General Election, June 8th

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Ah ok, I thought I'd read they were for the next election. Before this was announced. I probably should have checked 

 

They were planned for the next election when it was expected in 2020, I believe.

I suppose it involves a lot of reorganisation for election staff and political parties, though, so would have been too short notice for 2017, I presume.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

To all those caught up in Labour's Honey-trap of giveaways, wanting this, that and the other for themselves from the government, just watch this very short clip and think:

 

 

 

[Guest]

So my question is back in play then - developing it a bit: what was the Tory % lead last time round, what % would leave a hung parliament and approx how many extra seats will the Tory's get for each % swing?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

To all those caught up in Labour's Honey-trap of giveaways, wanting this, that and the other for themselves from the government, just watch this very short clip and think:

 

 

 

You're missing the point of why people are voting labour. It isn't because we want giveaways, it's because we want an equal playing field for everybody. There'll still be winners or losers, but it will be solely down to merit. Additionally, public services won't be seen as secondary to making money. 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

Just now, toddybad said:

You're missing the point of why people are voting labour. It isn't because we want giveaways, it's because we want an equal playing field for everybody. There'll still be winners or losers, but it will be solely down to merit. Additionally, public services won't be seen as secondary to making money. 

Maybe you do, but most who vote Labour want more money spent on them by the state. Where it comes from and if its affordable is of little concern.

 

Labour voters pretty much fall into these two categories:

 

1) Tribal. 

2) Want more for them, individually, from the state

 

Now don't get me wrong, this applies to all factions of the political spectrum to some degree, but both above afflict the much greater % of Labour voters.  That's why this particular Labour party will satisfy so much.  The state would be influential in all facets of their lives and then their hooked on the teat of Socialism.  From birth, early childcare, to school, to further education, to many more public sector jobs....and so on

 

Hence why JFK's speech nails it.

 

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Maybe you do, but most who vote Labour want more money spent on them by the state. Where it comes from and if its affordable is of little concern.

 

Labour voters pretty much fall into these two categories:

 

1) Tribal. 

2) Want more for them, individually, from the state

 

Now don't get me wrong, this applies to all factions of the political spectrum to some degree, but both above afflict the much greater % of Labour voters.  That's why this particular Labour party will satisfy so much.  The state would be influential in all facets of their lives and then their hooked on the teat of Socialism.  From birth, early childcare, to school, to further education, to many more public sector jobs....and so on

 

Hence why JFK's speech nails it.

 

I think that's unfair, sure there are some selfish people voting labour but at least as many vote conservatives for self gain. You can't just pigeon hole people and think it proves anything.

Whether you like it or not, the Labour campaign represents a positive vibe and the Tory one a fearful vibe. I can see why the polls are shifting and I don't think it's self interest, just (mis guided imo) optimism.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Maybe you do, but most who vote Labour want more money spent on them by the state. Where it comes from and if its affordable is of little concern.

 

Labour voters pretty much fall into these two categories:

 

1) Tribal. 

2) Want more for them, individually, from the state

 

Now don't get me wrong, this applies to all factions of the political spectrum to some degree, but both above afflict the much greater % of Labour voters.  That's why this particular Labour party will satisfy so much.  The state would be influential in all facets of their lives and then their hooked on the teat of Socialism.  From birth, early childcare, to school, to further education, to many more public sector jobs....and so on

 

Hence why JFK's speech nails it.

 

But you know what the counter argument is. Tory voters - not all - often fall into the category of being older - the polls spell this out VERY clearly - and more affluent. Many vote Tory because:

 

1 - Tribal

2- Want more for them. Believe that they are somehow more deserving of wealth than others and often believe they have worked harder, despite no evidence backing this up. 

 

TBH I personally believe the state SHOULD have a large role. This is because I start from the question 'what is the role of government' and my answer is - education, health, security, energy, transport. I believe that the state - as an enabler on behalf of society - should run each of these areas for the benefit of the people. It seems to me that Tory voters want everything to have a monetary value and be monetised. To me it is the idea of society and provision of services for everybody using our joint endeavour (via taxation) that should be central. I believe that - despite both sides having a majority of voters that vote simply for what is best for them financially - ultimately this is the difference between left and right - society vs the individual. 

[Dr The Singh]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But you know what the counter argument is. Tory voters - not all - often fall into the category of being older - the polls spell this out VERY clearly - and more affluent. Many vote Tory because:

 

1 - Tribal

2- Want more for them. Believe that they are somehow more deserving of wealth than others and often believe they have worked harder, despite no evidence backing this up. 

 

TBH I personally believe the state SHOULD have a large role. This is because I start from the question 'what is the role of government' and my answer is - education, health, security, energy, transport. I believe that the state - as an enabler on behalf of society - should run each of these areas for the benefit of the people. It seems to me that Tory voters want everything to have a monetary value and be monetised. To me it is the idea of society and provision of services for everybody using our joint endeavour (via taxation) that should be central. I believe that - despite both sides having a majority of voters that vote simply for what is best for them financially - ultimately this is the difference between left and right - society vs the individual. 

Can you guys do the same for all parties, I'm really Intrigued...

[Guest]

Just now, Dr The Singh said:

Can you guys do the same for all parties, I'm really Intrigued...

Kinda hoping people see the first part as tongue in cheek and instead focus on the second.....

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think that's unfair, sure there are some selfish people voting labour but at least as many vote conservatives for self gain. You can't just pigeon hole people and think it proves anything.

Whether you like it or not, the Labour campaign represents a positive vibe and the Tory one a fearful vibe. I can see why the polls are shifting and I don't think it's self interest, just (mis guided imo) optimism.

The reality is that the 'selfish' reason to vote labour is to not be going to the food bank or to actually have a pay rise for the first time in nearly a decade. 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

But you know what the counter argument is. Tory voters - not all - often fall into the category of being older - the polls spell this out VERY clearly - and more affluent. Many vote Tory because:

 

1 - Tribal

2- Want more for them. Believe that they are somehow more deserving of wealth than others and often believe they have worked harder, despite no evidence backing this up. 

 

TBH I personally believe the state SHOULD have a large role. This is because I start from the question 'what is the role of government' and my answer is - education, health, security, energy, transport. I believe that the state - as an enabler on behalf of society - should run each of these areas for the benefit of the people. It seems to me that Tory voters want everything to have a monetary value and be monetised. To me it is the idea of society and provision of services for everybody using our joint endeavour (via taxation) that should be central. I believe that - despite both sides having a majority of voters that vote simply for what is best for them financially - ultimately this is the difference between left and right - society vs the individual. 

The problem with your socialism / utopia is:

 

a) As you've proven on numerous other posts today you detest anything that might be doing better in life than you.

b) Socialism drives to the lowest common denominator, thus appeasing point a) for you.

c) Most of the time age has the greatest gift: wisdom.

d) Socialism eventually spends all the money.  Its not a philosophy about wealth creating, just more state spending.

 

Ideally, a Blue Labour or Red Conservative party would be best.  Or in other words, something in the middle....

 

 

[Strokes]

Just now, toddybad said:

The reality is that the 'selfish' reason to vote labour is to not be going to the food bank or to actually have a pay rise for the first time in nearly a decade. 

Or you plan to go to university, hate your boss and his flash suit or have little savings but appreciating assets and would be happy to see inflation boom. 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

10 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Can you guys do the same for all parties, I'm really Intrigued...

Can I some up Liberals throughout history (other than David Lloyd George) as:

 

a) Fence sitters

b) Turn coats

c) Two faced

d) Blow with the wind

 

At least Labour and Conservatives nail their beliefs to the mast!

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Nonsense. Not wanting May doesnt mean you want Corbyn and vice versa.

Bit different here given we don't have a presidential election, but still it is the case. It's labour or conservative - if you're left wing and vote for a party with no hope of doing anything (do the socialist workers party still exist? Practically the party I'm thinking of in this scenario), all you're doing is splitting the left wing vote and enabling the conservative candidate. Knowingly splitting the vote and enabling your opposition is tacit endorsement of them. 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

The problem with your socialism / utopia is:

 

a) As you've proven on numerous other posts today you detest anything that might be doing better in life than you.

b) Socialism drives to the lowest common denominator, thus appeasing point a) for you.

c) Most of the time age has the greatest gift: wisdom.

d) Socialism eventually spends all the money.  Its not a philosophy about wealth creating, just more state spending.

 

Ideally, a Blue Labour or Red Conservative party would be best.  Or in other words, something in the middle....

 

 

I haven't proven any such thing. Many people are doing better than me and I'm in turn doing better than many other people. I'm not concerned about whether others are doing better than me, I'm concerned about everybody having the same opportunities. My comments on business earlier were couched very heavily in the fact that SOME businesses don't give a stuff about their staff. 

 

You're probably right about a middle ground being needed. TBF Blair was probably as close as you'll get to that and he ended up castigated for making terrible foreign policy decisions and agreeing to PFI contracts. 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

You're probably right about a middle ground being needed. TBF Blair was probably as close as you'll get to that and he ended up castigated for making terrible foreign policy decisions and agreeing to PFI contracts. 

I nearly paid reference to him, but decided not to. I agree Blair managed to appeal to most. His only downfall for me, was his deliberate higher immigration policy to import more Labour voters. This has subsequently come out in the wash as the case. Secondly the foreign policy proved to be a disaster. Utterly responsible for the catalyst in future issues, tonight being another one of them (probably). The PFI contracts was a bloody sneaky way of passing on debt to further governments. Indeed just the same as he did nothing for 10 years about UK energy policy. Again another problem passed onto the Tories. However, he did get the right balance of support (state) and wealth creation in his early pitch.

 

Labour need to be closer to this centrist policy to be viable and electable. It can be possible to have a more palatable leader, but Corbyn and his team are dangerous and not good for the country even in the short term. Hopefully enough will be wise to this, hence all my points tonight about JFK and problems with deep socialism. 

[Nickfosse]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Just hoping Corbyn goes, it's the perfect time.

 

Also Lord Ashcroft is suggesting a conservative majority of 60, last time it was 140. 

No it wasn't. The last election produced a low Conservative majority.

[LiberalFox]

28 minutes ago, Nickfosse said:

No it wasn't. The last election produced a low Conservative majority.

 

Sorry, I meant the last time Lord Ashcroft gave an estimation (which was about a week ago). You are right about the election. 

[Nickfosse]

Oh I see what you mean. Sorry

[Guest MattP]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/bbc-debate-audiences-may-have-hijacked-labour-supporters-posing/

 

This seems very plausible and would explain a lot.

[Finnaldo]

10 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

The problem with your socialism / utopia is:

 

I love the implication from the right that we're heading for this Socialist state  

 

Realistically Corbyn may be a Marxist or Socialist at heart but ultimately, as the fact he sided with Remain despite campaigning to leave most his life and has said he's not even thinking about touching the monarchy whilst in power despite being an avid Republican suggests that he realises that realistically he can't and won't put any kind of real Socialist state the right have nightmares about.

 

There's obviously Socialist influences but ideas like renationalisation has been favoured by the public for years. Any policy that's too extreme (arguably tuition fees and the minimum wage rise) won't necessarily be carried out if they're realised to be impractical whilst in office. I've never understood why people take manifestos as some sacred unbreakable text when realistically life in office obviously leads to compromise. 

[Richmondfox]

How many polling companies does this country need? Almost as many as art historians.  Every company asks the same question but gets such a varied response, the press make a major story out of it then you read it's from a pool of 2k people.

 

I have noticed Labour supporters on social media going overboard and becoming pretty nasty.  They flood the conservative fb page 2 minutes after they post and then try to shut down any conservatives trying to have dialog.  They are spamming the mail and express comments section to create the impression of a sway in public perception. 

 

I said to my girlfriend weeks ago that I thought Labour were using bots and sock puppet accounts, I'd been watching Homeland.  I read the story in the express and checked out the account they were quoting. It had been liking and retweeting hundreds of posts an hour for 22 hours straight the 2 hours break then again for hours doing the same. 

 

The next bit is slightly controversial but I come from a single parent family from Thurnby Lodge who had nothing but have managed to do ok in life with little support, social mobility etc so I'm not from a traditional Conservative upbringing.  I wish Labour would stop banging on about the people at the top paying more when they pay most of our countries tax bill.  The people at the lower end need to start adding value to the country rather than just taking all the time.  Recruitment agencies should be based inside the job centre, can't find work well join the queue over there and   Unemployed for longer than a month, compulsory re education and voluntary work cleaning our nations estates, helping the elderly or something else meaningful.  Make benefits pay and the people taking them start giving something back.  £2500, 25% of my tax bill last year went on welfare, welfare it is not.  I'm not sure where I stand on food banks, if you offer free food to people they are going to take it, it's an industry now so they have to have lots of users.  If you have to use them and you are in employment then you need to look at your own lifestyle choices first. 

 

NHS, stop propping it up with money and look at the waste from within. The compensation they payout every year for negligence is in the hundreds of millions. Nurses and staff do need to be paid more, apart from managers, that needs to be reduced. A midwife from Devon berated May on one of the debates, maybe if midwives in Devon didn't have 8million a year in settlement claims against them for errors they might have more money.

 

I don't agree with the free university fees, if they did do it they should charge them for every class they miss, every paper handed in late and a penalty for not hitting a % target in every exam. 

 

I'm sure no one will agree with me but that's the luxury we have in this country.

 

[Alf Bentley]

An interesting poll from Scotland: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-corbyn-effect-poll-shows-rise-in-scots-support-as-snp-warn-over-letting-in-tories-in-by-back-door/

 

It suggests that the SNP could lose 10 seats, 6 to the Tories, 2 to Labour and 2 to the Lib Dems.

 

It also suggests that the Scottish turnout could be high - and that 44% of voters are prepared to vote tactically (only 34% not prepared to do so).

I presume that a high level of tactical voting would mainly harm the SNP, as the election up there seems to be dominated by the prospect of another independence referendum.

 

At a moderate level, anti-SNP tactical voting could benefit all the other parties, as the seat figures suggest.

At a higher level, it could benefit Labour more if they are perceived as the main challengers to the SNP in the central belt.

I'm dubious, though, as to how many Tory voters would be prepared to lend their votes to Labour under Corbyn - might have been a lot more under Blair or Brown.

The same might apply with Lab voters in the central belt - would many be prepared to vote Tory to keep the SNP out? In the Lowlands and NE Scotland, they probably would....not sure about Glasgow etc.

[Beliall]

Is there any website anywhere that tells us how the polls look in our constituency? I have been googling but cant see anything that gives me an indication of who has the best chance of beating the conservatives in my area. I'm worried the Lib dems and labour will take votes off each other and the tories with win here.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/bbc-debate-audiences-may-have-hijacked-labour-supporters-posing/

 

This seems very plausible and would explain a lot.

 

It might seem plausible, but doesn't present any evidence so is just speculation.

I'm sure some Momentum types did try to get into the debate under false pretences. I'm sure some Right-wingers did, too.

 

But the audience noise at the debate was pro-liberal left, not pro-Corbyn. If anything, I thought Farron, Lucas & the Nats got more applause than Corbyn.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but my guess is that the louder lefty noise was due to them being younger than the Tory supporters - and possibly the influence of the big pro-Left/Corbyn crowd outside making them feel more confident than right-wingers about loudly expressing their sympathies. Maybe May's non-attendance also played into it.

 

Lefties are circulating similar accusations of right-wing bias at Friday's debate because a load of questions were asked by people with clearly rightist sympathies......and I think that's bollocks, too.

The questions were pretty even-handed at both events, I thought.

The audience cheering for May and Corbyn was more even at Friday's debate, I thought (maybe partly because she bothered to turn up, unlike Wednesday). So, if Tories have serious accusations to make - as opposed to evidence-free speculation - maybe they should compare the audience recruitment methods for the 2 events? Or identify known lefties who attended on Wednesday claiming to be Tories?