How would you vote in a General Election tomorrow? 9/22

[act smiley]

10 hours ago, filthyfox said:

I don't think anyone could have predicted the foreign market's reaction....

The quid has been ****ed since wonderful Brexit anyway.

Completely impossible to predict.

https://amp.spectator.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-s-petulant-attempt-to-start-a-run-on-the-pound/amp

[Nod.E]

14 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

It will be whichever candidate in my constituency is most likely to beat the Tory, but for the sake of the poll I'll go Labour.

Christ, this gives me hope! Deb not voting Tory??

[foxes1988]

2 minutes ago, filthyfox said:

Greens are hard republicans,  they can go forth and hopefully  not multiply

I voted for them purely to take the moral high ground on climate change 

 

To be fair if their was a vote on whether the UK should be a Monarchy or a republic tomorrow I would vote for a Republic on principle.  I'm not though going to try and change the monarchy through protesting or voting for some based on this issue as I just dont see it as an issue.

[Rain King]

8 minutes ago, filthyfox said:

Greens are hard republicans,  they can go forth and hopefully  not multiply

Even more reason to vote for them.

[Daggers]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

 

Margaret Thatcher's economic policies worked very well, for rich and for poor.

Oh my days, what a pile of revisionist böllôcks. You are half right, but your memory is deceiving you if you think poor people benefited or entire communities weren’t cast on to an ideological scrap heap. That, or you’re just lying for effect.

 

She caused a brain drain abroad, and the BNP and NF flourished on her watch - key indicators of poverty, poor education and poor opportunities. Unemployment soared to levels “not seen since the Great Depression”. Inflation hit 21% under her watch and she nurtured not one but two recessions. Homelessness soared due to a) the sell of of public housing stock, and b)  soaring rates of home repossessions due to the ridiculous and unaffordable interest rates. Poverty almost doubled on her watch. Trickle down policies were shown not to work and a gaping chasm opened up between rich and poor. It is almost universally accepted that these are facts - your statement is painting white as black. You are completely and laughably wrong.

 

And the less said about her friendship with celebrity paedophiles and covering up Tory sex cases the better.

 

Cue: denialism and whataboutery.

[CosbehFox]

Labour but realistically will have to be Lib Dem 

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, Daggers said:

..

 

And the less said about her friendship with celebrity paedophiles and covering up Tory sex cases the better.

 

Cue: denialism and whataboutery.

Are you deliberately trying to undermine yourself?  

[CosbehFox]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Because all Labour have to offer is "not being the Tories".  The Tories put up National Insurance rates, and Labour opposed it.  Then the Tories put National Insurance rates back down, and Labour opposed that as well.  It's what they do - they oppose.  What would happen if they had to decide things on their own?  

 

I'm old enough to remember the economic screaming about Margaret Thatcher's government's budget in 1981.  There was a public letter signed by about 350 economists showing how the government was utterly wrong and leading to economic meltdown, because they were against the prevailing orthodoxy - and they were proved wrong.  Margaret Thatcher's economic policies worked very well, for rich and for poor.  Just because hundreds of economists who have all been taught there is only one "right" answer believe that this budget must be wrong because it isn't what they were taught.

 

The market reaction to the budget is overblown.  The traders already knew that there was going to be a big spend to help with energy bills, and they already knew the Corporation Tax rise would be cancelled, and they already knew the NIC rise would be reversed.  They aren't reacting ot that.  The 1% cut in Income Tax, and 5% cut for high earners, is the only "news" and it's not enough to justify this sort of reaction.  Except that market traders are like economists and like sheep, in that when one bleats they all bleat and when one runs they all run.  They daren't stand out from the crowd because they would lose their jobs if they were wrong.  So when a few influential traders move, the whole market lurches.  It will settle down.

 

What's Labour got to offer?  They aren't going to spend less than the Tories.  They might tax more, but I doubt they would have a lower deficit.  Remember that the tax take of GDP under Truss will still be higher than under Brown's worst excesses; there is a lot of leeway for cutting taxes, if they can only do something sensible about cutting spending. 

Total nonsense - they've just announced a very reasonable plan this week alone regards energy. 

[BenTheFox]

I'm quite pleased that I now live in Gedling, a constituency which where my vote actually carries some weight. My parents' constituency has been Conservative since 1945 and the Tories often have over 10,000 votes more than the next party, so voting there feels almost pointless. 

[Lako42]

Either 17 millionaires on here or 17 people with zero self respect 

[RonnieTodger]

You reds 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Oh my days, what a pile of revisionist [deleted]. You are half right, but your memory is deceiving you if you think poor people benefited or entire communities weren’t cast on to an ideological scrap heap. That, or you’re just lying for effect.

 

She caused a brain drain abroad, and the BNP and NF flourished on her watch - key indicators of poverty, poor education and poor opportunities. Unemployment soared to levels “not seen since the Great Depression”. Inflation hit 21% under her watch and she nurtured not one but two recessions. Homelessness soared due to a) the sell of of public housing stock, and b)  soaring rates of home repossessions due to the ridiculous and unaffordable interest rates. Poverty almost doubled on her watch. Trickle down policies were shown not to work and a gaping chasm opened up between rich and poor. It is almost universally accepted that these are facts - your statement is painting white as black. You are completely and laughably wrong.

 

And the less said about her friendship with celebrity paedophiles and covering up Tory sex cases the better.

 

Cue: denialism and whataboutery.

Well, for a start off the National Front polled 191,719 votes in 1979 and the NF/BNP combined got 12,447 in 1992, so you're clearly wrong about that.

 

The "brain Drain" was a phrase of the 1960's and 1970's, referring to the number of academics and scientists, and later entrepreneurs and high paid individuals such as writers, which was reversed in the 1980's as living conditions became easier and tax rates dropped.  It has been said that James Heriot was the only successful author living in Britain in the late seventies, because he was the only one who loved the country so much that he was willing to pay 98% tax.

 

The highest inflation rate under Thatcher was 21.9%.  The previous government reached 26.9%.  And that highest rate was in the first year of her PMship when it's unreasonable to ascribe all the economic situation to her government. Three years later it was 4-5% and stable.  

 

The closure of the Lancashire mills was before Thatcher, and the closure of the Nottinghamshire mines was after Thatcher,  The Yorkshire mines were to a large degree self-inflicted.  (Now we have this energy crisis, perhaps they could re-open the mines and see how much the community spirit wants them back?)

 

Paedophilia is a red herring.  Thatcher (unlike some of her colleagues on the opposite bench) was opposed to it and didn't know that Savile was a paedophile.  Nor that Cyril Smith was either, if he was who you were referring to.

[Daggers]

So, 10.69% believe the political equivalent of Rodger De Courcey’s Nookie Bear is the best option? Wonderful.

[Foxdiamond]

19 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Well, for a start off the National Front polled 191,719 votes in 1979 and the NF/BNP combined got 12,447 in 1992, so you're clearly wrong about that.

 

The "brain Drain" was a phrase of the 1960's and 1970's, referring to the number of academics and scientists, and later entrepreneurs and high paid individuals such as writers, which was reversed in the 1980's as living conditions became easier and tax rates dropped.  It has been said that James Heriot was the only successful author living in Britain in the late seventies, because he was the only one who loved the country so much that he was willing to pay 98% tax.

 

The highest inflation rate under Thatcher was 21.9%.  The previous government reached 26.9%.  And that highest rate was in the first year of her PMship when it's unreasonable to ascribe all the economic situation to her government. Three years later it was 4-5% and stable.  

 

The closure of the Lancashire mills was before Thatcher, and the closure of the Nottinghamshire mines was after Thatcher,  The Yorkshire mines were to a large degree self-inflicted.  (Now we have this energy crisis, perhaps they could re-open the mines and see how much the community spirit wants them back?)

 

Paedophilia is a red herring.  Thatcher (unlike some of her colleagues on the opposite bench) was opposed to it and didn't know that Savile was a paedophile.  Nor that Cyril Smith was either, if he was who you were referring to.

She sold off national assets on the cheap. She used unemployment as a weapon. Ironic she would have been out on her ear if not for the Falklands War. A war that happened on her watch because the government took their eye off the ball re Argentina. 

[Tommy Fresh]

2 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

Total nonsense - they've just announced a very reasonable plan this week alone regards energy. 

Yeah but Starmer isn't wacky or idiotic enough, so why would anyone vote for them 😂

[Scotch]

Other/SNP for me. 

[dsr-burnley]

21 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

She sold off national assets on the cheap. She used unemployment as a weapon. Ironic she would have been out on her ear if not for the Falklands War. A war that happened on her watch because the government took their eye off the ball re Argentina. 

She's by no means perfect, but she wasn't the devil incarnate either.  The only point to me mentioning her was to say that just because the economists who all think the same way, think Truss is wrong, does not mean that she is wrong.

 

France and USA are also cutting taxes, incidentally.  Truss isn't alone with this.

[Foxdiamond]

11 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

She's by no means perfect, but she wasn't the devil incarnate either.  The only point to me mentioning her was to say that just because the economists who all think the same way, think Truss is wrong, does not mean that she is wrong.

 

France and USA are also cutting taxes, incidentally.  Truss isn't alone with this.

Trickle down does not work

[Bryn]

I’m wary of Starmer, I don’t appreciate his purge of the Labour left. But the Tories have to go, they are dangerous and vile and the one domain in which I was remotely aligned with Boris with was the environment and Truss and Rees-Mogg have put an end to that.

 

Starmer has pledged enough for me to vote for Labour enthusiastically at this stage. Landlordism and multiple-home ownership is an absolute blight and needs to be dealt with. Focus on sustainable energy is a priority. I would personally be in favour of greater redistribution of wealth from top to bottom but he’s enough that way compared to the status quo to appeal to me. I’m disappointed we won’t get electoral reform but the pros outweighs the cons for me.

Edited 29 September 2022 by Bryn

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

She's by no means perfect, but she wasn't the devil incarnate either.  The only point to me mentioning her was to say that just because the economists who all think the same way, think Truss is wrong, does not mean that she is wrong.

 

France and USA are also cutting taxes, incidentally.  Truss isn't alone with this.

The economic arguments aren't the only ones in play here. Or even the most important.

[filthyfox]

29 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

She's by no means perfect, but she wasn't the devil incarnate either.  The only point to me mentioning her was to say that just because the economists who all think the same way, think Truss is wrong, does not mean that she is wrong.

 

France and USA are also cutting taxes, incidentally.  Truss isn't alone with this.

Truss is hardly cutting taxes by a massive amount.  Remember, they will get most of it back through VAT anyway!

[Fox92]

Up the labour.

[bovril]

At times like these I miss Jeff

[Scanchez]

16 hours ago, Raj said:

5 voted Tories.

They need banning asap for life

It goes to show how much a government can take pizz and people would still trust them and vote for them. Frightening.

Like, what would the Tories have to do for these people to think 'Hmm maybe I shouldn't vote for these monsters..'

[Rain King]

2 minutes ago, Scanchez said:

It goes to show how much a government can take pizz and people would still trust them and vote for them. Frightening.

Like, what would the Tories have to do for these people to think 'Hmm maybe I shouldn't vote for these monsters..'

The people in general in my experience that tend to vote for them are equally as monstrous.