General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%

  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%

  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%

  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%
  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
Dobba said:
Just to remind people that Labour members were kicked out of the party, during the last leadership election, for saying things such as Labour should adopt some Green Party policies.
Click to expand...

Meh. Paul Mason said the same thing the other day. Suggesting people vote tactically is something that crops up every election.
 
PedroMendez said:
During the next election the Torries will be in negotiations with their Europe counterparts. Regardless of how people stand to brexit, most voters support their side once they perceive that there is a conflict with foreign nations. The “support us or you hurt the outcome of the negotiations” argument will be implicit and it will work wonders. It always does. It will be very hard for Labour to oppose the Torries on anything that relates to Brexit and Brexit will be the dominating topic. So even if Labour would be strong, it would be a very difficult election. Considering the state of Labour and these circumstances, anything but a historically bad result would be a positive surprise.
Click to expand...

This does seem to be the case in all the discussions ive had to date. People have fatigue, have accepted brexit and buy in to her needing added power to get the best deal.

I don't think people care about any other issue which is terrible news for Labour. Brexit and tory rule will probably leave the country in a state ready for Labour to pick up next time around maybe.
 
What is the logic behind UKIP votes now? They've done the whole get us out of Europe thing and their leader is a complete pleb.
 
RedSky said:
I don't understand the hatred people have for Corbyn. I'm not voting Labour but that's only because it's a Tory v Lib Dem battle over here.

Is it simply because he's not New Labour?
Click to expand...

Well it started out as that as he wasn't supposed to win, so there was conflict from the off which escalated with momentums power.
He's done no worse than Ed and neither are his policies but you can't be attacked so often without then having such a tarnished image and soundbites are all the majority remember. Even most here criticise him coincidentally using the same soundbites.

Cooper was probably the best option the party had in hindsight but even she wouldn't have carried Labour to a win. Less conflict definetely.
 
Tarrou said:
What is the logic behind UKIP votes now? They've done the whole get us out of Europe thing and their leader is a complete pleb.
Click to expand...
I've been saying they need to rebrand, even try and be the pragmatic bunch, hoover up some of the center and some populist policies. Shame it's in disarray and won't happen though.
 
Tarrou said:
What is the logic behind UKIP votes now? They've done the whole get us out of Europe thing and their leader is a complete pleb.
Click to expand...

I think we can take a good guess. I imagine all the UKIP voters also follow Britain First.

Should just ban them all, vile people.
 
Ubik said:
They're full on going for the Labour leave vote in the north by the looks of it, particularly when they couple it with saying they wont stand against "solid Brexiteers" (Tories, probably Hoey).
Click to expand...
They are never going to get the inner city seats. What they might do is feck over enough centrist tories to put in a pickle their life time goal of a solid brexit. Geniuses the whole lot of them.
 
So the Tories have succeeded in perpetuating the myth that a country can't run on a deficit. It is healthy to spend.
 
Member 5225 said:
Actually that's fair. I was thinking safe in terms of what is expected this election.
umm errr umm not totally against that link....:nervous:
Click to expand...

Don't feel embarrassed for holding an opinion. It's probably not an unpopular one to be fair.
 
AshfordLad said:
We all know about @Stanley Road.
His red cover's been blown long back. :D
Click to expand...
When people walk through my front door they are greeted by a huge picture of Woody Guthrie, a man so left wing he was horizontal.

On his guitar is written 'this machine kills fascists'.

The only thing me and farage have in common is beer and smokes.
 
Smores said:
I don't think people care about any other issue which is terrible news for Labour. Brexit and tory rule will probably leave the country in a state ready for Labour to pick up next time around maybe.
Click to expand...

Mad Max: Fury Road was very popular to be fair.
 
Interesting article about polling (if such a thing can exist)

ARE POLLSTERS READY FOR THE ELECTION?

The snap election means that polling innovations introduced after 2015’s general election are being put to the test sooner than expected. By Anthony Wells
Click to expand...

Includes a very short synopsis of why the polls were out in 2015

The British Polling Council’s inquiry into what went wrong with the polls in 2015 concluded it was down to poor samples and most polling companies seem to agree. The ever increasing difficulty of getting people to participate in surveys meant those who did were increasingly unrepresentative, being too engaged, too educated, and too interested in politics. These issues were not being adequately corrected in the pre-2015 weighting schemes.

The effect of all of this was to skew things towards Labour. For example, the sort of young people who took part in polls went out and voted for Labour, but the sort of young people polling companies couldn’t reach ended up staying at home and not voting.
Click to expand...

https://www.research-live.com/article/opinion/are-pollsters-ready-for-the-election/id/5021472
 
So, in this morning's round of interviews, in his rush to castigate corbyn for his attitude of not wanting to turn the world into a nuclear wasteland, Fallon said he would use Trident as a first strike weapon.

This violates the nuclear proliferation treaty, UN and NATO laws and puts us on a level of Kim Jong Il.

I will await the media eviscerating him for the idiocy, because I am told it is in no way biased.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
So, in this morning's round of interviews, in his rush to castigate corbyn for his attitude of not wanting to turn the world into a nuclear wasteland, Fallon said he would use Trident as a first strike weapon.

This violates the nuclear proliferation treaty, UN and NATO laws and puts us on a level of Kim Jong Il.

I will await the media eviscerating him for the idiocy, because I am told it is in no way biased.
Click to expand...

Suits the Tories fine, its a major weak spot for Corbyn & they'll want it dominating the headlines as long as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a planned move, strikes me as classic Crosby. If we have a week of long, handwringing Guardian articles and short nasty Daily Mail pieces articulating both sides of the issue, that keeps the focus exactly where they want it to be. It may backfire on the Tories of course, but I suspect most people don't appreciate the difference between a first & a retaliatory strike anyway, so the Tories just get lots of quotes of Corbyn saying "I would never use Trident" that they can spin. The Tories love to fight dirty.

For Labour's part, their failure to lock down the Trident issue is baffling. Everyone knows its a vote killer, so Corbyn's team needed to get it right from the off. Even if they campaigned on dismantling it, at least that a strong and clear position. Corbyn's non-answer on Marr means the position of the leader not supporting it despite it being party policy continues. That not only makes him look weak & the party look divided, but it allows both his pro- and anti-nuclear opponents to paint him as they want to.
 
Unmutual said:
Suits the Tories fine, its a major weak spot for Corbyn & they'll want it dominating the headlines as long as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a planned move, strikes me as classic Crosby. If we have a week of long, handwringing Guardian articles and short nasty Daily Mail pieces articulating both sides of the issue, that keeps the focus exactly where they want it to be. It may backfire on the Tories of course, but I suspect most people don't appreciate the difference between a first & a retaliatory strike anyway, so the Tories just get lots of quotes of Corbyn saying "I would never use Trident" that they can spin. The Tories love to fight dirty.

For Labour's part, their failure to lock down the Trident issue is baffling. Everyone knows its a vote killer, so Corbyn's team needed to get it right from the off. Even if they campaigned on dismantling it, at least that a strong and clear position. Corbyn's non-answer on Marr means the position of the leader not supporting it despite it being party policy continues. That not only makes him look weak & the party look divided, but it allows both his pro- and anti-nuclear opponents to paint him as they want to.
Click to expand...

UK Labour have a pro-trident policy with an anti-trident leader, while Scottish Labour have an anti-trident position with a pro-trident leader. Utterly baffling.
 
Cheesy said:
Paul Nuttall should know the dangers of fascism considering his brave fight on the front-line during World War II.
Click to expand...
He learned nothing from Stalingrad either.
 
Poor bloke's done enough fighting after beating Sonny Liston twice.
 
Feck, Tories have got Jim Messina working for them again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.