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.
FishFluff said:
The guy from ComRes (who put the audience together) has explained it quite well today. In giving equal airtime to all parties, you end up with most of the audience being 'left wing' as most of our political parties are.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem then - you've got an equal amount of Plaid Cymru (180k votes at the last election) supporters as you have Conservative (11.3m votes) voters.
antijoke said:
London Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 50% (+9)
CON: 33% (-3)
LDEM: 11% (-3)
UKIP: 3% (-3)
GRN: 2 (-1)

(via @YouGov / 26 - 31 May)


Just for London.
Click to expand...
Apparently 103% of the electorate in Tower Hamlets will be voting for Labour.
 
If the odds keep dropping I'll stick a lay on. Good news either way then. Either there's a hung parliament and the Tories are out, or I make a few quid.
 
Do you agree with Boris Johnson about the audience at last night’s debate being the most leftwing he had seen?

May says Amber Rudd did an excellent job in the debate.

Q: Did you watch the debate?

May says Amber Rudd did an excellent job in the debate.

Q: You have said that twice. Will you make her chancellor if you win the election.

May laughs. She says she is focusing on making sure that people know what the choice is at the election.
Click to expand...

So Amber Rudd for no 11 and Hammond out then? God help us. Hammond is the only decent Tory cabinet minister they have atm.
 
Greebo said:
So Amber Rudd for no 11 and Hammond out then? God help us. Hammond is the only decent Tory cabinet minister they have atm.
Click to expand...
I don't think May likes Hammond very much. I'm really starting to think she is either incredibly arrogant, or actually trying to throw the election.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Anecdotes don't prove something. What they do is disprove a sweeping statement. You can't use an anecdote to prove all immigrants work hard. You can use an anecdote to disprove a statement that they don't.

Some people seem to take the principle of an anecdote not being able to prove a general case and misapply it to thinking it has no value. What it achieves, is to challenge statements that over-reach and to illustrate that there is uncertainty in the general case.
Click to expand...

Valid point.

You don't understand how capitalism or corporations work. If Apple were able to charge 10-15% more without loss of sales, they would. You cannot simultaneously argue that Apple is greedy and would simply up prices to compensate for higher corporation tax and also that they would not raise prices now if they were able. Corporations such as Apple have enormous marketing departments, very well-funded, who spend a lot of time working out where best on the Supply-Demand curve they should pitch their tent.
Click to expand...

Another valid point, I think a lot of people view corporations as an omnipotent body whereas they still have the real world to contend with i.e. People can and only will pay so much for a product.

I actually feel sorry for May. I think the UK is in a bad situation and I think she believes she can't acknowledge this without committing electoral suicide. Look at Amber Rudd getting cut to pieces on the debate by responding to Corbyn's comments about welfare for the disabled with caveats about "those who most need it". Entertain the hypothesis that there actually isn't enough for everyone. In such a case Amber Rudd's mild comment about selectivity is correct, but she gets almost booed by the audience for saying it. Whereas the party not in power - Corbyn, is free to say "everything will be better with us". Theresa May is caught between saying nothing and saying "Christmas is cancelled", I think. Knowing the latter to be disastrous, she prevaricates.
Click to expand...

A final valid point.

I wouldn't say I feel sorry for her as I am of the personal belief (many will disagree as this is fundamentally what the election boils down to) that austerity has exacerbated as opposed to helped the situation is in especially when combined with the tax breaks for her base. Whilst I understand others will have a different economical take on my stance for me if you take money out of people's pockets (which they have done to a large extent with wage freezes/minimal raises/redundancies in public sector) you reduce people's spending power and deflate the markets thus lowering tax receipts.

On another note I'm not a pie in the sky socialist who believes that the money is there under a rug and I do believe at some point hard choices need to be made. I think the NHS needs really looking at for savings as it is a mess and benefits that promote a lifetime of idleness are not fit for purpose (I was actually a fan of workplace credit as a way of encouraging people into the labour market) Yet despite the fact that some hard choices need to be made I firmly believe these can be made alongside a system which will still support individuals and offer an underpinning to society that it seems the Cons look determined to destroy. Put money in people's pockets, into many pockets not a few you will stimulate the economy, which will stimulate growth, which will grow tax receipts which will help the situation.

As I say though there are others of a different economic slant which will disagree strongly with that approach and that is the fundamental choice of the section when you strip away the fluff.
 
Uther said:
I don't think May likes Hammond very much. I'm really starting to think she is either incredibly arrogant, or actually trying to throw the election.
Click to expand...

It's not just me then. May was useless as Home Secretary, but had appeared to "up her game" since becoming PM in my eyes.

This whole campaign has be an omnishambles and the only reason she still has a lead in the polls is that Labour's campaign has featured more car crashes than a month of Russian dash cam footage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom