snap general election?

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

FFS, democracy is not representative if people vote tactically.

I'm not sure how this is different from those 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice type democracies. I'd say voting tactically is far more democratic than "wasting" your vote on a candidate who has no hope. At least you might end up with a representative that you don't hate and represents your views more accurately.

rick_chasey

Lookyhere wrote:

We ve not got a representative democracy, millions voted UKIP and the Greens and got no MP's well, one Green...wow!

So of course people have to vote tactically, i will, i ll be voting Libdem, in the hope off keeping out the Tory candidate.

Look how far the Tories have gone UKIP and tell me their votes were wasted.

rick_chasey

Parties don't forget who people voted for just because their votes didn't count towards the winner.


All votes are counted. If a quarter of all voters go for a party that gets no seats, you can bet your bottom pound that parties will adjust their positions to capture those votes next time around.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

Parties don't forget who people voted for just because their votes didn't count towards the winner.


All votes are counted. If a quarter of all voters go for a party that gets no seats, you can bet your bottom pound that parties will adjust their positions to capture those votes next time around.

Yup - but parties also understand tactical voting...

rick_chasey

For me, people complaining about a lack of choice and then insisting on voting tactically (which inevitably means one of the big two) is self defeating.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

For me, people complaining about a lack of choice and then insisting on voting tactically (which inevitably means one of the big two) is self defeating.

Where I live, we have a realistic choice between SNP and Lib Dems - are they the "big two" of which you speak?

bendertherobot

https://www.indy100.com/article/jeremy- ... 17-7766886

All over bar the shouting now. Jezza can eat food normally. Everyone else go home.

slowbike

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There was never any merit in the explanation that 50 more seats (to put words into the mouth) would make the 27 bow down to us.

But, if we ascribe a charitable positivity to that claim, if we end up where we were before or worse, then the end result must be, on May's own statement, that our position is now weaker than before.

I don't see your point! she has repeatedly told you that she is the best person for the job and will get the best possible deal for the UK. This used to be as good as or better than what we had before but now you can be assured that it is the best possible.

what more do you need to know?
immigration? - it will be reduced to the tens of thousands with no economic impact

I am tempted to go and vote against her just because she is mugging us off with no attempt to hide it

I find the Brexit promises a bit odd - we all know that in a game of poker you don't reveal your strategy or cards - so why would we expect those that are intending to be involved in the negotiations to do so. All the public statements on what they're going to get the otherside to agree to or not is just posturing.

However, whilst I would've voted Tory in the past - as I genuinely didn't feel that Labour had a handle on anything financial - I'm becoming peed off with the foboffs and non-answers we seem to be getting from the Tory party.

Our Tory MP has retired/quit ahead of the election and the new candidate isn't from this area - and doesn't apparently have any interest in the area - so I'm not sure why we should be voting for her (as our representative) - at least the Labour guy is local - even if he's from just outside the area - he now lives in it.
The other parties standing in the area do not even reach a level to be considered a challenge to what is a Tory safe seat ...

now to read the Labour manifesto and ensure there's nothing in there I widely disagree with!

ugo.santalucia

Leaflet through the door says "strong and stable leadership in the National interest"... is that Mr Putin?

Fu-kin w-hore

kajjal

May has written to me personally I am now so happy.

She is doing an excellent job in her election campaign, with her skills and influence the lead has dropped from 25% to almost level in only a few weeks

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For me, people complaining about a lack of choice and then insisting on voting tactically (which inevitably means one of the big two) is self defeating.

Where I live, we have a realistic choice between SNP and Lib Dems - are they the "big two" of which you speak?

In your seat they are, yeah.

bendertherobot

So, she's ducking out of women's hour tomorrow now and sending Greening instead.

rick_chasey

bendertherobot wrote:

So, she's ducking out of women's hour tomorrow now and sending Greening instead.

(copied from someone else)

It's a bit like she's hosted a house party and went to bed halfway through.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For me, people complaining about a lack of choice and then insisting on voting tactically (which inevitably means one of the big two) is self defeating.

Where I live, we have a realistic choice between SNP and Lib Dems - are they the "big two" of which you speak?

In your seat they are, yeah.

And do you seriously think either one of them would change their policies if a few extra people voted, say, Tory....?

ugo.santalucia

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For me, people complaining about a lack of choice and then insisting on voting tactically (which inevitably means one of the big two) is self defeating.

Where I live, we have a realistic choice between SNP and Lib Dems - are they the "big two" of which you speak?

In your seat they are, yeah.

And do you seriously think either one of them would change their policies if a few extra people voted, say, Tory....?

Vote SNP, fuk it... I would... they're great

ugo.santalucia

Kajjal wrote:

May has written to me personally I am now so happy.

She is doing an excellent job in her election campaign, with her skills and influence the lead has dropped from 25% to almost level in only a few weeks

She has a few problems, mostly personal... the first one is being very ugly... people don't trust ugly folks... it's almost as if they had their heart too close to their butthole or something.
Then of course she can't dress properly... it is embarrassing... she likes shoes, yet her collection of shoes is atrocious. She is uninspiring as a person and her policies reflect her personality... no vision, it's a bit like your accountant organising a wedding party... it's bound to be shoot.

Finally, her campaign sounds way too desperate... vote for me to keep the nation together... it's not Zimbabwe, is it? Things are not so terrible to require a strong leadership... you just need to spend your money on things that people actually need, rather than bollox.

Basically, so far she got it all wrong, partly her fault, but partly it's about her

meanredspider

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Vote SNP, fuk it... I would... they're great

Yeah - they've fukked the schools and they've fukked the hospitals but luckily they haven't fukked anything important...

Pross

I'm leaning towards Lib Dem just because they seem to be the only bit of centre ground. I know they won't get in for my constituency but I don't like the way the Tory campaign has gone and whilst I surprisingly quite like some of what Labour have said it seems the only way it can be delivered is by taxing people at an unsustainable rate.

ugo.santalucia

Pross wrote:

I'm leaning towards Lib Dem just because they seem to be the only bit of centre ground. I know they won't get in for my constituency but I don't like the way the Tory campaign has gone and whilst I surprisingly quite like some of what Labour have said it seems the only way it can be delivered is by taxing people at an unsustainable rate.

Wait a minute... what Corbyn proposes is less tax than under Blair, which was a golden age until the big crunch (certainly not down to taxation).
Unsustainable? Com'on... we are talking corporation tax...

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For me, people complaining about a lack of choice and then insisting on voting tactically (which inevitably means one of the big two) is self defeating.

Where I live, we have a realistic choice between SNP and Lib Dems - are they the "big two" of which you speak?

In your seat they are, yeah.

And do you seriously think either one of them would change their policies if a few extra people voted, say, Tory....?

Well it does depend on whether a few is <100 and barely hanging on to the deposit or a couple of thousand and starting to make a noticeable dent in the leading two parties' share. And whether that pattern is repeated in other constituencies. Lastly, you need to have a certain amount of faith that there are other like-minded voters. You won't 'win' the first time, but if there is enough of a swing, then on a local level, the national party will put in more resources to try and capitalise on that swing. And if the swing is repeated nationally (as with UKIP) then other parties may shift their policies to try to pick up those votes. Obviously, if for example you are one of 300 Labour voters in a LD/Con seat and the neighbouring constituencies have a similar voting pattern then that is a bog mountain to climb, but arguably it should be.

mamba80

Pross wrote:

I'm leaning towards Lib Dem just because they seem to be the only bit of centre ground. I know they won't get in for my constituency but I don't like the way the Tory campaign has gone and whilst I surprisingly quite like some of what Labour have said it seems the only way it can be delivered is by taxing people at an unsustainable rate.

hang on, my nr neighbour last year bought 8 houses, cash, in a local town, are you seriously saying he and 1000's like him cant afford a bit more tax, say 5 % extra? thats not unsustainable at all.
i know he did, because my GF sister works at the est agent and the est agent told me himself when he came to value my house, there was a 6 month secrecy clause but they both gabbed soon after this was up!

he has gained this money through hard work no doubt BUT he has accumulated wealth far beyond what you an me will ever have under the current tax regime, as have the wealthiest in this country.

today, ins tax goes up to 12%, thats a regressive tax that hits the young and the poor hardest, probate fee's will rise if the Tories get in, again disproportionately hitting middle england, who ll have to find the extra before probate.

do you want the wealthy to pay a little more and Corporations to pay a tax rate similar to what you an i pay? or do you want to be screwed over for the extra any Gov will need in the coming years?

Despite being in a so called hi tech industry, few i know inc me have had a pay rise for years, i earn significantly less now then i did 15 years ago.

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm leaning towards Lib Dem just because they seem to be the only bit of centre ground. I know they won't get in for my constituency but I don't like the way the Tory campaign has gone and whilst I surprisingly quite like some of what Labour have said it seems the only way it can be delivered is by taxing people at an unsustainable rate.

hang on, my nr neighbour last year bought 8 houses, cash, in a local town, are you seriously saying he and 1000's like him cant afford a bit more tax, say 5 % extra? thats not unsustainable at all.
i know he did, because my GF sister works at the est agent and the est agent told me himself when he came to value my house, there was a 6 month secrecy clause but they both gabbed soon after this was up!

he has gained this money through hard work no doubt BUT he has accumulated wealth far beyond what you an me will ever have under the current tax regime, as have the wealthiest in this country.

today, ins tax goes up to 12%, thats a regressive tax that hits the young and the poor hardest, probate fee's will rise if the Tories get in, again disproportionately hitting middle england, who ll have to find the extra before probate.

do you want the wealthy to pay a little more and Corporations to pay a tax rate similar to what you an i pay? or do you want to be screwed over for the extra any Gov will need in the coming years?

Despite being in a so called hi tech industry, few i know inc me have had a pay rise for years, i earn significantly less now then i did 15 years ago.

Do you really think the tax will come from those people? To raise the money to fund their pledges they are going to have to spread their nets wider than people who can afford good tax lawyers / accountants. So they either won't deliver the pledges or they'll come after middle earners.

If, as someone said, proposed tax rates will be lower than under Blair what will they deliver as the Blair government didn't seem to achieve anywhere near as much as Corbyn is offering and they had various windfalls, a stronger economy, no Brexit issues to deal with and sold the family silver.

Pross

Also, corporation tax gets paid by small businesses / sole traders as well as the big conglomerates. The Lefties like to give the impression that all this is aimed at companies like Google and Amazon but how will SMEs be protected whilst still raising the revenue? It's like the phrase 'Directors' bonuses' that people throw about without realising that most company directors are running small businesses that they have taken all sorts of financial risks to get started and their reward could be a four or five figure sum each year.

mamba80

But the Tories are coming after the middle income earners in any case..... in fact more than Labour will, so do you think May wont raise NI and carry on with Probate and further IHT and CT cuts, we dont know what Mays plans are because they are "perfectly clear..." not! but she has also committed to large rises in spending too but with no suggestion as to where this money will come from.
perhaps Ambers magic money tree, the one called bankruptcy, will provide any shortfall????? so she certainly knows how to avoid tax and leave SME's owed millions!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ds-8972936

i do agree Labours plans are ambitious and like all manifesto's is unlikely to be either fully fore-filled or entirely accurate but hell, do we really need another 5 years of this shower? i want something different for my daughter, the tories have bought us Brexit ffs.

as i said we d all like to pay lower taxes, why should any company pay significantly less tax than you or i ? and cutting CT does nt necessarily lead to more investment (it hasnt so far), they can do whatever like with the money inc buying more property and their tenants can claim more HB from u and i

another c0ck-up by May and Davis over immigration, more tory lies and incompetence.

ugo.santalucia

Pross wrote:

Do you really think the tax will come from those people? To raise the money to fund their pledges they are going to have to spread their nets wider than people who can afford good tax lawyers / accountants. So they either won't deliver the pledges or they'll come after middle earners.
.

Aren't these the people we should get rid of?

It seems the nation is attached to a bunch of tax avoiders who allegedly are so important to the economy that we have to do anything possible to keep them...

This is a country that loves a bit of tax avoidance... the love affair with Andy Murray, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button is very indicative of the attitute towards taxation.

In Italy people don't like to pay tax as much as here, but at least the press gave a lot of stick to Cipollini for moving his residence to Monaco... here instead they get rewarded with personality of the year awards...

Get rid of the fuk-ers

shortfall

Not a fan of the Tories, especially the current shower, but I can remember how bad it was in the 70s when Labour tried implementing economic similar policies to those proposed by Corbyn. To quote Joe Haines the former Press Secretary to Harold Wilson, "It was like trying to push water up hill". In other words, the things that sounded fine in theory just didn't work in practice. Corbyn wants free everything for everybody and only the top 5% and a few corporations are going to pay a bit more tax to fund it all. Yeah right! If you believe that then I've got this bridge I'm selling.

shortfall

Not a fan of the Tories, especially the current shower, but I can remember how bad it was in the 70s when Labour tried implementing similar economic policies to those proposed by Corbyn. To quote Joe Haines the former Press Secretary to Harold Wilson, "It was like trying to push water up hill". In other words, the things that sounded fine in theory just didn't work in practice. Corbyn wants free everything for everybody and only the top 5% and a few corporations are going to pay a bit more tax to fund it all. Yeah right! If you believe that then I've got this bridge I'm selling.

shortfall

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

Do you really think the tax will come from those people? To raise the money to fund their pledges they are going to have to spread their nets wider than people who can afford good tax lawyers / accountants. So they either won't deliver the pledges or they'll come after middle earners.
.

Aren't these the people we should get rid of?

It seems the nation is attached to a bunch of tax avoiders who allegedly are so important to the economy that we have to do anything possible to keep them...

This is a country that loves a bit of tax avoidance... the love affair with Andy Murray, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button is very indicative of the attitute towards taxation.

In Italy people don't like to pay tax as much as here, but at least the press gave a lot of stick to Cipollini for moving his residence to Monaco... here instead they get rewarded with personality of the year awards...

Get rid of the fuk-ers

You're joking right? Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow, and David Beckham to name just three have been absolutely savaged in the press and media for aggressive tax avoidance.

shortfall

Oh and Silvio Berlusconi's notorious tax avoidance didn't get in the way of him serving as Italy's prime minister in four governments!

meanredspider

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

Do you really think the tax will come from those people? To raise the money to fund their pledges they are going to have to spread their nets wider than people who can afford good tax lawyers / accountants. So they either won't deliver the pledges or they'll come after middle earners.
.

Aren't these the people we should get rid of?

It seems the nation is attached to a bunch of tax avoiders who allegedly are so important to the economy that we have to do anything possible to keep them...

This is a country that loves a bit of tax avoidance... the love affair with Andy Murray, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button is very indicative of the attitute towards taxation.

In Italy people don't like to pay tax as much as here, but at least the press gave a lot of stick to Cipollini for moving his residence to Monaco... here instead they get rewarded with personality of the year awards...

Get rid of the fuk-ers

I think you'll find each of those sportsmen were vilified in the press when they moved abroad. But we also recognise the right of people to live where they like. There's hardly an F1 driver that lives in his home country and most live in Monaco. In fact Monaco is probably the embodiment of what happens when you rack up taxes on the rich.

And, based upon living and working in Europe, we Brits are some of the most willing tax payers. In Italy, the "taxman" carries a gun, FFS. In Belgium everybody dodges tax - it was quite eye-opening. The Scandis are probably the only folk who are more happy to pay taxes than the Brits.