General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%
  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%
  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%
  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
If the public favour 'no deal', they should be allowed to say 'no deal'. Also, you wouldn't have to announce the referendum until after the negotiations are completed, or at least the key terms.

Question is, after the negotiations are completed, then what happens if the referendum result is "no the public don't accept these terms" - they can't go back and start all over again. Basically the people voted for something of which they had no clue of what the outcome could possibly be and now have to rely on May, Davis, Fox, Johnson and co. to not give the UK a disastrous future.
 
It seems to me that the primary opposition to a second referendum is based in a fear that the public might have realised they had been duped by then.
If the result was the other way, we'd never have heard the end of it. For some reason democracy only works when the right says it does
 
So as you'll see Labour took the opportunity to spend the boom, rather than control it. They significantly increased the rate of government spend. The got carried away. They tried to keep their mantle and it's a major contributor to the level of cuts required now.

This is why voting is so damn complicated, because unless you have a background in economics and finance your chances of understanding the correlation and trends of politics is incredibly difficult.

The responsibility to control the boom rested with the Bank of England, they controlled interest rates. The Labour government didn't spend the boom, the spending growth matched gdp growth as the Tories did during the 80s

Economics isn't a science
 
Reports of high turnout in various places











Was like this at the polling station on our campus today as well. Good news in that I thought most of the undergrads had buggered off home, but I don't know how well it represents the area.
 
Question is, after the negotiations are completed, then what happens if the referendum result is "no the public don't accept these terms" - they can't go back and start all over again. Basically the people voted for something of which they had no clue of what the outcome could possibly be and now have to rely on May, Davis, Fox, Johnson and co. to not give the UK a disastrous future.
The EU have been clear that Britain will be allowed to withdraw its Article 50 notification. If the public would rather stay in the EU than leave on the terms the government has negotiated, it is democratically vital to have a referendum to express that.
 
And that will be Labour's fault when it happens, of course.
Not sure if you are serious, but if so, just have a look at this (or just scroll up)

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gen...ction-day-today.428257/page-279#post-21024899

The Tories were as much at fault for the economy in 2007 as Labour were. In fact they may have been MORE at fault, given that they wanted to deregulate the banking industry.

And because the "death of manufacturing" happened on their watch.

If you want to see more of what the Tories have done wrong, have a look at how Germany handled their economy post-crash.

Job-sharing programmes. Free retraining programmes.

I's worth pointing out that Germany's programme of fiscal stimulus was among the largest in Europe (across developed nations). Germany's unemployment rate is low, and it declined through some of the worst portions of the recession, but it's important to point out that this is due in part to an ambitious work-sharing arrangement, in which employers are encouraged to reduce individual hours worked rather than lay off employees. This policy certainly helps to mitigate job losses during a downturn (which makes for great countercyclical policy, and which reduces the fiscal cost of recession) but it's more likely to delay necessary structural reforms than accelerate them.

And finally, as you can see at right, Germany is one of the few large European economies to increase its deficit from 2009 to 2010. And its planned deficit reduction in 2011 is among the smallest in the euro area. If Germany is more successful than other economies at pulling through recession, it may be because it's better at performing the ideal policy move—a move the that Mr Cowen appears to criticise when it's urged by members of the American left—bigger short-term deficits followed by a credible switch to fiscal tightening down the road.

Mr Cowen's point still stands, to some extent; other countries shouldn't berate Germany for having the good sense to do what they ought to be doing. But I don't think it's quite accurate to sell the German experience as one of a triumph of structural savvy over countercyclical good sense.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/recovery_1

So no NinjaFletch Labour are no longer solely to blame. From this point forward, we must give equal blame to the Tories. If not more.
 
The responsibility to control the boom rested with the Bank of England, they controlled interest rates. The Labour government didn't spend the boom, the spending growth matched gdp growth as the Tories did during the 80s

Economics isn't a science

Something that is continually forgotten about. They don't have a clue. Pretty sure your man works in a call centre with a number of times he's mentioned his qualifications.

Also when a government spend money it's always talked about from the opposition like they're going to a casino and running wild. Not that they've INVESTED money in the public services to improve society. Invested in healthcare, education etc. Perspective changes everything and I can't relate to eejits who think national level economics works like their bloody MS Excel sheet.
 
Have you got any evidence for this claim? As far as I'm aware, most economists believe the integration of Eastern Europe, the development of the global supply chain, the opening up of China/ access to cheap labour, and migration to be the key factors. As well as a credit binge, obviously.

The dotcom bubble was just a blip in there somewhere.
Hmm think above is maybe a moot point. The Internet improved comms in a major way to enable global supply to blossom. These above points are not mutually exclusive.
 
Was like this at the polling station on our campus today as well. Good news in that I thought most of the undergrads had buggered off home, but I don't know how well it represents the area.

The fact that various poll workers are telling people that this election is the busiest they've ever seen it sounds encouraging.

If this is replicated across the country then we can sit up and take more notice.
 
The fact is, the Tories have had 7 years to get us back into black and they have failed. They've failed so badly, they've given up in fact.

Now they want to wreck the economy again with Brexit.

We are living on a bubble caused by 8 years of Quantitative Easing. The Tories cut services at one end, whilst the Bank of England pumped money into banks at the other.

And when the bubble pops, we'll be sitting on 90% Government debt.

The economy is ridiculously lopsided, with an over reliance on banking and little manufacturing to speak of. We have few "crown jewel" companies outside of banking and insurance to provide growth.

Why should anyone trust the economy with the Conservatives?

Can I just ask where you think Conservatives could have done things differently?
 
Update on the current top 10, before we descend in to the chaos of tonight and tomorrow.

No real surprises. Nick's a notable omission. He made a good go of it, after a late start, but there was too much catching up to be done.

fqi2a36.png
 
The EU have been clear that Britain will be allowed to withdraw its Article 50 notification. If the public would rather stay in the EU than leave on the terms the government has negotiated, it is democratically vital to have a referendum to express that.

So basically another in or out vote. On the whole the electorate didn't understand the ramifications the first time around, as far as I can see, little has changed in their understanding since.
 
Not sure if you are serious, but if so, just have a look at this (or just scroll up)

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gen...ction-day-today.428257/page-279#post-21024899

The Tories were as much at fault for the economy in 2007 as Labour were. In fact they may have been MORE at fault, given that they wanted to deregulate the banking industry.

And because the "death of manufacturing" happened on their watch.

If you want to see more of what the Tories have done wrong, have a look at how Germany handled their economy post-crash.

Job-sharing programmes. Free retraining programmes.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/recovery_1

So no NinjaFletch Labour are no longer solely to blame. From this point forward, we must give equal blame to the Tories. If not more.

Thought my reputation may have preceded me on that one. It was a comment on how the right wing press will blame Labour for the financial mismanagement of the Conservatives just as they blame Labour for the economic crash and austerity.
 
The responsibility to control the boom rested with the Bank of England, they controlled interest rates. The Labour government didn't spend the boom, the spending growth matched gdp growth as the Tories did during the 80s

Economics isn't a science

Focusing on spend as a percentage or GDP is misleading. Why should spending grow at the same proportion as GDP? It's an easy political shield as those stats can be shown to highlight things are rosy. The big question is when you have a major GDP boom such as the advent of the Internet, why would you need to spend tons more on services. Better to get the debt down and get to a healthy position first.
 
Farrelly voted against Brexit so that won't go down well with the voters.

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/brex...-50-by-march/story-29968291-detail/story.html

Tory candidate is active on social media too whereas Farrelly isn't. I expect they'll go blue for the first time.

Large portion of that constituency is made up by keele university students & lot of people who work for the large university hospital live in that constituency as well so should get a good number of labour voters.
 
So basically another in or out vote. On the whole the electorate didn't understand the ramifications the first time around, as far as I can see, little has changed in their understanding since.
The way the vote should have been constructed was 'do you want the government to start negotiations to leave the EU?'

Then a second referendum on the specific question of 'now you know the terms, do you want to leave?'
 
If Labour can't take your constituency, wouldn't a tactical vote for the nearest party to the Tories have made more sense? Too late now, mind!
It's an SNP seat now, was a Labour stronghold before that for yonks. No real trouble from the Tories to be fair (now watch them win my seat..... :lol::()
 
Whatever happens tonight, Corbyn's earned my respect.

I thought he was bit of a joke for a long time, but the way he has ran his campaign has been great. The way he has got so many young people energised and wanting to be involved in politics is admirable.
 
The state of you lot.. make fecking May look competent.
Who will you people trust? Raees, who has flip flopped on every decision and is definitely a bird. Or me, strong and staple Mr Pigeon who has never made a mistake and has definitely never said "thanks you too" when the server at KFC said "enjoy your meal"?
 
What time are we expecting the exit polls then?
 
The way the vote should have been constructed was 'do you want the government to start negotiations to leave the EU?'

Then a second referendum on the specific question of 'now you know the terms, do you want to leave?'

I don't disagree with you but Cameron thought the electorate voting remain was a foregone conclusion and the referendum was badly prepared and badly discussed.
 
Whatever happens tonight, Corbyn's earned my respect.

I thought he was bit of a joke for a long time, but the way he has ran his campaign has been great. The way he has got so many young people energised and wanting to be involved in politics is admirable.

Ha, it's tactical, nothing more.
 
Something weird happened tonight.

I've always been either Blue or Yellow. There's not an election, local or national where I haven't voted for Lib Dem or Conservative.

Stepped into the polling station, got my voting slip, and suddenly started thinking about all that plastic in the ocean. I voted Green, literally on a whim.
 
Ha, it's tactical, nothing more.

A LOT of youngsters are involved because they admire Corbyn and his kind of politics.

You're being biased if you think this level of engagement from the youth would happen with a traditional Labour leader.
 
Assuming you want Labour to win? If so then I'm not hopeful either. Brexit then Trump, this would go with that theme.
Yea i want Labour to win. I love elections to be honest so even if i wasn't working i would be watching regardless. But i'm working so i basically get paid to watch it.
 
whats tactical?

Youngsters are more easily led by simple manifesto's of 'throw money at everything and make the rich pay for it', hence Labour make massive efforts to encourage youngsters to vote.