General Election 2019

Who will you be voting for

  • Labour

    Votes: 39 18.4%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 93 43.9%
  • Brexit party if they run

    Votes: 21 9.9%
  • Lib dems

    Votes: 36 17.0%
  • SNP

    Votes: 10 4.7%
  • Greens

    Votes: 8 3.8%
  • DUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 2.4%

  • Total voters
    212
  • This poll will close: .

richp007

Distinguished Member
Why do you think the rest of us might vote for what you call a village idiot and/or calculated liar?
Because they want Brexit. And they think he will deliver it?

I can't possibly believe that anyone thinks Johnson would make a good PM beyond sorting out Brexit. For me he's everything that's wrong with politics. A leader of a country he is not.

I see you made a further post too since.

Unfortunately politics is in a torrid state right now, and like you none of the parties fit for me. I'm in a Labour stronghold however, so I may as well stay in bed all day! Although I will likely now just vote for whichever local candidate impresses me the most.

My hopes were that Brexit may at least change things for the better once it's done, but I no longer see that as a possibility. In politics, until we are rid of the Johnson's and Corbyn's of this world - and electoral reform becomes something of a possibility, things will just continue as they are.
 

MSW

Well-known Member
Because they want Brexit. And they think he will deliver it?

I can't possibly believe that anyone thinks Johnson would make a good PM beyond sorting out Brexit. For me he's everything that's wrong with politics. A leader of a country he is not.
I have no real basis for this but, I think you are right. If we are right it is such a shame that the GE result will be driven by Brexit.

Whichever way you look at it the Majority voted to leave the EU with either no deal or a deal. They did not vote for stay (Lib dem) or for do a deal and then ask us again.

I think all the parities have persevered for what I would call total victory without realising such a stance can deliver total defeat. I.E.

Tories trying for no deal whilst giving the optics of trying for a deal
Labour trying for second referendum and dithering a bit
Lib Dem trying to overturn the result of the referendum (This feels so bad to me, I,e we don’t care what was voted for we are not doing it end of)

I can see that to many that the Lib Dem’s and labour have given the appearance of not wanting to uphold the referendum (In theory about 48% of people would not be u happy with this)

whilst the Torries have given the appearance of wanting to upheld the referendum

hence why I would agree.

such a shame really that a GE might well be decided primarily on something that was decided 3 years ago

interesting to see who out of the parties got their brexit strategy right and comes out best

rdgs
 

Aj33

Active Member
Sorry mate but that was not my point, demographics apply across the country, different party’s will never get a look in for different reasons.

My point was that if an mp is doing a truly awful job at constituency level then they would likely face a vote of confidence by the local party and potentially face deselection, regardless of how safe the seat is. The fact she has not in over 30 years suggests to me at least, she must be doing something right.
Unfortunately this shows you know nothing about the metropolitan minorities vote. It has very little to nothing to do with how the individual MP might be performing.

in many urban BAME communities the cultural or religious leaders will cajole people into voting one way - labour (almost exclusively).

why? Because BAME communities have always thought the left was on their side. But like the states they are beginning to wake up. Finally significant numbers are realising that the left is not their friend.
 

chopples

Well-known Member
Unfortunately this shows you know nothing about the metropolitan minorities vote. It has very little to nothing to do with how the individual MP might be performing.

in many urban BAME communities the cultural or religious leaders will cajole people into voting one way - labour (almost exclusively).

why? Because BAME communities have always thought the left was on their side. But like the states they are beginning to wake up. Finally significant numbers are realising that the left is not their friend.
Thanks for that

I was not talking about left or right I or anything like that, I was talking about local political party membership who control the selection process.
 

Aj33

Active Member
Thanks for that

I was not talking about left or right I or anything like that, I was talking about local political party membership who control the selection process.
Ah, got ya.:smashin:
 

ikcdab

Standard Member
Good for them. Based on my experience of 16/17 yo's including my own kids no way I'd give them a vote. Just not mature enough.
why stop at 16? Why not give vote to 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds? A line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 seems as good a place as any. ALthough there may well be some 16 yo who are intelligent eniough to decide who to vote for, most are not and don't have a clue.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
ALthough there may well be some 16 yo who are intelligent eniough to decide who to vote for, most are not and don't have a clue.
Same logic applies to adults, you need to come up with something better than that to support your argument.
 

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
Same logic applies to adults, you need to come up with something better than that to support your argument.
You advocating some sort of intelligence test to qualify your right to vote?

Maybe your in favour of banning over 65's from voting because they will be dead sooner than someone who is 25?
 

kav

Distinguished Member
You advocating some sort of intelligence test to qualify your right to vote?

Maybe your in favour of banning over 65's from voting because they will be dead sooner than someone who is 25?
Nope. Exactly the opposite. Point is it doesn't matter how stupid you are, as long as you're over 18 you get a vote. Therefore I don't see how intelligence should be a consideration when discussing 16-17 year olds getting a vote.
 

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
Nope. Exactly the opposite. Point is it doesn't matter how stupid you are, as long as you're over 18 you get a vote. I don't see how intelligence therefore should suddenly be a consideration when discussing 16-17 year olds getting a vote.
There has to be a cut off point somewhere. 18 is considered the start of adulthood in this Country. Hence its a sensible choice.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
There has to be a cut off point somewhere. 18 is considered the start of adulthood in this Country. Hence its a sensible choice.
I agree. My only contention was that intelligence should not be a factor in the argument over whether or not we give 16 year olds the right to vote.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
Nope. Exactly the opposite. Point is it doesn't matter how stupid you are, as long as you're over 18 you get a vote. Therefore I don't see how intelligence should be a consideration when discussing 16-17 year olds getting a vote.
Why is voting special?. Currently 16 years olds are considered not capable of making their own decion as to use a sunbed or buy a knife or enter a pub unsupervised.

So what has suddenly changed that makes them adult enough to cast a vote in General Elections?
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Will be the 30th anniversary of the fall of The Berlin Wall tomorrow.
And Corbyn said then, "no cheers here for a united capitalist Germany.”
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
I agree. My only contention was that intelligence should not be a factor in the argument over whether or not we give 16 year olds the right to vote.
So why not 12 year olds? 15 year olds? 8 year olds?

If we let kids vote why stop at 16?
 

kav

Distinguished Member
Why is voting special?. Currently 16 years olds are considered not capable of making their own decion as to use a sunbed or buy a knife or enter a pub unsupervised.

So what has suddenly changed that makes them adult enough to cast a vote in General Elections?
So why not 12 year olds? 15 year olds? 8 year olds?

If we let kids vote why stop at 16?
I’m not advocating for giving the vote to 16 year olds. I do think there are arguments in favour of it. Intelligence isn’t one of them.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Which seats?

As we saw with UKIP - they turned a 12.6% share of the vote into 1 seat in 2015.

TBP are currently at what, about 10% share, and falling.
And down to FPTP not support.

From 2015.

The various parties arranged by voter numbers:
Conservatives: 11.3M Votes - 331 seats.
Labour: 9.3M Votes - 232 seats
UKIP: 3.8M Votes - 1 seat
Lib Dem: 2.4M Votes - 8 seats
SNP: 1.5M Votes - 56 seats
Greens: 1.2M Votes - 1 seat
Plaid: 181.7K Votes - 3 seats

Those same results under PR:
Conservative 240
Labour 198
UKIP 83
Liberal Democrat 51
SNP 31
Green 25
Others 6
DUP 4
Sinn Fein 4
Plaid Cymru 4
UUP 3
SDLP 2
Alliance 1
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
I can't possibly believe that anyone thinks Johnson would make a good PM beyond sorting out Brexit.
Believe it. Your problem is your hatred of him clouds your view.

He was elected twice as London mayor. London. And while the Tories were doing bad elsewhere.

Take your blinkers off for a few minutes. He believes in this country. He isn't Corbyn. He's popular and he's doing well in the polls.
For me he's everything that's wrong with politics. A leader of a country he is not.
He actually already is. He's PM unless I've missed something.
 

Liquid101

Distinguished Member
Good for them. Based on my experience of 16/17 yo's including my own kids no way I'd give them a vote. Just not mature enough.
I’ve always felt that there should be kind of youth parliament that has a block of votes that can be applied in relevant circumstances.

16-18 year olds can elect representatives
And down to FPTP not support.

From 2015.

The various parties arranged by voter numbers:
Conservatives: 11.3M Votes - 331 seats.
Labour: 9.3M Votes - 232 seats
UKIP: 3.8M Votes - 1 seat
Lib Dem: 2.4M Votes - 8 seats
SNP: 1.5M Votes - 56 seats
Greens: 1.2M Votes - 1 seat
Plaid: 181.7K Votes - 3 seats

Those same results under PR:
Conservative 240
Labour 198
UKIP 83
Liberal Democrat 51
SNP 31
Green 25
Others 6
DUP 4
Sinn Fein 4
Plaid Cymru 4
UUP 3
SDLP 2
Alliance 1
There’s no doubt that PR would help TBP, but we’d never get a majority government, just a load of coalitions and alliances.

I prefer the AV model, applied at constituency level.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
I’ve always felt that there should be kind of youth parliament that has a block of votes that can be applied in relevant circumstances.

16-18 year olds can elect representatives
Like when remainers need the extra impetus?

It seems to be the current remainer line doesn't it? ''Hmm how on earth can we fiddle the numbers to win?''
 

Liquid101

Distinguished Member
Why is that a bad thing?

There's a lot of choices.

We’ve seen how frustrating and ineffective a minority government has been. We’d end up with this every time.

There’s no doubt our system needs to be reformed, but it needs to be done at the local level.

Like when remainers need the extra impetus?

It seems to be the current remainer line doesn't it? ''Hmm how on earth can we fiddle the numbers to win?''
You have very nearly half the population who want to remain in the EU, so it’s inevitable that they will do anything they can to push this agenda, or force compromise.

If the result had been the other way around, you would expect the leave supporting groups to work together to force reform. The issue of membership of the EU wouldn’t have just disappeared because they lost the vote by a couple of %.
 

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
You have very nearly half the population who want to remain in the EU, so it’s inevitable that they will do anything they can to push this agenda, or force compromise.

If the result had been the other way around, you would expect the leave supporting groups to work together to force reform. The issue of membership of the EU wouldn’t have just disappeared because they lost the vote by a couple of %.
You know what, I can say hand on heart, When I put my cross on the paper, I was already resigned to losing the vote, and I would have accepted it, whatever the split.

losing a vote is losing a vote, simple as that. The BS reasons I have heard in an attempt to overturn it, never cease to amaze me.

It's like the result gives you validity to overturn it.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
We’ve seen how frustrating and ineffective a minority government has been. We’d end up with this every time.
Is the rest of Europe and the EU wrong to use it then?

How about all those disenfranchised as their vote doesn't matter?

If you are in a safe seat it doesn't matter who you vote for. Our elections are decided by the don't knows in marginal constituencies.

Discover how powerful your vote is.

 

Liquid101

Distinguished Member
You know what, I can say hand on heart, When I put my cross on the paper, I was already resigned to losing the vote, and I would have accepted it, whatever the split.

losing a vote is losing a vote, simple as that. The BS reasons I have heard in an attempt to overturn it, never cease to amaze me.

It's like the result gives you validity to overturn it.
It’s easy to say that now.

However, for many, it would not have been over. I believe Farrage himself said that if the vote was close it may need another referendum. I assume he meant that if it was close the other way.

Personally, I accept it. I don’t think remaining g in the EU is an option anymore. However, I do support a type of Brexit that would keep us very close, including Free Movement and Single Market access. Yes, BRINO.

This whole issue has been caused by a lack of clarity of what Brexit is. Even Boris and Farage can’t agree on it. On the flip side, everybody knew what Remain meant. An ongoing and progressively closer relationship.

like it or not - the end game of this is probably not going to suit the narrative that was promised. There will be compromise, and everybody needs to accept it, irrespective of their personal position.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
If everyone knew what Remain meant, an ongoing progressive and closer relationship, why do so many Remainers try to tell me it was the status quo?
 

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
like it or not - the end game of this is probably not going to suit the narrative that was promised. There will be compromise, and everybody needs to accept it, irrespective of their personal position.
Hopefully things will improve if we have a leave parliament, instead of the outgoing shambles we have had to endure for so long.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
If everyone knew what Remain meant, an ongoing progressive and closer relationship, why do so many Remainers try to tell me it was the status quo?
I think status quo meant carry on down the road we are travelling on, rather than standing still.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
Status quo suggest staying the same to me.

Just proves that Remain obviously means different things to different people. There is no one version of Remain:)
 

Iain42

Well-known Member
I want to vote for a party that does not exist (I am not sure yet who comes closest) a party that:

Wants to increase the performance of all schools to equal or even better than that of this country’s elite private schools and not a party who is happy to leave things as they are or a party who want to abolish them

Wants to deliver on the brexit referendum and get us a deal. Not a party who has tried very hard to engineer no deal and not a party who wants to hold another referendum that at best will be the same result or a worst make it 1-1

Has an aspiration to bring everyone up to the same level as the privileged & not a party who want tax cuts which only really benefits those who are already high earners and not a party who want to spend energy in bringing down the privileged / preventing others from becoming privileged - I recall labour saying “if you are privileged we are coming after you” (OMG). Interestingly is an MP who earns 80K a year privileged (I think so but I guess they do not)

Those are the three key things for me.

My current view is that

if I vote labour then the public become much more state controlled and opportunities reduce

if I vote Tory whilst the public still have the potential to achieve privilege but it’s most unlike because the stacked will remain.

tories could drive through a no deal brexit, Labour could drive through a referendum that overturns the last one and makes the result 1-1 which gets us nowhere

It feels so difficult and on top of that you have the personalities of the two party leaders to weigh in with (the personalities are subjective so I’ll leave that one)

I would stress the above is only my view, I’m not saying it’s fact it’s just what I think / believe
IMHO this is a dilemma that we should all face. Show me someone who agrees with everything any one particular political party proposes, and I believe that is someone who cannot think for themselves.

I veer towards the libertarian point of view, but realise that is as impossible as pure communism. However for me government is just too big, kind of like the sacred cow that is the NHS.

I would like to see individual responsibility encouraged far more. I wasn't educated at a fee paying school, but I have absolutely nothing against them. To discuss closing them and bringing everyone into the state sector is removing choice and personal responsibility, and I'm sure would add to the tax burden. Instead I would look at making it easier for parents to afford to send their children to fee paying schools. There must be a tipping point where a tax break for parents who do that, while earning a medium income, can benefit, and removing children from the state sector means that the funds allocated to it go further. To me that's the kind of constructive policy we should be looking for.

I'm sure that there are lots of other instances. Private medical insurance is one. If you make it more affordable, then more people can have it, thus reducing the burden on the NHS. Again, there must be a point where this becomes beneficial to both the country as a whole, and the individual.

A quick google found me the graph below. Now if someone in their fifties, where health care seems to average about £3,000 per year, got part of that back to put towards private health care, wouldn't that mix improve things for everyone by putting more money into health care overall, while also providing more choice?

Instead every party's answer just seems to be to plough money into the NHS without a great deal of thought.

1573300584379.png



Time I brought this monologue to a halt I think.
 

Trending threads

Latest news

Disney+ hits 10 million subscribers after first 24 hours
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sharp unveils 30-inch rollable OLED TV
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
ATC launches C1 Sub Mk2 active subwoofer
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best Home AV Products 2019 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Steve Withers
  • Published
Disney+ unveils Maclunkey cut of Star Wars: A New Hope
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Latest threads

Top Bottom