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.
Didn't realise it was London, but it was broadcast on BBC One HD (via Sky) so it was on when I was flicking through last night even though I dont live in London.

I found the old vs young debate on BBC 2 more interesting so I settled on that.
 
May has picked the lower risk / kick in the shins of not turning up, rather than a larger risk that she gets proper roughed up by the other candidates

the "engaging with voters" line is funny, she is just touring round a bunch of stange managed bused in supporter run events
 
antijoke said:
Good job May. Hah.
Click to expand...
Hadn't Corbyn refused to debate on the TV with other leaders until he woke up this morning when his spin doctors told him "cancel the two meetings you have with real voters and go on telly to swap sound bytes, promise a hospital on every corner and a puppy for every child and the people with vote for you". Now all of a sudden it's for free speech and some other made up twaddle. U-Turn at the first sign of something in it for him. When the debate was for the good of voters he wasn't interested and yet labour drones lap it up... *sigh*
 
A Tory source said:

The public want to see a leader who can stare down the EU 27 at the negotiation table, not someone who will need their iPad to remember their dodgy facts in a debate.
Click to expand...

I find this bit quite interesting to be honest. I'm honestly not that interested in someone who can "stare down the EU 27" and am more interested in someone who can work with them to get something sorted. The other point about checking his facts before talking about them, again I would love a politician who checked their facts before talking about them rather than start reverting to weird stares and talking about strong and stable / coalition of chaos etc etc.

I attend meetings more or less every day and occasionally someone will ask a question that you simply dont know the exact answer to, what is the issue with checking before you answer? I would say Corbyn would have looked an real fool if he had answered with something that was utter rubbish and had to correct it later in the day. Again I am no fan of Corbyn but I wish more politicians were more human like to be honest. Besides a bit of vulnerability goes a long way, especially if you an the underdog ;)
 
Y
Rroff said:
There is one aspect people don't talk about with scrapping Trident - the cost of decommissioning it and the adjustment and increase of our conventional forces to compensate would be astronomical making the cost of Trident seem tiny. None the least scrapping it is lunacy.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is one aspect I have not seen. No point scrapping if it isn't worth it
 
Thompson_NCL said:
If anything, I'm a panic stricken Briton. The idea that our nation could be led by a terrorist sympathiser who wants us to disarm our nuclear arsenal and travel back economically to 1970 is deeply alarming. I've no real love affair with the Tories, but they are the only rational choice between what's on offer. You might say I am a Tory by default, not choice.
Click to expand...

Our arsenal is pathetic compared to the US and Russia, they have more than enough between them to ensure we're all screwed in the event anyone uses them.
 
Might be that I'm paying too much attention this this thread, which is becoming a bit of an echo chamber, but this campaign seems to be on a pretty bad downward trajectory for Conservatives
 
ebilcake said:
Our arsenal is pathetic compared to the US and Russia, they have more than enough between them to ensure we're all screwed in the event anyone uses them.
Click to expand...

All the more reason (within reason) to make sure that the power of those weapons isn't concentrated into a small number of countries - albeit the US does have something of a say on our use we still have the executive on it at the end of the day.
 
scorza said:
She can't win, if she'd have agreed to take part in the debates now she would have looked weak. The seven way debates are pretty pointless anyway, in 2015 Leanne Wood had more time than David Cameron (which Cameron was quite happy about). Total bore-fest, won't be watching.
Click to expand...

Macro said:
Hadn't Corbyn refused to debate on the TV with other leaders until he woke up this morning when his spin doctors told him "cancel the two meetings you have with real voters and go on telly to swap sound bytes, promise a hospital on every corner and a puppy for every child and the people with vote for you". Now all of a sudden it's for free speech and some other made up twaddle. U-Turn at the first sign of something in it for him. When the debate was for the good of voters he wasn't interested and yet labour drones lap it up... *sigh*
Click to expand...

Well this is the thing, maybe he has realised he was wrong all along and the correct thing to do was go along to the debate, I guess we'll never the real reason why he decided on a change of heart, but if May would've decided the same thing then that would be cool too.
 
Rroff said:
All the more reason (within reason) to make sure that the power of those weapons isn't concentrated into a small number of countries - albeit the US does have something of a say on our use we still have the executive on it at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, as soon as Russia (or China) launch nukes, even in retalliation to the US, we are a target as

A) A Nuclear power
B) Part of NATO.
 
b0redj0rd said:
I'm considering taking the day off after the election so I can see the results coming in .... I must be getting old.
Click to expand...

I did for the 2015 one (and for the referendum). The exit poll at 10.30pm was quite accurate in 2015, the referendum kept you guessing until about 4.00am.

I tend to sit up until at least half the results are in, more if it is interesting. It can be a little like watching paint dry sometimes.
 
VincentHanna said:
Doesn't matter, as soon as Russia (or China) launch nukes, even in retalliation to the US, we are a target as

A) A Nuclear power
B) Part of NATO.
Click to expand...

The chance of them every being used is incredibly small and by having a few countries maintaining some sort of capability it dilutes the global balance of power those weapons give to any one country - which tends to result in countries coming to the table diplomatically rather than more inclined towards conventional war though not exclusively the case.
 
dowie said:
you're not making much sense - the idea here is that people with assets can cover the costs for themselves and poor people can be covered via general taxation... it isn't necessarily the job of the state to pay for everything for everyone... especially when it comes to social care, benefits etc.. this is something the state provides a safety net for when people can't afford it themselves

we aso don't pay out things like JSA to people with substantial assets/savings etc.. richer people are expected to pay for themselves in that case if they have above 16k (IIRC)

the idea of disregarding anyones personal wealth and simply paying out of general taxation is pretty flawed - we don't currently do that at the moment either though we do discriminate based on allocation of assets - I note in your reply that you've chosen to ignore my question:

"in the case of non-residential care currently we've currently got discrimination based on asset allocation - why should someone with a 250k home be better protected than someone who also had a similar home but downsized to a 100k bungalow and now has 150k in cash/investments?"
Click to expand...
You mentioned the NHS, which is currently free to everyone (ignoring prescriptions and other exemptions).

Would you be happy if the NHS worked the same way? Everybody paid for their own healthcare costs, up to the point where they had no assets left, then the state would foot the bill.

If you don't think the NHS should work that way, why should social care?
 
ebilcake said:
Our arsenal is pathetic compared to the US and Russia, they have more than enough between them to ensure we're all screwed in the event anyone uses them.
Click to expand...
The point is that they can't use them without taking catastrophic damage themselves. Jeremy Corbyn thinks he can "get round the negotiating table" with everyone and anyone and everything will be OK - history tells us it won't.
 
FoxEye said:
You mentioned the NHS, which is currently free to everyone (ignoring prescriptions and other exemptions).

Would you be happy if the NHS worked the same way? Everybody paid for their own healthcare costs, up to the point where they had no assets left, then the state would foot the bill.

If you don't think the NHS should work that way, why should social care?
Click to expand...

firstly I didn't mention the NHS - secondly you're ignoring my question for a second time and now expect me to answer yours?

I'm happy with the NHS as it is thanks - though I wouldn't be completely averse to say a Swiss model. We have universal healthcare we don't have a universal basic income or social care - people are expected to earn an income and pay for things that they need - the state provides a safety net in those areas in order to provide income, housing, care etc.. for those who can't afford it themselves... but not for absolutely everyone regardless of their personal wealth
 
PlacidCasual said:
I feel that is an unfair representation the Conservative party hasn't got rid of the social safety during any of it's Governments even Churchill stated their should be a level below which no one should fall. Personal responsibility means not treating the state as your first solution to all problems. Everything the state does has to be paid for by tax payers, my wallet is lighter for every extension of the state, telling people that isn't a thought crime. There is no magic supply of money that can pay for everything and the Conservatives are being wicked and evil by rationing it. Every spending pledge has to be taken from tax payers. Doing less is a societal benefit if it what is not done is not required.
Click to expand...
You just have to look at Ian Duncan Smith to see the reality of the Tories and how "caring" they are.

Quite happy to force the ill and disabled into work. Declaring people "fit for work" who then died shortly after.

Yeah, the Tories are the party of social safety, sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom