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.
delta0 said:
Polls are now pointing to 100 seat majority for conservatives. That's just over 40 seat gain from this election.
Click to expand...

there is quite a difference between some polls... will be interesting to see which of the changed methodologies actually worked best
 
delta0 said:
Polls are now pointing to 100 seat majority for conservatives. That's just over 40 seat gain from this election.
Click to expand...

There a variety of polls pointing to a variety of results from slight labour win, hung parliament and varying degrees of conservative wins. You can literally cite one poll or another to support pretty much most results.

The past accuracy of survation could be interesting with their poll showing a close tie.

We'll see though.
 
Glaucus said:
less than 2 years away what ever happens.

separate but linked, that's why I said once we are out she can then withdraw.
She cant have it both ways either we retain humans rights or we are withdrawing, going on her and tories recent ways, then the chances of remaining is slim, unless by a miracle we stay in single market.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I misread your post.

Still, as you put, she can't have it both ways. We can't remain a signatory and have the new laws that she wants without being sued (again). And I remain sceptical that she'll be able to get enough support from Parliament to withdraw from the ECHR (From the Commons? Possible with a large majority, but not likely. From the Lords? Not going to happen).
 
satchef1 said:
Yeah, I misread your post.

Still, as you put, she can't have it both ways. We can't remain a signatory and have the new laws that she wants without being sued (again). And I remain sceptical that she'll be able to get enough support from Parliament to withdraw from the ECHR (From the Commons? Possible with a large majority, but not likely. From the Lords? Not going to happen).
Click to expand...
it'll be fairly easy imo, people wanted out of eu due to migration, so no single market. Then all she would have to do is we need to leave the echr to change a few rules for extremists, but then only way to withdraw is to get rid of all off it.
 
Glaucus said:
it'll be fairly easy imo, people wanted out of eu due to migration, so no single market. Then all she would have to do is we need to leave the echr to change a few rules for extremists, but then only way to withdraw is to get rid of all off it.
Click to expand...

You make it sound easy. I remain heavily unconvinced. Just because the PM wants something, it doesn't mean she has a right to it. Scrapping the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights will, almost inevitably, be incredibly complex and divisive. I don't believe there are 326 MPs in Parliament who would instantly agree to doing it, let alone a majority in the Lords.

Anti-terror legislation almost always recieves heavy opposition, with no shortage of defeats, amendments, and watered down legislation. Not one of vote has been as divisive as leaving the ECHR will be.
 
Last edited:
I agree most with Lib Dem's manifestos but Luton has been a Labour town since the 90s, should I still vote for them anyway? I doubt Labour will lose their seat here at any rate.
 
I think that on the day, the vote share will look close and that though popular opinion has shifted favourably toward Labour, it wont be enough for labour to gain a majority. Many of those extra labour votes that came from originally Tory voters, will get soaked up in constituencies where Tories generally win by a large margin. In the end the Tories will end up with a majority but not win by a landslide and people will be disgruntled once again how the vote share does not reflect election results.
 
Putting this down for posterity.

Tories win with 70+ seat majority.

I hope I'm wrong though.
 
ubersonic said:
Nobody is arguing to add barriers to that, everyone is entitled to a free education from the state.
Click to expand...

Wanting to tax education is adding a barrier to education. By the same reasoning, the existence of food banks would mean that adding a tax to food isn't adding a barrier to eating because there's a free alternative. You're not merely arguing that taxing something isn't raising a barrier to its availability which is wrong - because increasing the costs of something put it further out of people's reach and more into the hands of only the very rich. You're also arguing that you should be financially penalised for trying to compete with or supplement the State. Which is neither fair nor productive. If the State is providing an extremely expensive and essential service and some people pay for it themselves because they can, then that is a GOOD thing.

ubersonic said:
Making rich people pay sales tax on the fees for their children's premium school is just common sense.
Click to expand...

It isn't. We don't tax the essentials of life and society. You don't charge people for educating children. You want to encourage that as much as possible.

Ayahuasca said:
Under a conservative government we aren't ever going to improve the standard of normal schools to private level,
Click to expand...

That is not an argument to lower standards in private schools or put more pressure on public schools by reducing the affordability of private ones.

Ayahuasca said:
instead we're giving the best educations to those who's parents can afford it
Click to expand...

You're not giving the best educations to them. They're paying for it themselves. Whilst also simultaneously paying for other people's that their own children will never get use out of because education comes from the general tax pool.

Ayahuasca said:
and many of them would lead a privileged life anyway regardless of education. Social status alone is the biggest factor in them getting the career they want or their parents have planned out for them.
Click to expand...

Waitaminute... Is this just about punishing children for having rich parents... -.-


FuriousGeorge said:
Maybe the concerned parents can open up a free school.
Click to expand...

Apparently not because then they'd be taxed for trying to do so.

VincentHanna said:
Questions

1) Why should Private school fees be VAT exempt?

2) Anyone got figures relating to how much Private schools near them make in profit, per year?
Click to expand...

Regarding #1, already answered by me in earlier posts. Like food, we don't tax the essentials of life and society and also because of the societal benefits of private schools being as affordable as possible.

Regarding #2, We are not your Google slaves. Anyway, the arguments I have made are arguments of general principle so I've not needed to support any of it with figures. The only figures that would impact my argument would be complex ones contrasting disposable income of private school pupil parents with private school fees (matched by parents to schools as well) in order to show that adding VAT (20%) to the fees it wouldn't discourage people from sending their children there. Not only would that be a massive project but we don't need to do any such thing to say that hiking school fees by 20% would discourage enrolments. It's basic supply and demand.

Greebo said:
Or private schools could reduce some of the profits they make and reduce their fees perhaps?
Click to expand...

Adding 20% VAT is not a way to bring about fee reductions.

CREATIVE!11 said:
If everyone was Elon Musk who would empty your bins?

I don't know if the people who parrot on how everyone should be successful have given it much thought....I guess their streets just stay magically clean.
Click to expand...

Immigrants for now. Who then take that as an opportunity to begin their own cycle of working themselves up to a better level of life. Often by reinvesting that money in their own country as many Polish immigrants have done. It's a sharing of the wealth.

And in the future? Robots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom