself.
Click to expand...

But not everyone can be wealthy, it is impossible putting aside the simple fact that some people are not equipped the physical/mental acuity to reach such a level you cannot have everyone in the country who is an MD, business owner etc etc etc. It is systemic that some will be better off and others less so, as such your argument is redundant and just because some can become wealthy does not mean you should label others as failures or not give them a base level of support that underpins society.
 
wildman said:
but but but......... that's just politics of envy you are just envious and want to punitively punish the rich.................. am i doing it rite ?
Click to expand...

It's fine - if the "wealth creators" don't want to contribute according to their ability, we'll just stop them from using the services of any publicly funded resource.

That means they cannot get their raw materials delivered on OUR roads, nor can they move their products on OUR roads.
They cannot get their raw materials delivered on OUR railways, nor can they move their products on OUR railways.
They cannot employ anyone that has been state educated nor been to university and had a student loan.
They cannot employ anyone that makes use of OUR NHS.
They cannot employ anyone that lives in one of OUR council houses.
They should not expect OUR Police to protect their property if someone want to take it.
They should not expect OUR fire service to protect their property.
They should not expect OUR armed forces to protect them if a foreign regime wants to take their property or kill them.
They should not expect OUR security services to protect them from terrorism.

Personally, I agree with Dolph on some things - the rich should have the choice of using private firms for some of the above and have a tax reduction accordingly - but that means any service they don't pay for they definitely can't use.

wildman said:
what was survations track record like on previous elections and the referendum.
Click to expand...

It was one of the closer polls in 2015 and VERY close for the EU Ref.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom