I hope ICM is out, otherwise it's a Tory majority of about 60+
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I can't imagine how nervous I'm going to be for the exit poll tomorrow.
The UK is at 19% at the moment...
Has Diane Abbott had a nervous breakdown?
On the way to 17.
Diane Abbott by Jack Monroe
https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/
https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/
I remember the 2015 one very well.
We were all waiting for the exit poll to show a close race and then everyone stunned at 10pm with a lot of us thinking it had to be false and they ended up doing even better than the poll predicted.
There might be a chance of increased percentage for Labour but I think the extra votes would be in seats that are already safe for them rather than marginals. YouGov is definitely one that has gone experimental so wouldn't pay attention to them.
Think I'm going to bed at 9 tomorrow. Sick of staying up and being disappointed and I couldn't stomach another Yougov Brexit farce.
I just stared in horror and then exclaimed to my then girlfriend 'we're fecked'.
You're performing some absolutely incredible mental gymnastics in that post. You are aware that we used to tax high rate taxpayers at about double what we do now, right?
Yeah giving everyone a fair start in life is anti-aspirational. Or something.
2015 can only be described as my 'Nam, very much a before/after moment in how I looked at politics 
2016 then proceeding to be my Watergate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2001 - Within 2 weeks of polling day there were leads from 11% to 30%
2016 then proceeding to be my Watergate.2001 was pretty wide-ranging, but because they all pointed to a massive Labour win it wasn't really an issue (and they still actually overstated it in % terms, though the seats remained basically the same).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2001 - Within 2 weeks of polling day there were leads from 11% to 30%
The ringing bells of Big Ben followed by Dimbleby's surprised voice. 316 for the Conservatives. Chilling. That night was beyond awful. Can't imagine how tough '92 must have been.
At least with Brexit it was only a slow realisation on the night!
Still so peeved I didn't make an absolute mint from betting that night.
It is times like this that the smiley limit on this place just isn't enough. You know the Tories are the ones in blue, right?
She doesn't come across well at all, I get that.
But the constant focus on her mistakes while ignoring those of Johnson/Hunt/Hammond etc and of course May herself, just shows how much the right wing press dictate the narrative.
The point there, was that the state is already getting its share, and will continue to do so under new ownership. The purchaser has accepted and serviced those costs, and should be able to dispose of them without additional interference. Now you can make people homeless if that is your want, but i think we can be fairer with our methods of taxation. If we are concerned about the stockpiling of property by individuals, then you consider a levy on empty homes or acquisition beyond a certain point.
Moreover, IHT fails to take into account the disparity in the market. It is essentially a London/SE focused tax, with the amassing of wealth in other places being of little relevance.
I'd like to see NI ring-fenced for support of the NHS and Pensions. Australia has two things I really like. One is compulsory "Super", ring-fenced exclusively for pensions. The other is compulsory voting. Also, their elections are a form of proportional representation - which seems to me waaaaay superior to our outmoded and unfair FPTP system.
Indirect Taxes includes VAT which accounts for 17% about the same as National Insurance. Fuel, Tobacco and Alcohol taxes add another 7% to take the total to 24%
I've got work at 6:00 on Friday. Don't know how or if I'll get enough sleep though. I MUST.
There is undoubtedly a strong, persistent bias in the British press. But..when you are one of the top 3 members of the shadow cabinet and trying to persuade people of the case for change, you need to do a lot better than this. Can you imagine Blair or even Kinnock appointing someone so fragile under pressure as shadow home secretary? If she thinks this is difficult, how will she cope with being blamed for things largely beyond her control like terrorism attacks or immigration numbers?
Ol' Maybot was at her robotic best in the Jon Snow interview.
I work nights so will get in and settled for 11 and im in it for the night.
My delivery route today included a lot of hospitals and schools in Wiltshire. Depressing. Of the four people I asked, only one said they'd be voting for Labour. The other three said they didn't like or trust Corbyn. When I asked why they all said they "just don't like/trust him". fecking media.
We used to have a tax rate that was twice what it currently us. That doesn't mean we used to tax them more.
Tax rates vs tax receipts are two very different things.
For one second ignore the names of the parties and think about what each one wants to achieve: as much power as possible.
Now think logically as to how one would go about achieving it. Step 1: Ignore the bottom 20% as they don't vote. Step 2: Ignore the young because they don't vote. Step 3: Get as much tax as possible from the top 5% as they represent a huge tax windfall for a small amount of vote losses. Result: you have 75% of the population who you're looking to try and make as happy as possible.
The Tories couldn't give a crap about losing the votes of 400,000 of the richest voters if they gained the votes of 2,000,000 of he middle earners. Plus who are the 400,000 going to vote for anyway? Labour?
Taxing the top 5% is the solution to all parties' problems. Unfortunately they aren't taxable in reality (more than they already are being taxed).
A cynical ploy would be to tell get electorate that you can extract more tax from these people. A more realistic play is to choose another group of people to tax or cut spending.
Behind Corbyns plans lie a large tax burden on the bottom 20% among others through potentially lost jobs (increasing minimum wage), potentially increased prices (increased tax burden on companies = higher prices) and/or potentially a squeeze on the middle earners as these are the people who can't avoid tax so always end up funding extra Government spending.
The key thing to ask yourself is are people generally self-serving and power hungry and what gives them more power and how is the best way of achieving this? If the answer is yes then you'll soon realise the same people will pay for extra Government spending irrespective of who you vote for.
Just drop some acid around 3am, you won't be able to sleep until Friday night.
It's not that simple.
First of all, the Labour manifesto is costed. Secondly, if you invest in infrastructure then it can pay for itself over time; the value it gives back to the economy can be greater than the debt potentially incurred in paying for it (plus potentially interest as well).
As far as the Tories are concerned May wanted a greater majority so that she wouldn't have to worry about rebellious back-benchers so much, and also so that she could trot out that she has a "mandate" for just about anything she wants to do.
Apart from Swindon, Wiltshire has pretty much always been blue. Wouldn't really get wound up. It's like someone going to Liverpool, asking four people and getting frustrated when they say they're not voting the Conservatives.
Did you read The Express, The Sun and The Daily Mail front page today?
Your logic is flawed. The Tories cut taxes for the top and hammer the middle with indirect taxes. You've said yourself the bottom 20% don't vote so there is no danger in upping their taxes and cutting the services they rely on. The middle classes are sold the dream that one day they'll be the at the top, they don't realise how badly they are being hit as the tax is indirect
I'd say pretty badly, judging from what I've seen. Or, to put it another way, about 100x better than Boris in his role.
Hopefully this illness thing is more to do with moving her away from such a key position.
I never understood the premise that Tories could be both loud, emotional & opinionated and still have a large portion of 'shy Tories'.
But lefties are only one dimensional.
Exactly.
There's never a response given that highlights this exact issue. We all know what it is, and nobody will admit it because she's just an easy target.
It's disgusting.
The greatest trick the tories have managed over the years is to pursuade people that letting the rich stockpile all the money, while selling off anything of value in the country, makes them 'good with the economy'.
Nationalisation need not be expensive, if done when contracts expire, for example. In the long run, we will all benefit from removing the profit making companies from the equation.
But isnt taxing the richer places and distributing that wealth to the poorer areas a good thing?
And actually i disagree. If we left the main family home alone, and taxes all other assets at 20%, that would apply to everyone equally. Whether you live in Northern Ireland or London