How will you vote next week?

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I am literally voting for the NHS. Therefore, Labour.

If you believe Labour's economic and social policy will mean a better service from the NHS then my "Pied Piper" reference is more apparent than I'd imagined. I'd hope you're right, of course, but don't believe it for an instant.        

[Thracian]

4 hours ago, separator said:

Its not really a big secret that Saudi Arabia support terrorist organisations. 

Makes a nonsense of her "telling it as it is" statements though. You know Corbyn won't answer a straight question but I thought May would have a bit more about her.  

 

  

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

On 02/06/2017 at 15:17, Alf Bentley said:

 

This is factually incorrect. During Blair's first term, Labour ran a surplus most years. During his second term, when Brown was still Chancellor, they spent more on public services and tax credits, but still ran a deficit smaller than Major's Tories had done in the 90s. The deficit only ballooned from 2008....when there was a massive global financial crash! This affected every developed economy similarly, with minor variations.

 

Blair got in by a landslide because the Tories had been in power for ages and under Major had various scandals which took the wind out of their sails. Also Major was pathetic as a PM. However, it is a fact they actually passed on a relatively stable  economic situation to Blair/Labour. The country was not in financial crises when he got the keys to No.10.

 

Something Labour have NEVER EVER gifted an incoming Conservative government. The tories always get back in to clear up the mess. So please do consider this with all the Labour economically sound stuff.  

 

The financial crises afflicted the world, but our banks were particularly affected as they were allowed to profligate with huge risk. RBS the worst example. Back then government had greater influence on financial market decisions. Housing, mortgage lending and overal phlospophy. Thankfully the Bank of England has a much greater say/autonomy of this now, independent from politics. Anyway, wasn't it Labour that knighted Sir Fred Goodwin. Just saying.....

[Thracian]

On 2017-6-4 at 19:34, Paddy. said:

I'll be voting Labour but with no real conviction.

 

This is total self-interest but I look at what this Tory government has done to education and the damage to my profession and I just cannot possibly vote Conservative, that would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Those of you working in the private sector may have had a very different experience these last few years (I don't know) but you can only go by your own experience and the destruction of our education system under the Tories has been quite devastating. Labour are pledging to invest £4.8bn whilst the Tories pledge equates to a 3% real terms decrease in already inadequate funding. It's a no brainer for me.

 

The other deciding factor for me is that I see Theresa May as weak and dishonest. She is evasive even by politician's standards. I don't believe Corbyn can or will do a lot of what he says but in terms of policies I'm in favour of re-nationalisation, in favour of raising corporation tax and extra powers for HMRC and ultimately we're all voting for the policies that appeal to us. That said, a cabinet made up of the likes of Dianne Abbott and John McDonnell makes my blood run cold. It really is an abysmal set of choices for the electorate imho and Labour are slightly the lesser of two evils.

Agree about the poor choices. As for evasion if May and Corbyn drove off Southend Pier they'd miss the sea.   

[Foxxed]

On 04/06/2017 at 17:37, Vacamion said:

 

I am struggling with this.

 

I am in an SNP seat, the Conservatives have a chance of stealing it, if the recent council elections and polls are to be believed.

 

I am a Unionist, and I quite admire Ruth Davidson, I've voted "Scottish Conservative and Unionist" before, so voting Tory should be the obvious choice for me, right?

 

Well, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the Conservative position on hard Brexit. I've seen the party lurch to the right in ways that leave me cold. A lot of their candidates down South are utter right wing headbangers. May's campaign has been a disaster.

 

I am impressed with the Libs stance on the Union and Brexit, their proposal to increase tax to fund education, their suggestions to end cannabis prohibition and I find their leader in Scotland, Willie Rennie, to be a lot better than Tim Farron, who, to me is a bit oddball (stuff Farron has said about abortion and homosexuality is beyond the pale for me).

 

Problem is, the libs have no chance in my constituency.

 

So, maybe I'll have to hold my nose and vote Tory, or vote Liberal Democrat despite my misgivings and in the knowledge it may help let the SNP retain the seat.

 

Like Natalie Imbruglia, I'm torn.

 

 

 

 

The SNP aside for their views on the union seem one of the few competent parties. Ruth Davidson does seem decent too although her parties approach on Brexit seems completely opposed to Scotland's. In such a situation Labour would seem to be the lesser of three, four or whatever evils.

 

But if it's a SNP/Conservative marginal then you get to say either "I'm pro union but I'll vote for the nationalists." Or "I'm anti-hard brexit but I'll vote for the hard brexiteers." I guess you could always vote with the SNP now but against them in a referendum but I can understand that's hardly ideal. Nasty.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Blair got in by a landslide because the Tories had been in power for ages and under Major had various scandals which took the wind out of their sails. Also Major was pathetic as a PM. However, it is a fact they actually passed on a relatively stable  economic situation to Blair/Labour. The country was not in financial crises when he got the keys to No.10.

 

Something Labour have NEVER EVER gifted an incoming Conservative government. The tories always get back in to clear up the mess. So please do consider this with all the Labour economically sound stuff.  

 

The financial crises afflicted the world, but our banks were particularly affected as they were allowed to profligate with huge risk. RBS the worst example. Back then government had greater influence on financial market decisions. Housing, mortgage lending and overal phlospophy. Thankfully the Bank of England has a much greater say/autonomy of this now, independent from politics. Anyway, wasn't it Labour that knighted Sir Fred Goodwin. Just saying.....

 

Firstly, apologies to @KingGTF for not having replied to his response a few days ago re. bank regulation. It deserved a proper response as it raised valid points. I'll try to get round to it, but life is busy just now.

 

A few brief points in reply to your post, Dirkster:

- I wasn't trying to claim that Labour was economically sound, just countering the false claim that the economic problems post-2008 were caused by Labour profligacy....they were caused by a global crash.

- Even though Labour presided over 11 years of relative success economically (97-08), they can be criticised for under-spending initially, for running a small deficit during a boom, for loading debt on future generations via PFI etc.

- Yes, the economy was prospering in 1997, but along with "various scandals", the Tories were massacred at the 1997 election because their economic credibility had been shredded in 1992 when they had crashed the pound, leading to a serious recession, mass unemployment, mass home repossessions etc. In turn, that had been largely caused by the "Lawson boom" of the late 80s, when they had allowed the economy to over-heat, causing inflation.....and while Ken Clarke can be credited for handing over a prospering economy in 1997, he can't be credited for the next 11 years of stability under Labour!

- It is you, not me, who are making partisan, black-and-white claims that one side "NEVER EVER gifted" the other a stable economy, while the other "always get back in to clear up the mess". Partisan lies unsupported by fact, mate.

- Someone could write a doctoral thesis assessing the comparative efficiency of every Labour & Tory post-war govt, so it would be ridiculous of me to attempt it within a post on a football forum. However: the Attlee Govt handled extreme post-war austerity and reconstruction, the break-up of empire and massive social improvements - and still handed the Tories a recovering economy to the extent that, within a few years we had "never had it so good". The Wilson 64-70 Govt ran into economic problems, but certainly didn't hand over as big a mess as Heath's Tory Govt did in 1974 (power cuts, 3-day week, failed attempt to fight the miners, rising inflation etc). Labour then certainly did leave a mess by 78-79. Both Tory and Labour Govts were also affected by structural flaws in the UK economy and external problems, such as OPEC oil price hikes in the 70s. Then, just as the Blair/Brown economic record is mixed, so is the Thatcher record...

- A lot of the UK's economic problems have been caused by structural economic problems existing since days of empire/WW2 and not remedied by any party - e.g. too much economic short-termism (by both firms & govts, red and blue)

 

My point is NOT "Labour good, Tory bad". It is that your "Tory good, Labour bad" claim is partisan and groundless. "Labour always leave a mess; the Tories always clear it up" is as big a lie as the lie that Brown's reckless spending caused the global crash. 

 

I'm no expert on banks, but do know that a number of banks went bust in the USA, Iceland, Ireland and other countries. Italy has major problems with its banks now. The financial sector is comparatively more important to the UK than it is to other European countries, so that was also a factor.....though every European country was affected to varying degrees, because the system is so open and international, and the US economy so important within it that the waves caused by the US crash hit everyone. There are also plenty of experts who believe that measures to reduce our vulnerability to such crashes have been wholly inadequate and that we're likely to face another one before long, with rising levels of debt etc.

 

Anyway, if this discussion just continues with more "Tory always good, Labour always bad" crap, I'll be staying out of it. It's just a waste of time. 

[ScouseFox]

burn the tories (imho) 

[Lovejoy]

If the Tories blow it, where would this lie in the grand scheme of political cock ups?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Lovejoy said:

If the Tories blow it, where would this lie in the grand scheme of political cock ups?

Worse than Hilary Clinton.

[Rincewind]

1 hour ago, Lovejoy said:

If the Tories blow it, where would this lie in the grand scheme of political cock ups?

Higher than Piggate I would think And that pig's head was on a table.

[Alf Bentley]

I'll be voting Labour (with a side order of Greens in the council byelection). Mainly voted Lab in past, but Lib Dem a couple of times.

 

Because....

- Brexit: The biggest political issue for decades and barely discussed! I voted Remain but think the LD & Green policy is wrong. There might be a case for a 2nd referendum in 18 months, if public opinion changes radically (unlikely but not impossible - we're heading for serious economic problems & some tough bargaining from the EU, I think). For now, I like the Lab Brexit policy: accept the verdict but aim to stay close to the single market, keep employment/social/env. protections etc.

- Investment: I like Lab plans for investment in infrastructure, housing, training etc. Good in themselves but will also help the economy at time when it'll be struggling due to Brexit

- Public spending: I approve of more spending for NHS, social care, schools etc. Things are getting critical already; any more austerity cuts & we'll be destroying the fabric of society

- Redistribution of wealth: We have an increasingly unequal society, causing social strife; the country needs more redistribution, however "Marxist" some think that is....let's be more Scandinavian.

- Some Lab spending plans are excessive (tuition fees, triple lock on pensions, multiple nationalisations), but they have sod all chance of forming a majority so would have to compromise on them in the unlikely event of a hung parliament

- It will be a bad thing for May to have a big majority; I used to be hopeful that she was a strong leader, strong enough to make sensible compromises for a Soft Brexit. The campaign has shown her to be third-rate & I'm concerned she'll needlessly lead us to a bad deal or no deal over Brexit just to appeal to nationalist headbangers on her backbenches or anti-EU sentiments in the public or press, causing seriously scary damage to our nation

- My local Lab candidate (Jon Ashworth) could be a key figure post-election as a non-Corbynista who's not burned his boats with Corbyn - and one of the minority with a political brain

 

I'm expecting an increased Tory majority but how big I don't know. I'm expecting a big swing in the North/Midlands outside big cities/university towns.

That might be offset somewhat by a bigger youth turnout. I think it probably will...but only slightly and not in most marginals outside the SE.

Might more pensioners stay at home due to Tory care plans? Probably not. Might the pollsters be picking up more Con->Lab switching among women, which doorstep canvassers are missing....a bit, possibly, but probably clutching at straws.

I'll be happy with anything less than an 8% Tory lead in the exit poll - and a majority less than 60. Over 100 is still a distinct possibility, I think....tough times ahead either way.

 

On a lighter note, I'll even be pleased to see Ken Clarke re-elected - and hope Vince Cable & Caroline Lucas make it back. We have too few quality politicians in all parties.