UK General Election on 5th May - voting intentions?

[Matabiri]

I understand that my vote MAY help us to get a Tory government, but my hope is that it will result in a reduced Labour majority (so that bills such as the tuition fees one will not be passed) and the future progression of the Libdem's share of the vote.

Have you played with the BBC's seat calculator?

It's only a rough guide, true, but putting in reasonable numbers predicts that the Conservaives need to beat Labour by some 6% in the popular vote in order to gain the lead (and that's still a hung parliament). So a pretty huge shift would be required.

 

[Rolfe]

Have you played with the BBC's seat calculator?

If you go to the Scottish section, it's really depressing (at least from my point of view ). Not that I didn't know it already, but even if there was a 10% swing from Labour to the SNP, giving the SNP 30% and Labour 34%, the SNP still only have 9 seats to Labour's 39. Even the Lib-Dems, on 16% of the vote, manage 10 seats!

Even on level pegging as regards votes (well, I can dream!) the SNP is still well behind Labour in seats, and in fact has to draw 3 or 4 per cent ahead before starting to see a majority of actual seats.

It's a basic problem with having support relatively evenly spread around the country, as opposed to being concentrated in "heartlands". The Lib-Dems, paradoxically, suffer from this in England while benefiting from it in Scotland.

Rolfe.

 

[asthmatic camel]

I'm voting Conservative because I can't abide the sight or sound of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Clarke and especially John Prescott. If I thought voting for anyone else would make any difference then I'd probably vote for them. But it wouldn't, so I won't.

There are other reasons, but you'll hear them far too often in the next few weeks, so I'll spare you.

 

[Darat]

If you go to the Scottish section, it's really depressing (at least from my point of view ). Not that I didn't know it already, but even if there was a 10% swing from Labour to the SNP, giving the SNP 30% and Labour 34%, the SNP still only have 9 seats to Labour's 39. Even the Lib-Dems, on 16% of the vote, manage 10 seats!

Even on level pegging as regards votes (well, I can dream!) the SNP is still well behind Labour in seats, and in fact has to draw 3 or 4 per cent ahead before starting to see a majority of actual seats.

It's a basic problem with having support relatively evenly spread around the country, as opposed to being concentrated in "heartlands". The Lib-Dems, paradoxically, suffer from this in England while benefiting from it in Scotland.

Rolfe.

Just for you Rolfe, from Private Eye:

(And they also have a piece this week claiming the debate isn’t over regarding a link between the MMR vaccine and autism!)

 

[Rolfe]

There's only one problem with that. The Herald is the Glasgow newspaper. Those in Edinburgh favour the Hootsmon. Private Eye screw up again, what a surprise.

And before anyone else mentions it first, not having a great day, here.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

And before anyone else mentions it first, not having a great day, here.

Rolfe.

Do you think that is because the SNP was so deeply identified with independence and since devolution they have failed (to the general public) in establishing themselves as a party with a wider remit?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Since I had extreme issues with the earlier poll on this subject (and if had the wrong date anyway), I thought I'd start one of my own.

I've tried to include all parties which will be represented in a significant number of seats (thanks, Geni, for the list), apologies if I've omited anyone's favoured choice.

Rolfe.

You forgot the no voting option. I won't be voting although I hope Labour win. I don't want to vote for my local labour MP. She's both stupid and obnoxious.

I want Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. I've been a fan of his since 1995 after I saw him on a TV interview and concluded that he was both highly intelligent and also left wing (I'm "left wing" too). And he's helped out poor people a fair bit. The rich are richer than they've ever been of course, but he had his hands tied what with Blair, and Blair not wishing to upset the tabloids and rich people

 

[Interesting Ian]

Remember the Conservatives? The party that gave us people dying in corridors, people waiting 18 hours for emergency treatment, highest unemployment ever, highest interest rates and highest inflation rates in decades, parents copying pages from their kids books on the office photocopier because the schools couldn’t afford books? [/B]

I believe the inflation rate hit about 28% in 1975 under a Labour Government. Under Thatcher inflation got up to about 22%, but that was near the beginning of her administration.

 

[mummymonkey]

Do you think that is because the SNP was so deeply identified with independence and since devolution they have failed (to the general public) in establishing themselves as a party with a wider remit?

Maybe. It was always on the cards that the establishment of the expensive toon cooncil in Edinburgh would soften the Nats vote. May have been worth all that money after all.

 

[Darat]

I believe the inflation rate hit about 28% in 1975 under a Labour Government. Under Thatcher inflation got up to about 22%, but that was near the beginning of her administration.

Yep I was wrong when I said that (in the way I meant it at the time) - there's a discussion between JB and me about it. A couple of graphs have been posted as well with the historic inflation rates.

 

[Interesting Ian]

As Labour continue to tax and waste the situation will only get worse. Labour's punishment of those who are prepared to save, work and be self-sufficient and championing of those who lie on their fat pasty arses buying Tennets Super and Lambert and Butler with money other people worked for while reproducing like mad ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rabbits and getting deeper in debt than previously thought possible is going to catch up with us one day.

/rant. [/B]

Well there's nothing wrong with people lying on their fat pasty @rses and getting drunk and smoking. Providing they are not doing other people are harm, then that's just fine. Why object? Why shouldn't they do that?? Even if they are unemployed then that's absolutely fine. One can scarcely object to the amount of money they get afterall * It is rich people who are of concern because they get a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth than they intrinsically deserve.

Labour have punished the middle classes, but that because they're not allowed (by the tabloids etc ) to tax rich people more {shrugs}. Absolutely absurd and deplorable beyond belief

BTW the Labout government do not champion the unemployed. Poor people have been helped under Labour, but that excludes the unemployed.

*(of course if they are engaging in criminal activity then that's a completely different story)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Michael Howard

Aye, the man who thought the Poll Tax was a good idea.

What was wrong with the poll tax?? I opposed it, but only because it had the net effect of making rich people richer and poorer people poorer. But I wasn't opposed to it in principle.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Michael Howard

What was wrong with the poll tax?? I opposed it, but only because it had the net effect of making rich people richer and poorer people poorer. But I wasn't opposed to it in principle.

Two things.

First, if it was set at a level which poor people could actually pay, then it would cost more to administer than it received in revenue. If it was set at a level which would generate enough revenue, then poor people would be bankrupted. That is simply senseless.

Second, it required unprecedented keeping of tabs on where everybody lived. Every time anyone moved across a parish boundary something changed, and as some young people are very mobile they could be three or four moves ahead of the system. This was both unnecessarily heavy on resources, and an invasion of privacy.

Rolfe.

 

[richardm]

Re: Re: Re: Michael Howard

What was wrong with the poll tax?? I opposed it, but only because it had the net effect of making rich people richer and poorer people poorer. But I wasn't opposed to it in principle.

All the costs of running the councils were spread evenly across all taxpayers, irrespective of their ability to pay. Inherently unfair and yes, inevitably going to make rich people richer and poor people poorer.

The only good thing about it was that it brought Thatcher's career crashing down around her ears.

Edited for grammar.

Edited again to add: Plus, they implemented it in Scotland the year before they tried it anywhere else. This was a brilliant political move that has ensured the continuing success of the Tory party North of the Border.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: UK General Election on 5th May - voting intentions?

You forgot the no voting option.

Sorry, that was what Planet X was for, though it may have been subverted to "not a Brit but want to see the poll anyway".

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe. It was always on the cards that the establishment of the expensive toon cooncil in Edinburgh would soften the Nats vote. May have been worth all that money after all.

You might be quite close with that, though obviously I wouldn't have put it that way. Labour set up the parliament, and seem to have been doing their damnedest to make it boring, expensive and irrelevant. This in turn reflects on the SNP who are associated in the voters' minds with the parliament, even though what we've got bears little resemblance to what the SNP would like to see in a parliament.

It's relatively early days in a relatively long haul though. It would be interesting to see what might happen if we have a Tory government in Westminster with Labour in charge of Holyrood.

By the way, care to explain why you're so anti-SNP?

Rolfe.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm voting Conservative because I can't abide the sight or sound of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Clarke and especially John Prescott. If I thought voting for anyone else would make any difference then I'd probably vote for them. But it wouldn't, so I won't.

There are other reasons, but you'll hear them far too often in the next few weeks, so I'll spare you.

But Gordon Brown is incredibly intelligent. I also like John Prescott, although that doesn't mean to say he's a good politician.

 

[Darat]

Well there's nothing wrong with people lying on their fat pasty @rses and getting drunk and smoking. Providing they are not doing other people are harm, then that's just fine. Why object?

No objection as long as they aren't taking money from the state to do that.

Why shouldn't they do that?? Even if they are unemployed then that's absolutely fine. One can scarcely object to the amount of money they get afterall *

...snip...

BTW the Labout government do not champion the unemployed. Poor people have been helped under Labour, but that excludes the unemployed.

*(of course if they are engaging in criminal activity then that's a completely different story)

And of course it’s fine if they are unemployed however long-term they should not receive money for doing nothing. I propose a new way to deal with unemployed people (who are capable of work). First 6 months full benefits (e.g. the cash and the benefits). After 6 months the cash is reduced (and direct payments are then made for the essentials, housing, heating, water and food is provided) and to receive any of those benefits they must work for them, not a full working week of course because they need to be able to find a job but say put it at 2 or 3 hours a day or around 15 hours a week, the work can be work in the community.

What this would introduce is a much more equitable system, society is providing the safety net and the person can still feel a valuable member of society because they are still able to contribute to making it a good, fair society.

What is wrong is having a system of unemployment benefits (and income support) that allows those who just do not want to support themselves to do so at the expense of the rest of society.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Howard

Two things.

First, if it was set at a level which poor people could actually pay, then it would cost more to administer than it received in revenue. If it was set at a level which would generate enough revenue, then poor people would be bankrupted. That is simply senseless.

Second, it required unprecedented keeping of tabs on where everybody lived. Every time anyone moved across a parish boundary something changed, and as some young people are very mobile they could be three or four moves ahead of the system. This was both unnecessarily heavy on resources, and an invasion of privacy.

Rolfe.

Ah yes, but that's the practical administration rather than "in principle". At the time it was introduced I remember arguing it was silly to charge the unemployed the poll tax because it cost more to collect it than the amount they paid. But people were saying, 'why shouldn't the unemployed pay it. Why should they get away without paying it'? I said "look, I've already explained! I mean what is the point?? All it does is just p*ss everyone off and both local government and the unemployed are *both* out of pocket! If you think the unemployed should have less money then argue for reducing their benefits' (being complete scumbags as well as being thick as f*ck, they were actually in favour of that too).

I just can't believe how stupid people are, whether it is talking about politics, or about the paranormal, or whatever. At least some people on here are not so stupid about politics even if they are on the subject of the paranormal.

 

[richardm]

Unfortunately there are plenty of people around who think that people are unemployed because they don't want to work. You can usually identify them because they have a copy of the Daily Mail under their arm By that reckoning, of course, it makes sense to complain that they're "getting away with" not paying the full rate of the tax.

Your mates were taking that attitude around '87-88 I assume, when the unemployment rate was running at about 10% (vs. about 3% now), so that makes the "Idle buggers" argument even more risible.