General Election 2017

[Lush]

Interesting online poll here, which tells you how people who use the internet are voting

https://ge2017.gritdigital.co.uk/#2017-opinion-poll

 

[happypig]

LibDem for me as it's the best way to get rid of the Conservative (majority of 733).

 

[beorhthelm]

Interesting online poll here, which tells you how people who use the internet are voting

i think it tells voting prefernces of people that use that page and have a facebook account.

 

[jakarta]

Interesting online poll here, which tells you how people who use the internet are voting

https://ge2017.gritdigital.co.uk/#2017-opinion-poll

Utterly hilarious - apparently no Tory seats - don't know about people who use the internet, more like people who use powerful mind altering drugs....

 

[GT49er]

Utterly hilarious - apparently no Tory seats - don't know about people who use the internet, more like people who use powerful mind altering drugs....

Truly hilarious indeed. Although it has to be said the Tories are playing with fire - taking the value of the house into account for social care costs will lose them thousands of votes, and their stance on fox hunting has alienated many traditionally non-Tory voters who were considering voting for them in order to preserve Brexit.

 

[ManOfSussex]

LibDem for me as it's the best way to get rid of the Conservative (majority of 733).

There's a good chance in Eastbourne. I'd noticed how Huw Merriman (Prospective Conservative & Unionist Party Parliamentary Candidate for Bexhill & Battle and sitting MP) seems to far more active in Eastbourne and Hastings helping Ms Ansell & Ms Rudd than he is in his constituency.

[tweet]862041695533359104[/tweet]

[tweet]865569090580230144[/tweet]

Couldn't get wet in Hastings last week though, but a lovely bloke and a real man of the people - he used to work for Lehman Brothers and was going to carry on working for the liquidators for a 6 figure salary once elected, until his constituency association chairman resigned in protest 2 years ago over it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Truly hilarious indeed. Although it has to be said the Tories are playing with fire - taking the value of the house into account for social care costs will lose them thousands of votes, and their stance on fox hunting has alienated many traditionally non-Tory voters who were considering voting for them in order to preserve Brexit.

fox hunting is a non issue for anyone outside the extreme ends of pro-tory and anti-tory. the social care issue is complex and as some commentators say, feels rushed. however, people would likley sell up their home in to pay for care anyway, this gives them a assurance of some assets left aftwards, i wonder how big a negative it will seem. depends if the Conservatives come out to sell the policy or just try to deflect on to other areas. its not a great policy, but its sellable with the right argument/spin.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Where was that mentioned in the Conservative manifesto incidentally?

Page 35. "In her Lancaster House Speech, the Prime Minister laid out the twelve principles she intends to follow...."

Lancaster House Speech

2. Control of our own laws

That means taking control of our own affairs, as those who voted in their millions to leave the European Union demanded we must.

So we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.

Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country.

Because we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws.

5. Control of immigration

And that is why we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.

We will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain – indeed openness to international talent must remain one of this country’s most distinctive assets – but that process must be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest.

So we will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

 

[beardy gull]

Picked Hove & Portslade after applying to 15(?) other constituencies, won't reveal how she voted on Brexit, claims she cured deafness through prayer, and......

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstr...ked-to-a-gay-cure-church?utm_term=.lfVDy5eowd

I'd be voting Peter Kyle anyway but jeez.....

 

[Bold Seagull]

Michael Gove gets his numbers hopelessly wrong, but no thread, no main media news items?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/michael-gove-numbers-hopelessly-wrong/

Deserves its own thread.

Seems a prominent member of the party to get fundamental sums wrong, and follows similar mistakes by Hammond and Rudd. No media hysteria on any of these, and these people ARE actually running the country.

 

[Husty]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/michael-gove-numbers-hopelessly-wrong/

Deserves its own thread.

Seems a prominent member of the party to get fundamental sums wrong, and follows similar mistakes by Hammond and Rudd. No media hysteria on any of these, and these people ARE actually running the country.

Gove isn't any kind of minister, Diane Abbott is shadow home secretary...

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Peter Kyle for me for Hove and Portslade.

Regardless of Jeremy Corbyn, I like Kyle, he's worked hard for his constituency and there are more of his pledges locally that I agree with than the other candidates.

This election isn't about who will be PM, Theresa May will be our Prime Minister still on June 9th, however this election is the message we send to the kind of government we want her to form, and for me I'd rather she didn't extend her majority and requires political consensus resulting in more balanced policies.

I can understand someone voting for a good constituency MP but the rest or your reasoning doesn't make any sense. If she wins big, which is likely, she has already extended her majority and gained a clear mandate. Why would she listen to and seek consensus with a party and Leader that had just been roundly rejected?

In reality this election probably isn't about who will be PM but it is partially about who leads the Labour Party and which political direction they should travel in. Has it dawned on the Labour voters holding their noses while voting for JC that they could be making it more likely he and his associates retain control of the Party .. I wonder. There's a reasonable argument that if you want Labour to head back towards the centre ground (Government) you should place your vote elsewhere or abstain. Better to put up with one term of Tory Government but weaken/remove Corbyn rather than risk keeping him in place and losing 2 or 3 ..

 

[Bold Seagull]

Gove isn't any kind of minister, Diane Abbott is shadow home secretary...

The same excuse for the Chancellor of the Exchequer - he's meant to be good with numbers right?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-hs2-cost-wrong-20bn-radio-interview-highspeed-railway-4-today-programme-election-2017-a7742006.html

 

[Bold Seagull]

I can understand someone voting for a good constituency MP but the rest or your reasoning doesn't make any sense. If she wins big, which is likely, she has already extended her majority and gained a clear mandate. Why would she listen to and seek consensus with a party and Leader that had just been roundly rejected?

In reality this election probably isn't about who will be PM but it is partially about who leads the Labour Party and which political direction they should travel in. Has it dawned on the Labour voters holding their noses while voting for JC that they could be making it more likely he and his associates retain control of the Party .. I wonder. There's a reasonable argument that if you want Labour to head back towards the centre ground (Government) you should place your vote elsewhere or abstain. Better to put up with one term of Tory Government but weaken/remove Corbyn rather than risk keeping him in place and losing 2 or 3 ..

No, that is my point, if she wins a large majority, then she can do what she wants effectively, and say 35%- 40% of the voting public get what they want, the rest don't. IF she doesn't get a large or larger majority, then the government will need votes from the rest of the house to get policies through, and therefore, things like Grammar Schools may not get through.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

No, that is my point, if she wins a large majority, then she can do what she wants effectively, and say 35%- 40% of the voting public get what they want, the rest don't. IF she doesn't get a large or larger majority, then the government will need votes from the rest of the house to get policies through, and therefore, things like Grammar Schools may not get through.

Ah I see. When you made the point that the election isn't about who should be PM conceding it is already lost, I assumed your realism extended to the likely increased big majority. If we had a decent opposition your scenario may have been likely but we don't so ..

 

[TSB]

Labour. Don't want to but Kyle seems ok and the tory Godsquad lunatic wouldn't be.

 

[GT49er]

Fox hunting is a non issue for anyone outside the extreme ends of pro-tory and anti-tory.

I usually agree with a lot of what you say - but you've got that one spectacularly wrong. It's nothing about being pro- or anti-Tory; it's all about being pro-fox hunting or against it - and there are huge numbers out there for whom the issue of fox-hunting, and animal cruelty generally (of which fox-hunting is considered one of the worst) transcends all other issues.
Just look at the huge swathes of the population who have made a radical life-style change over the last 30 or 40 years or so to become vegetarian or vegan. That's a lot of people, of all political persuasions, who aren't likely to be much in favour of fox-hunting. I wouldn't be surprised nowadays if vegetarians outnumber LibDem voters!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

In reality this election probably isn't about who will be PM but it is partially about who leads the Labour Party and which political direction they should travel in. Has it dawned on the Labour voters holding their noses while voting for JC that they could be making it more likely he and his associates retain control of the Party .. I wonder. There's a reasonable argument that if you want Labour to head back towards the centre ground (Government) you should place your vote elsewhere or abstain. Better to put up with one term of Tory Government but weaken/remove Corbyn rather than risk keeping him in place and losing 2 or 3 ..

This is spot on. Bizarrely, the Tories scoring an own goal with their social policies in the past few days, may whilst reducing the size of their expected majority, actually make winning the election after more likely. Corbyn and his supporters will see anything other than a landslide as a vindication for their hard left policies and he will remain leader, thus ensuring labour remains in the political wilderness.

 

[severnside gull]

Tories don't make mistakes. And when they do they don't get reported.
Its called a "free press" and unlike TV it doesn't have to be balanced.
Its the sun wot wins elections which is why I've given up buying newspapers.

 

[The Large One]

Gove isn't any kind of minister, Diane Abbott is shadow home secretary...

So nor is Diane Abbott.