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.
Macro said:
You seem to be missing the point. ALL children do not get free school dinners already, only year 1-3, from Year 3 up it's based on familes who need the help get the dinners for free.
Click to expand...
I know that. I think that free school lunches are a good thing and if anything should be extended to all primary children. I can live with means testing, but it should be mandatory for other parents to pay for a meal from school rather than provide their own, and I think that the criteria for means testing should be revisited.

Macro said:
The proposal is instead of free dinners to children in yr 1-3 for families who can afford to pay a little for a school lunch, ALL children yr 1-6 get a free breakfast and (as I say i'm guessing at this bit but it makes sense) a free extra half an hour of morning childcare which is a huge help to working families and ALL children from families who need help continue to get free school lunch.
Click to expand...
In which case, they should have couched it in those terms. Clearly *someone* is going to have to supervise while the children have their breakfast but it wouldn't surprise me if they expected schools to fit it into their existing budgets. This policy was supposed to be a cost-cutting measure, and while breakfasts are smaller (hence cheaper, but really not just 7p unless by "free breakfast" they mean Tesco value oats bathed in warm water) increasing the length of the school day doesn't really feel like it's going to cut many costs.

The issue I have with this proposal is that it takes something that's good (free lunches) and cuts it, replacing it with an uncosted alternative that might not end up being any cheaper after all, and so may end up being ditched while the cut remains. I'm not convinced that Labour's "free everything!" approach is correct either, but frankly I'm getting sick of cuts when many middle earners like myself could afford a slight tax hike to everyone's benefit. Funny that nobody's really willing to put *that* to the electorate...
 
Macro said:
You seem to be missing the point. ALL children do not get free school dinners already, only year 1-3, from Year 3 up it's based on familes who need the help get the dinners for free.

The proposal is instead of free dinners to children in yr 1-3 for families who can afford to pay a little for a school lunch, ALL children yr 1-6 get a free breakfast and (as I say i'm guessing at this bit but it makes sense) a free extra half an hour of morning childcare which is a huge help to working families and ALL children from families who need help continue to get free school lunch.

Jeeze, it's the same old Labour spin for a cheap headline which just gets repeated.
Click to expand...

And what if my children don't eat breakfast, due to being on an intermittent fasting diet?
Plus a 7p breakfast is not going to be nutritious, it will be milk and cereal (though more likely gruel given the Tory way of thinking).
 
Rroff said:
I don't agree that the world has changed quite that much though in many ways it has in appearances and we certainly can't be complacent about the future even though increased global stakes, communications, economy and other interests make traditional big war far less likely than probably any time in modern history.

Relatively speaking we aren't that far removed from the earlier parts of the 1930s where globalisation was taking off in a big way and for the time large industry, etc. had unprecedented global stakes - many expressed the exact same views as you right upto the point where war broke out - even denying it as Germany built up the deployment of a massive war machine.

Point of my post is personally I believe complacency is the enemy of peace and that indiscriminate use of appeasement like and other soft policies does not actually make the world a safer place.
Click to expand...

Fair play, I personally disagree but I can understand your reasoning and how you've reached your point of view. One of those agree to disagree points I think :)
 
PlacidCasual said:
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.
Click to expand...

No we want the truth. May has already said in interview she wants to privatize the NHS. Why not put that in? They remove the promise not to raise taxes and then include lots of stuff uncosted which either means more borrowing or raising taxes. Why not be honest and say which you are going to do now?

As for social are, a review was carried out and then they ignore the results of the review and come up with this instead. Why not for once go with the experts you paid a lot of money to for a long time to analyse?
 
n111ck said:
Tory landslide still on the cards...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...etting-wrong-theresa-may-still-set-landslide/
Click to expand...

Shock as right wing media paint positive picture of their political party of choice.

fAD8YlO.gif


D.P. said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gistration-under25-young-people-a7757976.html


1 million young people registered to vote in the last month. The real question is how motivated theya re to turn up to the polling booth. The current polling models give them a low turnout, if that model is wrong there could eb quite the upset for the Tories. Eqully, the narrowing of the recent polls may simply disappear on the day if the young Pepe don;t get off their backside.
Click to expand...

Young Pepe the day after the election when they don't vote.....

EYuAOb6.png
 
Greebo said:
No we want the truth. May has already said in interview she wants to privatize the NHS. Why not put that in? They remove the promise not to raise taxes and then include lots of stuff uncosted which either means more borrowing or raising taxes. Why not be honest and say which you are going to do now?

As for social are, a review was carried out and then they ignore the results of the review and come up with this instead. Why not for once go with the experts you paid a lot of money to for a long time to analyse?
Click to expand...

To come out and flatly say they want to privatise the NHS would be a death notice for the Conservative party. And they know it. They talk openly about efficiency savings and better management when what they mean is private sector getting their fingers into the NHS pie and contracts being given to party Donors and spouses on the boards of companies that can benefit.
 
One More Solo said:
Can Theresa May utter a sentence without reference to Brexit?
Click to expand...

It is currently the safest and most recently proven bait on these waters. It targets more different kinds of fish than the other topics and has recently be used so much that the fish are in a frenzy for more. She may have started the day on something else but when she saw the other fishermen catching, it was time to switch it up!

That said, fish do get wary and avoid the bait after being caught a few times.
 
krooton said:
And what if my children don't eat breakfast, due to being on an intermittent fasting diet?
Plus a 7p breakfast is not going to be nutritious, it will be milk and cereal (though more likely gruel given the Tory way of thinking).
Click to expand...

Havent they defended the 7p pricing by saying oats and water is more than good enough?
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Well it isn't like people work harder for their inheritance than others
Click to expand...
I inherited nothing and work really hard with the support of my family to provide for them. We're fortunate enough to have a modest 3 bed Semi which because we live in the South East my children would have to sell if anything happened to me and my wife. If wanting to provide for my childrens future and not choose to rely on state handouts makes me a bad person then i'll proudly wear that label...

Labour the party of jealousy.
 
MissChief said:
So three times your wage then? Hmm, I don't see many houses round here for £66k. And I'm in a cheaper part of the country.
Click to expand...

er 4x by my maths!

and last year the same house was sold for £95k approx 4 x average income. (Leigh, Lancashire 2 bed terrace house)
 
MissChief said:
To come out and flatly say they want to privatise the NHS would be a death notice for the Conservative party. And they know it. They talk openly about efficiency savings and better management when what they mean is private sector getting their fingers into the NHS pie and contracts being given to party Donors and spouses on the boards of companies that can benefit.
Click to expand...

So they arent being honest then at all despite what the previous poster said. So same old normal politics then. Vote for me cause i will do this but once i have a huge majority i will do the things I didnt put in the manifesto that you would never vote for?
 
krooton said:
And what if my children don't eat breakfast, due to being on an intermittent fasting diet?
Plus a 7p breakfast is not going to be nutritious, it will be milk and cereal (though more likely gruel given the Tory way of thinking).
Click to expand...
If they wouldn't eat a free breakfast then presumably they wouldn't eat a free lunch either? :confused:
 
Macro said:
I inherited nothing and work really hard with the support of my family to provide for them. We're fortunate enough to have a modest 3 bed Semi which because we live in the South East my children would have to sell if anything happened to me and my wife. If wanting to provide for my childrens future and not choose to rely on state handouts makes me a bad person then i'll proudly wear that label...

Labour the party of jealousy.
Click to expand...

lol

I did not say i agree with heavily taxing inheritance, i actually dont. Just that too many people like to play that violin story of working hard so their children may one day be able to survive due to inheritance.

I do not have a problem with inheriting large sums, just the sop story justifications. What is wrong with just saying, i earned it and i know where i want it to go?
 
Greebo said:
*cough. Fallon has said May would not hesitate to launch a first strike if the circumstances were right so you are soooooooooooooo wrong there.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what she says (for deterrent purposes), only a madman would actually launch a first strike. You're basically triggering the end of the world.
 
FoxEye said:
Regardless of what she says (for deterrent purposes), only a madman would actually launch a first strike. You're basically triggering the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Well Fallon and May seem to think its perfectly acceptable and the issue with Corbyn is that he wouldn't order a first strike. I see that as a positive personally.
 
Macro said:
I inherited nothing and work really hard with the support of my family to provide for them. We're fortunate enough to have a modest 3 bed Semi which because we live in the South East my children would have to sell if anything happened to me and my wife. If wanting to provide for my childrens future and not choose to rely on state handouts makes me a bad person then i'll proudly wear that label...

Labour the party of jealousy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if we fixed the system we wouldn't have a generation that needed mum and dad's inheritance to get on in life and avoid handouts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom