• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Papercut said:
I'm seriously at a loss as who to vote for (barring UKIP). I've read through summaries of all the manifestos and paid particular attention to things that concern me but there are merits across the board. It's also actually helped me see clearer and change what I thought was right (i.e. the E.U) and I've done one of those online quizzes and am none the wiser (pretty much split across the board with the Tories slightly leading Labour). Our current local MP and favourite is a Tory (and a gooner as opposed to our UKIP candidate - who is Spurs :eek:) and seems to have done well enough (particularly in the wealthier areas ;)).

Where the option to:

still-from-brewsters-millions-1985.jpg


I wanted a clear idea of who I'd support but not happening.

Taking my 5 year old along so she can learn about voting and what it means - but it seems we won't be wearing any particular colour at this point (even though she knows it's generally 'never red' :D)

In terms of my current company - voting Labour would be more beneficial... But Ed Milliband? :confused:

FFS...Help! :mad:
Click to expand...

Unless you are in a marginal it really doesn't matter. Let the kid decide ;)
 
Im quite looking forward to the brick storm post election, and see what will come of it, especially Red Ed trying to 'do a Clegg' to get in
 
I'll assume the Greens aren't posting flyers...

Going through some of the manifestos again;

I like that the Lib Dems want to limit the number of betting shops on High Streets - a real bugbear of mine.

Which party is offering school buses? The school run with rushing mums stresses me out! :D

Spitting and littering - jail them! haha...
 
Just checked and it says here in Cambridge it's Lib Dem (semi-marginal) but people in the comments think it's gonna stay that way.

You're right though.. judging from the leaflet drops.. Labour win hands down.. probably 3-1 compared to the others and they have also gone all out and included my first name on the flyers to try and make out we are best buds haha
 
the dza said:
The polls say it's too close to call. It's very hard not to see Miliband not ending up as PM though, the numbers are against the Tories.
Click to expand...

Modric THFC said:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/
Con - 281
Lab - 266
SNP - 52
LD - 26
DUP - 8
SF - 5
PC - 4
SDLP - 3
Gre - 1
UKIP - 1
UUP - 1
Others - 2

Personally I cant see Cameron getting a Queens Speech passed.
Click to expand...

Cameron won't be PM unless the Conservatives get very close to 290. Many are predicting a "shy Tory" effect that will bump them a bit, along with the fact that as extremist votes fall out on polling day. SNP votes going to Labour don't change the maths, UKIP votes going to the Conservatives do. He almost certainly won't get to 290 though.

If so, he should form a minority government - the country needs to see Milibland and Sturgeon team up to bring down the government.
 
parklane1 said:
Well lets put it this way Cameron took his party into the last GE, now bearing in mind he was up against a Labour party that had shot its bolt, with the worst PM ( according to the press at the time) this country has seen for a long time and Labour having their worst election results ever and yet Cameron could still not gain his party a majority, now if it had not been for Clegg saving his arse ( and ruining his party since by doing so) I think there is a good chance that the Torys would have had another leadership ballot and replaced a leader who had failed to persuade enough people that he was the man to replace the worst PM in a long time.

Cameron failed to do that and he has still not done enough to persuade the general public that he is a good leader( hence all this talk about not getting a overall majority again). We shall see.
Click to expand...

parklane1 said:
We all know how one eyed you are about politics mate, but you I can't dance that he failed big time in the last GE.
Click to expand...
Quite.

He's a good PM, he's terrible at all the spin and boll0cks where he's being beaten hands down by Labour. Not surprising, didn't the communists invent propaganda? The certainly perfected it.
 
scaramanga said:
Quite.

He's a good PM, he's terrible at all the spin and boll0cks where he's being beaten hands down by Labour. Not surprising, didn't the communists invent propaganda? The certainly perfected it.
Click to expand...

No mate, I think that was the fascists. At the very least, they perfected it.
 
glorygloryeze said:
I think state has to be the overseer of all health services for the country. The State are the only overseer that has (in theory) the best long term interests in Public Health long term.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on what incentives are offered.

The state can sort out long-term health issues and cut a massive chunk of cost by simply refusing state aid to smokers and fatties (after an initial bit of help in improving lifestyles).

glorygloryeze said:
The State has the interest to provide the long-term medical training (including any updates needed based on new innovations/evidence). What interest does any company have for doing this, particularly if they may lose their contract or not be able to guarantee keeping up their service specifications? If we can't get the private companies to fully invest (as much as is necessary) in the infrastructure of their local rail lines, it's pie in the sky imo to expect companies to do the same on the scale necessary in terms of healthcare with regards to training of Doctors. Only large multinationals with 30 years + contracts and nationwide monopolies would even have the hope of a return on investment for even thinking about doing this. You may as well have a state-run monopoly in this case.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about offering contracts from the state to large companies - that's still far too state-run to get anywhere near efficient. The incentive for improvement is that people will choose where they are treated (not this false choice crap they're calling Choose & Book) so hospitals will need to be better than others.

glorygloryeze said:
Companies will always indeed find ways to become 'more efficient than the opposition'.
But why would any provider look to provide costly services in an old run-down ex mining town that has a high prevalence of lung cancer, diabetes, hypertension, ashtma etc if the costs are such that little profit can be made? Again, unless a company has a monopoly of providing services in multiple areas (and where one of their other areas are much more profitable due to a healthier, fitter population) why waste time on taking up such a non-profitable contract?
Click to expand...
They'll do it because they're getting paid to - for the same reason anyone currently does work for the government.

I used to do a lot of government work when I was consulting (IT consultants are a very good way of ditching surplus budget) and whilst it was the most tedious work I did (systems were always out of date, staff were at best incompetent). Now whilst it was a long way from my favoured work, the government always pays, it pays quickly and you don't need credit insurance for the credit you offer them - that's a big deal when you're talking about large figures.
 
scaramanga said:
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploa...YouGov-Sun-results-Thatcher-legacy-130409.pdf

1900 adults in 2013. I suspect your comment says far more about your social circles than it does the opinion of the majority in this country - conversely, I've met very few people who think she was anything other than incredible for our country.
Click to expand...

It must be true then :rolleyes:, are they social circles or is that just a Tory game when they think they are better then the rest. I have come to the conclusion that not are you only one eyed you are a WUM as well. :p
 
parklane1 said:
It must be true then :rolleyes:, are they social circles or is that just a Tory game when they think they are better then the rest. I have come to the conclusion that not are you only one eyed you are a WUM as well. :p
Click to expand...
1900 is a pretty decent sample size - what do you expect, the whole country to take part?

As for your other question it's both - most of my friends are Conservatives and they think they're better than most others. Some of them have every reason to do so.

I should point out that I don't seek Conservatives as friends, but all of my friends have jobs and the vast majority are educated to a high level. Add that to the fact that I live in Chichester and it becomes fairly tough to find someone who fits that profile who isn't a Conservative.
 
scaramanga said:
Cameron won't be PM unless the Conservatives get very close to 290. Many are predicting a "shy Tory" effect that will bump them a bit, along with the fact that as extremist votes fall out on polling day. SNP votes going to Labour don't change the maths, UKIP votes going to the Conservatives do. He almost certainly won't get to 290 though.

If so, he should form a minority government - the country needs to see Milibland and Sturgeon team up to bring down the government.
Click to expand...

Well, this could be the difference between Labour being the largest party or not. And that then opens up an arrangement with the Lib Dems. So any SNP coming back to Labour could make a lot of difference. Now whether that is likely is another story (it seems the SNP vote only grows stronger at the moment).

All of the seat prediction models build in the shy-Tory/swing-back effect, except for the YouGov now-cast model. IIRC that one is the only one that shows Labour ahead on projected seats. (see here: https://yougov.co.uk/#/centre )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back