Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[PlacidCasual]

It's honest, which is why you don't like it.

That is the biggest problem the Conservatives have, they have been honest about honest solutions to some intractable problems. The correct solution that all the truth junkies want is a story about planting more money trees, water them and harvesting their golden fruit, that which can't be solved through money will be made better by hugs kisses and unicorn farts.

Social care is a flipping mess, one party has suggested an unpalatable but plainly honest and probably achievable solution and every want prefers the wish fulfilment solution. Similar examples abound around winter fuel, education and health and the response is we prefer the obviously hollow promises of the fiscally incontinent.

 

[Rroff]

For me personally, that's not the case, I doubt he can pull off even half of what his manifesto promises, but I would rather vote for any other party that would keep May out of power, or at least seriously weaken her, and bring some sort of sanity back to the UK. Dementia tax, 7p kids breakfasts, killing off old people, selling off the NHS...Insanity.

Just jumping to the next option though doesn't solve anything either.

 

[Roar87]

Great response.

Well you have your opinion and I have mine, I think the EU are a pretty staunch bunch, they don't seem to be willing to be flexible in any way shape or form. For me sending Corbyn in with them is a bad idea. I don't think Theresa May is anywhere near like you're making out, taking 1 quote and suggesting she's completely hard headed and unwilling to listen is silly, she was illustrating that she can be tough if necessary, Corbyn is essentially a Pacifist. He's the type of PM you would immediately sack at the outbreak of a war, not the kind of person you need in charge during tough negotiations.

 

[Macro]

What's honest about taking away a fully funded lunch for all primary school kids and replacing it with a badly costed (7p per pupil) breakfast?

I thought we'd already established that's not whats proposed. Year 3 and up already only get free school dinners for families who need the help. That would apply to year 1 to 3 as well as 3 and up but instead of free school dinners for families in year 1-3 who can afford to pay for lunch for their child ALL children get a free breakfast (and presumably free half hour of morning childcare for working parents) as well.

So, ALL primary school children who's families need help continue to get free school dinners as they do already in year 3 up and families in yr 1-3 who can afford to, contribute towards a school dinner in exchange for which ALL children get a free breakfast if they want it.

Either I misunderstood (in which case apologies) or is that just more Labour scare spin?

 

[ebilcake]

Labour party members in willing to sell their principles at the first sniff of power... Sounds about right.

Their politicians, it's what they do.

Ask Nick Clegg, he knows.

 

[Macro]

Their politicians, it's what they do.

Ask Nick Clegg, he knows.

Hehe...

 

[Rroff]

Corbyn is essentially a Pacifist. He's the type of PM you would immediately sack at the outbreak of a war, not the kind of person you need in charge during tough negotiations.

Interestingly the kind of foreign policy he eulogises historically seems to facilitate war more than anything else - looking at Neville Chamberlain for instance using not dissimilar policies practically paved the way for WW2 and left Britain hideously unprepared when he did finally face upto the fact and I'm not sure Corbyn in a similar situation would ever face upto the fact. Granted we live in a somewhat different world today but still would be somewhat ironic if Corbyn in power did actually lead to war.

 

[n111ck]

I thought we'd already established that's not whats proposed. Year 3 and up already only get free school dinners for families who need the help. That would apply to year 1 to 3 as well as 3 and up but instead of free school dinners for families in year 1-3 who can afford to pay for lunch for their child ALL children get a free breakfast (and presumably free half hour of morning childcare for working parents) as well.

So, ALL primary school children who's families need help continue to get free school dinners as they do already in year 3 up and families in yr 1-3 who can afford to, contribute towards a school dinner in exchange for which ALL children get a free breakfast if they want it.

Either I misunderstood (in which case apologies) or is that just more Labour scare spin?

Exactly correct - I don't need free school meals for my kids - it should just remain as help for those on benefits.

Giving free stuff to those that dont need it is just vote winning waste of taxpayers money.

 

[FoxEye]

Interestingly the kind of foreign policy he eulogises historically seems to facilitate war more than anything else - looking at Neville Chamberlain for instance using not dissimilar policies practically paved the way for WW2 and left Britain hideously unprepared when he did finally face upto the fact and I'm not sure Corbyn in a similar situation would ever face upto the fact. Granted we live in a somewhat different world today but still would be somewhat ironic if Corbyn in power did actually lead to war.

On the flip side, they say he had a role in the Irish peace process.

It's somewhat obvious that bombing the hell out of Ireland would not have lead to peace. So who knows....

I'm really not sure we should elect the Tories on the basis that they'd be better warmongers.

 

[MissChief]

If Corbyn takes us back to 1978 I'm all for it. I could afford a house on £22k a year and you could get a full time job for life in the same company.

 

[XeNoN89]

Interestingly the kind of foreign policy he eulogises historically seems to facilitate war more than anything else - looking at Neville Chamberlain for instance using not dissimilar policies practically paved the way for WW2 and left Britain hideously unprepared when he did finally face upto the fact and I'm not sure Corbyn in a similar situation would ever face upto the fact. Granted we live in a somewhat different world today but still would be somewhat ironic if Corbyn in power did actually lead to war.

We're probably going to end up in a war soon anyway. It's only a matter of time before Trump kicks off with somebody and we inevitably get dragged into it!

 

[KNiVES]

Exactly correct - I don't need free school meals for my kids - it should just remain as help for those on benefits.

Giving free stuff to those that dont need it is just vote winning waste of taxpayers money.

Means-testing is exactly for this kind of thing. I don't know why they don't do it.

 

[ebilcake]

With Brexit and Israel/Palestine it's entirely sensible

With ISIS, no way. Good thing he wouldn't (see above)

I know that, that's why I said where possible.

I'm also pretty sure the response from Corbyn with regards to Islamic state was hypothetical, obviously it's not possible.

 

[VincentHanna]

Granted we live in a somewhat different world today but still would be somewhat ironic if Corbyn in power did actually lead to war.

That's really reaching!

Corbyn is anti-war and is therefore more likely to lead us in to war. You heard it here first.

 

[Cleisthenes]

Surprised at the result here now, it's usually Tory bias.

Is it the welfare changes which are making people change or something else? Or it could just be that the Tory voters just haven't voted on the poll yet.

 

[Rroff]

That's really reaching!

Corbyn is anti-war and is therefore more likely to lead us in to war. You heard it here first.

While I don't express it as a serious anticipation - there seems to be a historical trend for the kind of foreign policies Corbyn favours paving the way for war and as I said granted those are in very different times to today but it would be kind of ironic if it did turn out like that and it certainly isn't without precedent.

We're probably going to end up in a war soon anyway. It's only a matter of time before Trump kicks off with somebody and we inevitably get dragged into it!

I dunno - sometimes I think Trump almost plays brinkmanship to highlight the stupidity and change things away from entrenched traditional headings in a far smarter way than given credit for - but then he goes and does something utterly bonkers belying that. I'm on the fence if he is going to lead things into war or almost accidentally make the world a safer place possibly just by pushing things through a period where its so bonkers no one quite knows what they are doing.

 

[No1newts]

Interestingly the kind of foreign policy he eulogises historically seems to facilitate war more than anything else - looking at Neville Chamberlain for instance using not dissimilar policies practically paved the way for WW2 and left Britain hideously unprepared when he did finally face upto the fact and I'm not sure Corbyn in a similar situation would ever face upto the fact. Granted we live in a somewhat different world today but still would be somewhat ironic if Corbyn in power did actually lead to war.

I think the key point you make is it is different times. We will never have a traditional land war on our doorstep ever again (on the caveat that military technology does not morph in some as yet unknown way) so taking a more considered approach to deciding whether or not to bomb someone to oblivion is probably a decent idea. Europe has been more restrained than ourselves for the past two decades and are hardly being crushed, it's actually US with the UK over enthusiastically following in some sort of old imperial wet dream that hasn't particularly helped.

It's a hard one to define but personally having a lot of friends in the military I would much rather we didn't fight and looking st the scandanvians and most other countries who don't get involved they aren't in a bad place because of this.

 

[antijoke]

Surprised at the result here now, it's usually Tory bias.

Is it the welfare changes which are making people change or something else? Or it could just be that the Tory voters just haven't voted on the poll yet.

I suspect they haven't voted yet.

 

[KNiVES]

Surprised at the result here now, it's usually Tory bias.

Is it the welfare changes which are making people change or something else? Or it could just be that the Tory voters just haven't voted on the poll yet.

I voted for Cameron, this time I will be voting for Corbyn. The treatment of the NHS (and by extension the disabled) has been a significant factor. Please note that I knew Cameron wanted to cut the NHS but I did not anticipate the scale of the cuts and the sheer cruelty that the Conservative party has shown towards the disabled - and May seems hellbent on continuing it.



Remember that in 2014, the Tories passed a law making it illegal for charities to state publicy their concerns about the government's treatment of the ill and the needy, under the pretense of not allowing them to electioneer.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I voted for Cameron, this time I will be voting for Corbyn. The treatment of the NHS (and by extension the disabled) has been a significant factor. Please note that I knew Cameron wanted to cut the NHS but I did not anticipate the scale of the cuts and the sheer cruelty that the Conservative party has shown towards the disabled - and May seems hellbent on continuing it.

We'll need some more tax cuts for the rich to fund this of course.