General Election 2017

[Deleted member 22389]

Mmmmm ..



.. if only we had huge oil reserves to squander!

That's worrying.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

One thing I'm royally pissed off about is where the hell is Kristy Adams, I've not seen sight or sound from her or the local party, she doesn't deserve my vote!

Lucky you. I've had something from her or May every day for the past two weeks. My recycling bin is now nearly full. All I'm missing is her invite to some bible bashing faith healing loon fest.

 

[Tarpon]

YouGov consistently shows Labour support in the most positive light. Which is probably why so many lefties on here keep highlighting their findings. Possible reasons for this pro Labour showing include the usual over-representation of Labour voters in samples .. or a sophisticated new modelling that is pretty accurate .. or Russia hacking/interference.

They will either be proved right in a weeks time or yet another round of pollster soul searching will be needed. (Option 2)

A chap on Newsnight said that although different pollsters use quite varied methodologies there is only usually a 3% spread in their predictions. He went on to say that the current 10% + spread was partly because YouGov have assumed an 80% turn out of voters aged 24 or under who are predominantly Labour while other pollsters have assumed 40%. I struggle to see such a high youth vote turn out myself.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

One thing I'm royally pissed off about is where the hell is Kristy Adams, I've not seen sight or sound from her or the local party, she doesn't deserve my vote!

Due to the NHS crisis caused by her party, she has been busy at her surgery, healing people with her 'special' powers. Its a miracle.........

 

[Guinness Boy]

Due to the NHS crisis caused by her party, she has been busy at her surgery, healing people with her 'special' powers. Its a miracle.........

Don't tell May! That sounds like something you don't need to fund centrally and could even charge the gullible for. You could change the name to National Healing Sermon without updating the signs or letter heads. You could spend the savings on bringing back fox hunting and covering Paul Dacre's tax gap. It's perfect. Step aside Jeremy C*** here comes Kristy Adama.

 

[Ernest]

One thing I'm royally pissed off about is where the hell is Kristy Adams, I've not seen sight or sound from her or the local party, she doesn't deserve my vote!

Because you don't live in her constituency

#fool

 

[The Birdman]

 

[The Clamp]

Quite astonishing.
Try and read again what I wrote you wally. Its basic English. My areas of support are not predictions. They are what I voted for, not predictions.
I am not surprised though you avoided answering a very easy question. You will avoid it again when you reply to this post. You are very predictable.
Do you understand the meaning of the word backtrack? Clearly not.

We had kids like you at school. They'd sit at the back of class, staring out of the window, twanging their ruler on the desk. Not listening to anything the teacher had to say.

You did not vote for those things because we didn't know then and don't know now if we will get them or in what form they will be. You didn't vote for them. You couldn't have.

I'm not sure what question you are asking? I didn't vote to leave. I didn't know then what a leave vote meant and I still don't. Nobody does.

It's really not hard to understand . You, along with 52% of voters had no clue as to what they were voting for.

Don't bother with a retort until you've sat and thought about it for a while rather than your usual knee jerk morning round up of insulting people you imagine disagree with you.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Has anyone saved the old NSC Opinion Polls??

 

[Gwylan]

He went on to say that the current 10% + spread was partly because YouGov have assumed an 80% turn out of voters aged 24 or under who are predominantly Labour while other pollsters have assumed 40%. I struggle to see such a high youth vote turn out myself.

That's not quite it. YouGov does have higher voting figures for 18-24s but it's because it takes voters at their word. So, if a 23-year-old says he's going to vote, YouGov takes that vote into account. Other pollsters don't take voters at their word and estimate according to previous elections: so only take into account 60% of young people's votes.

However, the poll that estimated a hung parliament used a completely different methodology, one that YouGov hadn't used before. It's called MRP and hasn't been used before in UK elections. YouGov pollsters are either going to be seen as geniuses or complete idiots on this (although at least one rival polling company say that YouGov's method is the future but may need to be refined.

I don't know why some people get the idea that YouGov is pro Labour (something I've seen mentioned a couple of times): the two founders are a Tory MP and a former Tory candidate, while the chairman worked for Saatchi & Saatchi and McKinsey and has been a Conservative party adviser. There's no Labour bias there

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Funny. This is how my work station at Tubthumper Towers is set up most days.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Foreign investment is a small part of the big picture, the sums simply do not add up, it will not raise 19.4 billion, its snake oil. We dont need to be in line with failed socialist France or on par with the leading economy in Europe, Germany. We need to ensure that the maximum amount of tax revenue is raised in this country that also protects and considers a much wider picture and its effect. Setting corporation tax at 7p higher will not deliver 19.4 billion, independent economists suggest it could actually lose 8 billion per annum, the figure is derived from a simple economic principle that for every 1p tax raise it equates to just under approx 3 billion, except that simplistic equation, assumes everything else to remain equal, same national growth, same amount of new business, same employment rates, same foreign investment, same business investment. What will actually happen when businesses lose 7pc of their profit?
Many on struggling to survive will cease, those that can will move the business to Ireland, giving an extra 7% of nothing with resultant job losses. many other businesses here will not go forward with investment or take on new staff, many others will be forced to lay off staff. It will cause less employment and higher unemployment, those are all facts. You cant set an economic policy based on ideology, it has to make good economic sense.
The figures on that tree and in the Labour manifesto are 100% illusory, the taking of this action will do untold damage to an economy already heavily in debt and with a structual deficit. Who doesnt want a better NHS etc, everyone does, but any plans for social justice can only be realised, and more importantly paid for by getting the economics bit right, this corporation tax policy is a complete red herring and a lie and it will do untold damage to the country and its end results will be less money in the treasury than today.

I am not a business owner, or wealthy nor do I earn over 80k, but this policy is rubbish, resulting in the Labour governments programme being paid for with debt and for which we will again be asked somewhere down the road to pick up the pieces and suffer the consequences of austerity. Nothing in life is free. I actually think something more sinister is going on as it has under many previous Labour administrations, its not for many and not the few..........its simply hammer the wealth generators, raise taxes, increase the civil service, give power back to union barons, increase immigration...... in fact do anything, however damaging, if it will help the Labour party, keep as many people enslaved and dependent on the Labour party as possible. Put Labour in charge of social justice programme by all means, but they should never be allowed near the economy, they dont make sound economic decisions they make ideological ones that cause irreparable damage and everyone suffers long term because of it.

Okay, I accept your opinion on all that, but why reduce corporation tax with the debt where it is and still running a deficit? Why make such severe cuts to our services, but still cut corporation tax further? What message is that sending? David Davis last said we should be proud and positive of what Britain can achieve after Brexit, but are we that concerned, or lacking in confidence that we will loose investment if we don't have a bargain basement level of Corporation Tax? The wealth generators generate wealth because of our hard working society. No point being a multimillionaire if there is no one to clean and fix your car, maintain your home, empty your bins. Wealth is worthless without everyone else and it is only created through everyone else.

It is a real lack of confidence of our economy that you can argue that the only attraction to business in this country is to have a corporation tax lower than everyone else. The loss projections you speak of are based on lost investment. Labour are not talking about raising it to unprecedented levels, to higher levels than other countries, or even higher than we had it 5 years or so ago, this is about edging it up to levels that still keep us behind US, France, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Italy, Canada. I think it is a falsehood, a project fear scenario that we suddenly lose revenue and businesses start to falter because we edge up corporation tax.

If you really want to talk about sinister, just take a look at the electoral commissions data on party donations and where they are coming from in terms of the political argument for reducing coporation tax.

 

[Eeyore]

View attachment 85956

Most of those aren't true though, are they ?

Just to fill in. When Corbyn was younger he was helping disadvataged kids in Jamaica. Not smashing windows with the Bullingdon Club.

Oh, and costings thing. The only figures in the Tory manifesto are the page numbers. Stones/glasshouses.

 

[pastafarian]

We had kids like you at school. They'd sit at the back of class, staring out of the window, twanging their ruler on the desk. Not listening to anything the teacher had to say.

You did not vote for those things because we didn't know then and don't know now if we will get them or in what form they will be. You didn't vote for them. You couldn't have.

I'm not sure what question you are asking? I didn't vote to leave. I didn't know then what a leave vote meant and I still don't. Nobody does.

It's really not hard to understand . You, along with 52% of voters had no clue as to what they were voting for.

Don't bother with a retort until you've sat and thought about it for a while rather than your usual knee jerk morning round up of insulting people you imagine disagree with you.

As i predicted you still avoided the question.You will avoid it again in your next response even though it was set out in easy to read English. You are too predictable
Its interesting isnt it , Jeremy Corbyn if elected, along with the same thinking as May and UKIP will end free movement and leave being members of the single market.

He, along with May knew this is what was voted for, they will represent the vast majority of voters and population. Its interesting to see you say they are all clueless and lying over what was voted for.

Your minority viewpoint is a shrinking minority view.

 

[pastafarian]

Don't tell May! That sounds like something you don't need to fund centrally and could even charge the gullible for. You could change the name to National Healing Sermon without updating the signs or letter heads. You could spend the savings on bringing back fox hunting and covering Paul Dacre's tax gap. It's perfect. Step aside Jeremy C*** here comes Kristy Adama.

Here is the thing, and you are sensible enough to understand this.
Im no fan of religion but…………….
When it comes to political debate in this country we don’t do abortion and we don’t do the religious beliefs of candidates. We do after all have freedom to practice your preferred religion.
If Labour really want to attack a Tory Christian on her religion(yes its potty) and open this can of worms for future barracking then be prepared for a whole avalanche of unwanted crud coming the way of the voter full blast in the face.

Shall we start it off. Lets criticise muslim candidates as well just to be equal . Personal prayers (du'a) will lead to purification and the healing mercy of Allah. You can transfer this healing power through prayer onto someone who is ill.
Bloody mentaltons same as the evangelists.

Lets harang them all Christians and muslims and let them know their religious beliefs are mental…………all together now, lets chant and sing…………………………………………………………………………………..hello……hello…….where did everyone go?.......come back comrades……….why are you hiding?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Here is the thing, and you are sensible enough to understand this.
Im no fan of religion but…………….
When it comes to political debate in this country we don’t do abortion and we don’t do the religious beliefs of candidates. We do after all have freedom to practice your preferred religion.
If Labour really want to attack a Tory Christian on her religion(yes its potty) and open this can of worms for future barracking then be prepared for a whole avalanche of unwanted crud coming the way of the voter full blast in the face.

I've cut your quote down to the bit I'm responding to, since the rest followed on.

The "don't do their religion" comment is patently untrue. Here's an article on Sadiq Khan by Toby Young doing just that

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/...tention-to-sadiq-khans-links-with-extremists/

In fact the London Mayoral election seemed to bring up religion every five minutes. If you read the article you'll see Young trying to defend Goldsmith's attacks on Khan's "extremism" and some equally unpleasant stuff from Owen Jones.

If Kahn's involvement with the MCB is fair game then so is Adams' involvement with a a group of people who think you can get better by praying to an enormous sky fairy.

The fact that someone called "pastafarian" hasn't grasped that my post was satirising faith healers is incredible. I'll be dining at the top table at the Irony club dinner tonight.

 

[beorhthelm]

Okay, I accept your opinion on all that, but why reduce corporation tax with the debt where it is and still running a deficit? Why make such severe cuts to our services, but still cut corporation tax further? What message is that sending?

the message is "come in and set up business here". businesses directly pay business rates and use local services, indirectly contribute to taxes through jobs. companies only pay tax on profits (say 5-10% of turnover if doing well) and if you make it attractive enough not only will they setup offices in your country they volunteer to pay tax there too (international accountancy holds you only pay tax once). so while it doesn't play well for those that dont like the idea of profit at all, in fact it grows the economy and increases tax revenues directly and indirectly. personally, i dont think it attracts that much investment, especially overseas that will direct profit elsewhere anyway, but economist think otherwise and have models to prove it. why stop at 17% and not go to 15 or 10%? probably a sweet spot on the curve optimising revenue and rate. given the total take from corp tax is ~45bn, its not the tax we need to be looking at to drive up revenue.

interesting item i read this week, when asked some 70% people support higher income tax rate even when told the revenue would be lower. seems we do like to take more from those perceived to have more even if its not rational to do so.

 

[Tarpon]

That's not quite it. YouGov does have higher voting figures for 18-24s but it's because it takes voters at their word. So, if a 23-year-old says he's going to vote, YouGov takes that vote into account. Other pollsters don't take voters at their word and estimate according to previous elections: so only take into account 60% of young people's votes.

However, the poll that estimated a hung parliament used a completely different methodology, one that YouGov hadn't used before. It's called MRP and hasn't been used before in UK elections. YouGov pollsters are either going to be seen as geniuses or complete idiots on this (although at least one rival polling company say that YouGov's method is the future but may need to be refined.

I don't know why some people get the idea that YouGov is pro Labour (something I've seen mentioned a couple of times): the two founders are a Tory MP and a former Tory candidate, while the chairman worked for Saatchi & Saatchi and McKinsey and has been a Conservative party adviser. There's no Labour bias there

Ah. Thanks for that. Interesting stuff. Wonder what the lot that said Trump would get in would be predicting...

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Because you don't live in her constituency

#fool

And yet his location is listed as West Hove ? #idiot

 

[Chicken Run]

General Election - New poll added 01/06/17

Because you don't live in her constituency

#fool

Yes I do cvnt!