General Election 2017 Poll.

[Top_gun]

The Tories are perceived as London/South-East-centric relying on the patriotic hinterland in the Midlands and elsewhere to carry them through without doing much if anything for them..

Actually London is shutting the door on the Tories based on previous election results. Even the Tories themselves recognise this. Part of the problem is that Londoners are educated enough to see through the Tory BS.

I think Theresa May is in serious trouble even if she has won this election. An hung parliament is a strong possibility and I very much doubt if the Tories will form a coalition goverment with the SNP.

[Saracen]

thread closed briefy. Trying a colour change. Back soon.

Thread reopened.

I've changed the order of items to better reflect party colours, then reset poll numbers to reflect what the votes were.

I.e. Lab and Tory have switched colours and places, and LD and UKIP have switched too.

Normal service should have resumed.

[Saracen]

....

I think Theresa May is in serious trouble even if she has won this election. An hung parliament is a strong possibility and I very much doubt if the Tories will form a coalition goverment with the SNP.

Depends by how much. Which depends on whether the polls are right. And, indeed, which ones.

[Saracen]

Actually London is shutting the door on the Tories based on previous election results. Even the Tories themselves recognise this. Part of the problem is that Londoners are educated enough to see through the Tory BS.

....

And the rest of the country are thick as .... poop, and still buy into it?

How to win friends and influence people.

Or, maybe, much of the rest of the country live a different life to Londoners, and so see different issues as important to them.

[Top_gun]

And the rest of the country are thick as .... poop, and still buy into it?

You could be right on this point as you say since political analysis have showed areas of low educational attainment with brexit voters. I strongly suspect the Tories are trying to target these brexit voters. Now if you're suggesting that I think the rest of the country is thick then you really have no idea what I think. I admire the Scottish opinions as wells as those from Liverpool and Manchester.

Or, maybe, much of the rest of the country live a different life to Londoners, and so see different issues as important to them.

Absolutely like getting rid of those pesky Europeans for example while us Londoners embrace them.

[Saracen]

You could be right on this point as you say since political analysis have showed areas of low educational attainment with brexit voters. I strongly suspect the Tories are trying to target these brexit voters. Now if you're suggesting that I think the rest of the country is thick then you really have no idea what I think. I admire the Scottish opinions as wells as those from Liverpool and Manchester.



Absolutely like getting rid of those pesky Europeans for example while us Londoners embrace them.

So only those with high 'educational attainment' are bright enough to understand who to vote for? As for that much vaunted political analysis, there are a couple of problems. The first is that Londoners aren't tge only ones with decent educations. Secondly, it mistakes correlation for causation, and ignores other correlations, like areas of high deprivation and concentrations of areas of traditionsl blue collar jobs most significantly hit by that element of immigration that drives down availability and pay rates of such jobs.

Snd fwr be it from me to assume what you think. I just go by what you said ....

Part of the problem is that Londoners are educated enough to see through the Tory BS.

It would also be reasonable to assume if they're that better educated, they'd also see through Labour BS, LibDem BS, etc.

[Top_gun]

So only those with high 'educational attainment' are bright enough to understand who to vote for? As for that much vaunted political analysis, there are a couple of problems. The first is that Londoners aren't tge only ones with decent educations. Secondly, it mistakes correlation for causation, and ignores other correlations, like areas of high deprivation and concentrations of areas of traditionsl blue collar jobs most significantly hit by that element of immigration that drives down availability and pay rates of such jobs.

Snd fwr be it from me to assume what you think. I just go by what you said ....

Your assertions is pretty much meaningless based on the following facts. Some parts London have some of the highest pockets of deprivation in the country for a number of years along side the highest rate of immigration.

Even the UKIP politicians admitted London is a no go area as they know they couldn't BS us with their policies. Sorry Saracen but it is you who is unable to comes to terms with us Londoners understanding of politics.

It would also be reasonable to assume if they're that better educated, they'd also see through Labour BS, LibDem BS, etc.

Of course should they ever arise. The problem here is the Tories delude themselves that everyone else is spreading BS when in fact is the Tories who are liars with their failed economic plan.

[Top_gun]

More evidence of BBC bias by refusing to play this music on their stations.

[TeePee]

Of course should they ever arise. The problem here is the Tories delude themselves that everyone else is spreading BS when in fact is the Tories who are liars with their failed economic plan.

What are the indications of a failed economic plan?

The UK economy seems very solid, based on most indications I have seen.

[Lanky123]

More evidence of BBC bias by refusing to play this music on their stations.

I wouldn't describe that as bias. And I say that despite being broadly sympathetic to the main theme of the song. Then again, you could have picked a member of the Commons at random to sing it about and there's a good chance I'd have agreed with the lyrics.

Ask yourself how you'd feel about the issue if a song containing a direct political attack on Corbyn, Farron, Sturgeon or whoever went viral instead. Would you feel it fair for the BBC to give it airtime during an election cycle, regardless of where it got in the charts? There are rules about what the media are allowed to do in the run up to an election and I don't blame the BBC for playing it safe here. If you want a silver lining, it seems to me that the BBC's refusal to play it has given the video a bit of a Streisand effect boost on social media anyway.

[Saracen]

Your assertions is pretty much meaningless based on the following facts. Some parts London have some of the highest pockets of deprivation in the country for a number of years along side the highest rate of immigration.
...

And, by virtually any measure, considerably higher average income than most of the rest of the country. Nor did London vote either entirely for Labour, nor Remain. Which brings me back to a misinterpretation of correlation and causation.

And nor has London had the traditional blue collar industries that supported much of the rest of the country. Or rather, not since round ahout WW2, when lots of traditional inner London blue collar industry, like clothing, brewing, etc moved out, and then increasingly, finance moved in. London is a microclimate of economics, unique in the country.

...

Even the UKIP politicians admitted London is a no go area as they know they couldn't BS us with their policies. Sorry Saracen but it is you who is unable to comes to terms with us Londoners understanding of politics.

....

"Us Londoners".

Well, personally, London born and bred, degree (Economics) educated Chartered Accountant background, and sufficient political involvement in my journalistic career to have had invitations to Downing Street events by bothLabour and Tory PMs and Chancellors.

Educated "Us Londoners" includes me.

The problem here is the Tories delude themselves that everyone else is spreading BS when in fact is the Tories who are liars with their failed economic plan.

I love this one. The number of times I see Labour politicians ctiticise the Tories on the basis that the debt is rising, when that is exactly what every successive budget has predicted. It's inevitable, when you are running a stonking great deficit.

Of course, Labour prescience predicted stagnqtion and even recession, and what happened? Sufficiently high growth that even other doom-mongers, like the IMF, have had to acknowledge they got it wrong and revise their growth estimates up to match what happened? That's not to say growth has been great by historical standards, but worldwide economic circumstances are not typical of historical conditions either. Oh, and the millions of unemployed Labour predicted? Well, highest employment in many years, and record low unemployment.

What's holding us back? In large part, the deficit. And, of course, £50bn a year in interest payments on debt. Debt incurred, I might add, under 13 years of Labour and a Chancellor that never "spent" a penny, but "invested" huge amounts. If all that investment was so winderful that it justified incurring huge debt, AND all that 'off balance sheet' stuff he hid in ludicrously expensive PFI deals, where's the RoI?

So, Labour built up huge spending, like those aircraft carriers, and huge debt, and levels of spending on publuc services that we couldn't pay for. When the tories try to deficit-refuce, Labour oppose every move, then have the temerity to moan that the deficit hadn't dropped far enough and debt has gone up. Maybe if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had left a note saying where the magic money tree they appear to have found is, judging by the wishlist of things they seem to want to do, on the fatuous notion that it can be paid for by taxing the rich and corporates, instead of a note saying "There's no money left".

But don't take my word for it that the burden won't fall on the rich and on companies. Read the IFS assessment of where the burden will fall.

As usual, Labour have a long list of "free" things they want to "give", and at best, an extremely optimistic view of how to pay for it all which, even if it worked out exactly as they predict, would STILL result in a dignificantky higher deficit, and debt level, than under Tory plans.

The problem is, as a country, we want relatively high levels of public services, but we don't want to admit that we'll have to significantly increase taxes, on just about everybody, to pay for it.

And that isn't just a blindness, or unwillingness to admit the truth by Labour. The Tories and LibDems suffer the same unwillingness to be straight with the people.

But the REALLY insidious thing? All major parties are pretending they can provide this grab-bag of freebies that everybody wants but doesn't want to pay for, and ignoring the simple truth that by spending money we don't have, we WILL, simply increase debt, and all that debt is is deferred taxation that young peopls will have to pay in the future, as if they haven't already been given the 'poopy' end of the stick.

There ain't no such thing as all these freebies, and if WE won't pay for them while we're benefitting from them, our kids will pay for them in the future. ... plus interest.

That's why I started the poll asking if people had decided who to vote for .... because I haven't. I don't believe ANY of them are being straight with us.

[Splash]

AND all that 'off balance sheet' stuff he hid in ludicrously expensive PFI deals, where's the RoI?

Sure, Labour made use of PFI (and all the problems that brings), but the first use of it was under John Major's government in 1992. It's also since been used by Conservative governments.

I'm not letting Labour on this, but it seems to be used as a stick to beat one party with while the other's use is swept under the carpet.

[Top_gun]

Nor did London vote either entirely for Labour, nor Remain. Which brings me back to a misinterpretation of correlation and causation.

Absolutely, the same could be said for the brexit areas too. Don't you feel disappointed that the brexit arguments did not turn the heads of the more educated population? What this means the issue of brexit will never go away mainly because of the poor debate last year and the scandalous lies told by the brexit campaigners.

And nor has London had the traditional blue collar industries that supported much of the rest of the country. Or rather, not since round ahout WW2, when lots of traditional inner London blue collar industry, like clothing, brewing, etc moved out, and then increasingly, finance moved in. London is a microclimate of economics, unique in the country.

London still has a number of blue collar industries. In fact I know a University professor on planning and design who owns a business making catering trays. He is well verse on London planning matters and used to be an advisor for Boris Johnson. Currently fighting plans on the Tottenham and Old Kent Road regeneration schemes.

"Us Londoners".

Well, personally, London born and bred, degree (Economics) educated Chartered Accountant background, and sufficient political involvement in my journalistic career to have had invitations to Downing Street events by bothLabour and Tory PMs and Chancellors.

Educated "Us Londoners" includes me.

What made you leave London? I've been inside Number 10 as well in 2007.

I love this one. The number of times I see Labour politicians ctiticise the Tories on the basis that the debt is rising, when that is exactly what every successive budget has predicted. It's inevitable, when you are running a stonking great deficit.

Of course, Labour prescience predicted stagnqtion and even recession, and what happened? Sufficiently high growth that even other doom-mongers, like the IMF, have had to acknowledge they got it wrong and revise their growth estimates up to match what happened? That's not to say growth has been great by historical standards, but worldwide economic circumstances are not typical of historical conditions either. Oh, and the millions of unemployed Labour predicted? Well, highest employment in many years, and record low unemployment.

What's holding us back? In large part, the deficit. And, of course, £50bn a year in interest payments on debt. Debt incurred, I might add, under 13 years of Labour and a Chancellor that never "spent" a penny, but "invested" huge amounts. If all that investment was so winderful that it justified incurring huge debt, AND all that 'off balance sheet' stuff he hid in ludicrously expensive PFI deals, where's the RoI?

So, Labour built up huge spending, like those aircraft carriers, and huge debt, and levels of spending on publuc services that we couldn't pay for. When the tories try to deficit-refuce, Labour oppose every move, then have the temerity to moan that the deficit hadn't dropped far enough and debt has gone up. Maybe if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had left a note saying where the magic money tree they appear to have found is, judging by the wishlist of things they seem to want to do, on the fatuous notion that it can be paid for by taxing the rich and corporates, instead of a note saying "There's no money left".

But don't take my word for it that the burden won't fall on the rich and on companies. Read the IFS assessment of where the burden will fall.

As usual, Labour have a long list of "free" things they want to "give", and at best, an extremely optimistic view of how to pay for it all which, even if it worked out exactly as they predict, would STILL result in a dignificantky higher deficit, and debt level, than under Tory plans.

The problem is, as a country, we want relatively high levels of public services, but we don't want to admit that we'll have to significantly increase taxes, on just about everybody, to pay for it.

And that isn't just a blindness, or unwillingness to admit the truth by Labour. The Tories and LibDems suffer the same unwillingness to be straight with the people.

But the REALLY insidious thing? All major parties are pretending they can provide this grab-bag of freebies that everybody wants but doesn't want to pay for, and ignoring the simple truth that by spending money we don't have, we WILL, simply increase debt, and all that debt is is deferred taxation that young peopls will have to pay in the future, as if they haven't already been given the 'poopy' end of the stick.

There ain't no such thing as all these freebies, and if WE won't pay for them while we're benefitting from them, our kids will pay for them in the future. ... plus interest.

That's why I started the poll asking if people had decided who to vote for .... because I haven't. I don't believe ANY of them are being straight with us.

Wasn't George Osborne who boldly said, in 2010, he would get rid of the deficit by 2014 and we would all be enjoying in the region of 3% growths of GDP. I don't think the Tories ever hit their own GDP targets and therefore we have seen an upward spiral in debts.

It's misleading to say a couple of aircraft carriers and rebuilding our schools and hospitals was solely responsible for the deficit. The fact is the majority of the deficit was caused by bailing out the banks.

I was never a fan of PFIs for a number of reasons. The Tories allowed our schools and hospitals to decay and it appears PFIs was the only option to rebuild them on a large scale. The Tories never fixed the leaking roofs while the sun was shining. If they did then this would have been the cheapest option of all. I think there's a possibility to renegotiate the PFIs in the same way as the Tories tried to negotiate the public sector pensions. Will the Tories do that? Probably not since many of their friends benefits from these deals. You mentioned about ROI but if my memory served me right when I attended a Tony Blair event on public services prior to rebuilding schools and hospitals it was about making people feel better about themselves and public services. Tory policies is really is about dividing people and causing misery.

As for the aircraft carriers, is it a case it was the Royal Navy who asked for them rather than the Labour government forcing the issue? The business case for the aircraft carriers was to allow flexibility of operations in other parts of the world. The idea that Labour shaking the money tree and forcing aircraft carriers down the throat of the Admiral is a ludicrous suggestion.

[Top_gun]

Sure, Labour made use of PFI (and all the problems that brings), but the first use of it was under John Major's government in 1992. It's also since been used by Conservative governments.

I'm not letting Labour on this, but it seems to be used as a stick to beat one party with while the other's use is swept under the carpet.

I would argue the reason why the Tory constantly beat Labour with sticks is to cover up their own economic failings.

Furthermore, what the Tories don't talk about was the infilitration Of PriceWaterhouseCoopers officials to the Treasury that has led to the UK getting poor deals on PFI contracts.

[Corky34]

I thought Jeremy Paxman interview technique was awful. He aggressively attacked Corbyn without achieving anything and of course showed his bias to the Tories by allowing Theresa May to speak without much scrutiny.

Speaking of bias has anyone caught the Daily Mails headline accusing the BBC of bias, it looks like the 2017 hypocrisy award has been won folks.

[Xlucine]

What are the indications of a failed economic plan?

The UK economy seems very solid, based on most indications I have seen.

Rising food bank use, suggesting that the economic growth coming at the cost of rising poverty.
https://www.trusselltrust.org/2017/0...ontinues-rise/
If we could reduce poverty, even at the cost of lower growth, it would be more sustainable as we'd enjoy higher tax revenues and less paid out in benefits.