Alf Bentley Posted 30 May 2017 Posted 30 May 2017 55 minutes ago, Webbo said: The bookies' shortest odds suggest (approximately): Con 375, Lab 180, so an overall majority of 100 for the Tories. That might be over-stating it a bit, based on recent polls, but I shan't be putting any cash on a hung parliament just yet! Bookies' odds re. a hung parliament are currently: Yes 13-2, No 1-12. A Tory majority is between 1-6 and 1-10.... No detailed info seems to have been published to explain these YouGov estimates, so I wonder if it's just The Times taking one extreme scenario so as to scare potential stay-at-home Tories into turning out to vote? To be doing this well, Labour's support in the North and Midlands would have had to have risen massively (only a limited number of Con-Lab marginals in the South & Wales, where they've been doing better in the polls). Also, these estimates have the SNP only losing 4 seats in Scotland, whereas most polls suggest the Tories will take about 10 off them....
The Doctor Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 7 hours ago, Dr The Singh said: Ffs Boris is well more credible then that Muppet. Boris was key to engineer brexit,. Abbot couldn't arrange a piss up in a brewery. She may change her hair doo and change her opinion on the size of my cock Boris is more conniving, but he's a bloody liability. 7 hours ago, Webbo said: Be interested to see the poll this has been translated from - what I've read past few days suggests the main difference between the polls is the weighting for the 18-24 vote (strongly pro-labour) - ones showing a double figures lead for the tories thinking they still won't get out, ones showing 5 or so point lead thinking in Corbyn labour have finally found someone capable of mobilising the youth vote. I'm assuming from that yougov are falling into the latter category.
Beliall Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 20 hours ago, Jon the Hat said: A good principled stance. Everyone would like to spend shedloads more money on making everything lovely, but how do you pay for it! By getting Amazon and similar companies to pay their ****ing taxes
davieG Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 're Johnson and Abbott, not that either would affect my vote. Considering both are more or less just mouth pieces for their parties and won't be deciding policies by themselves then Johnson is surely the most risky. Abbott in most cases can only balls it up with the British Public where as Johnson could have a massive impact on our foreign affairs particularly during the Brexit negotiations.
Legend_in_blue Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 Corbyn is totally unelectable. He can't even recall important figures on childcare and has to refer to his Ipad? Seriously? And he still struggled to give an answer! Shocking.
Charl91 Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 4 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said: Corbyn is totally unelectable. He can't even recall important figures on childcare and has to refer to his Ipad? Seriously? And he still struggled to give an answer! Shocking. Can't tell if serious, so I'll bite. 1). Since when has politics become a memory test of how many different figures you can remember? This new 'gotcha' tactic of trying to test how many numbers they remember by heart is ridiculous. I don't care if they don't know them by memory, as long as they don't try and make some up (Dianne Abbot style). Having them written down is a sensible thing to do IMO. Out of all the multitudes of things to criticise politicans for, this is one of the silliest. 2). Theresa May doesn't even HAVE the important figures for most of her proposals. She's just decided "Oh yeah, we'll work it out after the election."
Charl91 Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: Does it get more patronising than this? Will give you that, it is pretty patronising. I think messages like this are more likely to do harm than good.
Strokes Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 6 minutes ago, Charl91 said: Can't tell if serious, so I'll bite. 1). Since when has politics become a memory test of how many different figures you can remember? This new 'gotcha' tactic of trying to test how many numbers they remember by heart is ridiculous. I don't care if they don't know them by memory, as long as they don't try and make some up (Dianne Abbot style). Having them written down is a sensible thing to do IMO. Out of all the multitudes of things to criticise politicans for, this is one of the silliest. 2). Theresa May doesn't even HAVE the important figures for most of her proposals. She's just decided "Oh yeah, we'll work it out after the election." What annoys me most about this new 'gotcha tactic'is, if any of you are regular 24 hour news channel watchers, it's not like they don't make many mistakes. Are there any competent people here, that have to make or refer to notes? It's becoming silly and it deflects away from the things we really need to know.
Alf Bentley Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 2 hours ago, The Doctor said: Be interested to see the poll this has been translated from - what I've read past few days suggests the main difference between the polls is the weighting for the 18-24 vote (strongly pro-labour) - ones showing a double figures lead for the tories thinking they still won't get out, ones showing 5 or so point lead thinking in Corbyn labour have finally found someone capable of mobilising the youth vote. I'm assuming from that yougov are falling into the latter category. Info on the polling methods here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40101566 It has used a very big sample: 50,000, on a constituency-by-constituency basis, which adds to credibility. However, it seems to be a new method: repeat interviews over a week, not just a snapshot. They reckon that they road-tested it during the EU referendum and it was more accurate than other polls - predicting the Leave vote. But there must also be scope for it to be a rogue poll due to methodological flaws not yet identified in such a new polling system. I suppose that it is conceivable that the youth vote could turn out in higher numbers - and that the elderly vote might stay at home more, due to May's policies on pensions, social care etc. I think turnout was 42% among 18-24s last time. and about 78% among those aged 65+. Like you say, ICM and some other pollsters now adjust for differential turnout, so they might be over-adjusting and over-stating the Tory lead. However, I'd also expect some late swing to the Tories - there's usually some late swing in favour of the "safe, status quo" option.
ramboacdc Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 Tin hat warning hear but humour me if you will. I have heard a few people now saying they think May is actually trying to LOSE this election. I'm not saying this as an opposer to the party but shes not coming across as a woman anyone would vote for and the longer this campaign drags out her lead gets shorter and shorter. lets be honest the brexit negotiations are mostly what this election is meant to be about. Is there a chance she knows that whatever deal we do get (or as she has stated, no deal) you will not please everyone, or possibly anyone. Whichever government takes us through this process will be villified by one part of the public or the other for not stopping immigration, to leaving the single market, to the amount we have to pay to leave. is it possible she is deliberatly trying to lose this election so they can come back in 5 years as the "saviour" party like they did with cameron against brown.
Strokes Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 24 minutes ago, ramboacdc said: Tin hat warning hear but humour me if you will. I have heard a few people now saying they think May is actually trying to LOSE this election. I'm not saying this as an opposer to the party but shes not coming across as a woman anyone would vote for and the longer this campaign drags out her lead gets shorter and shorter. lets be honest the brexit negotiations are mostly what this election is meant to be about. Is there a chance she knows that whatever deal we do get (or as she has stated, no deal) you will not please everyone, or possibly anyone. Whichever government takes us through this process will be villified by one part of the public or the other for not stopping immigration, to leaving the single market, to the amount we have to pay to leave. is it possible she is deliberatly trying to lose this election so they can come back in 5 years as the "saviour" party like they did with cameron against brown. It would be a personal, political suicide, I'm not sure Theresa May is one to do that for her party. I think she is finished anyway, the knives will be sharpening fast after this arrogant horror show.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 3 hours ago, Beliall said: By getting Amazon and similar companies to pay their ****ing taxes Aha! And who pays for that then? Maybe... Amazon customers?? They are cheap because they don't pay taxes, ergo, pay taxes and the prices go up, the consumer pays. BINGO!
Jon the Hat Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 13 minutes ago, Strokes said: It would be a personal, political suicide, I'm not sure Theresa May is one to do that for her party. I think she is finished anyway, the knives will be sharpening fast after this arrogant horror show. She will I think still get the 80-100 seat majority she wants, soften the stance on brexit a little, as she won't be beholden to the 20 odd back-benchers who want to see the EU burn, and come with a sensible compromise deal. I do think most of the hard line stuff she has come out with so far has been to appease that group.
Dr The Singh Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 4 hours ago, MattP said: Does it get more patronising than this? Dianne Abbott giving blow jobs isn't going unlock my talent. She recruiting for fluffers
Strokes Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: She will I think still get the 80-100 seat majority she wants, soften the stance on brexit a little, as she won't be beholden to the 20 odd back-benchers who want to see the EU burn, and come with a sensible compromise deal. I do think most of the hard line stuff she has come out with so far has been to appease that group. It's not her brexit stance that concerns me, it's her manifesto that is horrendous. I'm not convinced she will gain anything in this election and she has energised the opposition.
surrifox Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 15 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: She will I think still get the 80-100 seat majority she wants, soften the stance on brexit a little, as she won't be beholden to the 20 odd back-benchers who want to see the EU burn, and come with a sensible compromise deal. I do think most of the hard line stuff she has come out with so far has been to appease that group. If we get a government with a clear mandate I suspect that Merkel will put a muzzle on the likes of Juncker et al with their preposterous demands for hundreds of billions of euros . That will take out the need for the Dick swinging which is how the negotiations have started
Guest Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 23 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: Aha! And who pays for that then? Maybe... Amazon customers?? They are cheap because they don't pay taxes, ergo, pay taxes and the prices go up, the consumer pays. BINGO! So you think its okay for them to not pay their taxes so long as you can buy cheaper cleaning utensils?
Jon the Hat Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: So you think its okay for them to not pay their taxes so long as you can buy cheaper cleaning utensils? I said none of those things as you well know. My point is, that would be passed on to British consumers, so the idea that you can raise funds without it impacting the average Labour voter is incorrect. As it goes, Amazon et al do pay their taxes under current law. You could argue to change the law of course, and it makes some sense that they have an unfair advantage over domestic businesses.
Rincewind Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 7 minutes ago, toddybad said: So you think its okay for them to not pay their taxes so long as you can buy cheaper cleaning utensils? Sounds like blackmail. Let us get away with not paying taxes or we we put up prices or stop making donation to the party.
Rincewind Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 If an ordinary self employed man pays a little under the inland reenue are soon on to it. That is what is unfair. Amazon make enough to pay their fair share like the hard working small businesses do.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 4 minutes ago, Rincewind said: If an ordinary self employed man pays a little under the inland reenue are soon on to it. That is what is unfair. Amazon make enough to pay their fair share like the hard working small businesses do. It is tricky to do, but i don't think anyone is suggesting their shouldn't be a mechanism to ensure we get a more reasonable level of tax from companies set up this way. My point is, again that this would be passed on to consumers. They can choose not to buy of course, but they will pay more if they do. So Labour would in fact be taking that from consumers.
LiberalFox Posted 31 May 2017 Posted 31 May 2017 46 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: Aha! And who pays for that then? Maybe... Amazon customers?? They are cheap because they don't pay taxes, ergo, pay taxes and the prices go up, the consumer pays. BINGO! But corporation tax is a tax on profit, a percentage of profit. Amazon is a huge multinational with a bit of a monopoly and huge profits are made as a result. If we are talking sales taxes then I can understand the point of it affecting the consumer but not corporation tax. That will simply lower the share price a little. That is why raising corporation tax is better than raising sales tax.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.