UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

How do you intend to vote in the 2019 General Election if eligible?

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 30 4.3%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 73 10.6%

  • DUP

    Votes: 5 0.7%

  • Green

    Votes: 23 3.3%

  • Labour

    Votes: 355 51.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 58 8.4%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 1.3%

  • SNP

    Votes: 19 2.8%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 6 0.9%

  • Independent

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Other (BNP, Change UK, UUP and anyone else that I have forgotten)

    Votes: 10 1.4%

  • Not voting

    Votes: 57 8.3%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 41 5.9%
  • Total voters
    690
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Pigeon said:
I call it the sign of a serial liar who can't be trusted, but different cocks for different socks I suppose.
Click to expand...
And I call it being a coward because you know full well that you will be exposed as a liar and a horrible human being.

I guess that the same as what you would call it actually.
 
Abizzz said:
Everything one does has a ethical component and to suggest one can campaign for months without any sort of moral compass is, well, disturbing. Someone who can just cast aside his ethics for an election has in essence no ethics at all.
Click to expand...

Straw man argument... its not what I was saying!
In the 'three-ringed circus' that now purports to be an Election run in, Boris has enough sense to stay out of the way of the interviewing juggernaut that is Andrew Neil... if he had been trailing in the polls he would have been forced to take the chance.
Its a smart move!
 
The New Yorker said:
In 1988, Boris Johnson contributed a chapter on student politics to “The Oxford Myth,” a book of essays edited by his sister, in which he emphasized the importance of cultivating adoring followers. “The terrible art of the candidate is to coddle the self-deception of the stooge,” Johnson wrote.
Click to expand...
He also wrote of recruiting 'lonely females' to help get the vote out. Charmng man.
 
The New Yorker said:
To Johnson’s credit, nothing went disastrously wrong during his eight years as mayor. In August, 2011, when the city erupted in a long weekend of rioting over a police killing in North London, he was on a family vacation in Canada, and took three days to return. But when he was criticized by a crowd in Clapham, where shops had been looted, he salvaged the situation by grabbing a broom, as if to join the cleanup effort. The boos turned to applause.
Click to expand...
Gimme strength...
 
Maticmaker said:
Straw man argument... its not what I was saying!
In the 'three-ringed circus' that now purports to be an Election run in, Boris has enough sense to stay out of the way of the interviewing juggernaut that is Andrew Neil... if he had been trailing in the polls he would have been forced to take the chance.
Its a smart move!
Click to expand...
This is what you said:
Maticmaker said:
There is nothing ethical about politics during an election, its only about winning by persuading enough people to vote for you/your party.
Click to expand...

It may not cost him the election because the tory mashine has perfected targeting the vulnerable with fake news but there is no way that Boris couldn't win votes with a good public performance. The truth is he's incapable of producing one so he must stay out of the limelight.

But that doesn't make it a good move or somehow ethical to shy away from all accountability while lying freely about others all day long for years on end.
 
esmufc07 said:
Read the first paragraph. Labours increase in tax described as a ‘hike’, whilst Tory increases described as a ‘tweak’.:wenger:
Click to expand...

Tories' should be referred to as a ramble rather than a hike imo.
 
Shamwow said:
I feel attacked.
Click to expand...

24f23brown2-484440.jpg
 
Exclusive: BoJo Swinson steals biscuits from hungry child!

3500.jpg
 
Sassy Colin said:
Is that as far as you got?

That's the reality of it anyway, one is a hike, the other is not.
Click to expand...

I read it all and I'm gonna assume you did too.

Could you please show me the maths that justifies this claim the article makes:

"‘For someone earning £100,000 (and ignoring national insurance), Labour’s policy would leave them with net cash of £66,500 (effective rate of tax of 33.5%); Boris Johnson’s proposal would return net cash of £78,500 (effective rate of tax of 21.5%) – a difference of £1,000 per month. Under the current system, you would receive net cash of £72,500 (effective rate of tax of 27.5%).'​

If you can't can you please explain how you think the accountants at accountancydaily manage to retain their positions in the face of such incompetence, and why you continute to believe the hogwash they print?
​
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I read it all and I'm gonna assume you did too.

Could you please show me the maths that justifies this claim the article makes:

"‘For someone earning £100,000 (and ignoring national insurance), Labour’s policy would leave them with net cash of £66,500 (effective rate of tax of 33.5%); Boris Johnson’s proposal would return net cash of £78,500 (effective rate of tax of 21.5%) – a difference of £1,000 per month. Under the current system, you would receive net cash of £72,500 (effective rate of tax of 27.5%).'​

If you can't can you please explain how you think the accountants at accountancydaily manage to retain their positions in the face of such incompetence, and why you continute to believe the hogwash they print?
​
Click to expand...

Looks like they have missed a sentence about Johnson increasing the basic rate band to £80K, which would result in the net cash figure of £78.5K quoted. This was his proposal, therefore it is factually correct, even though the increase in basic rate band is not mentioned in the article, so it is confusing unless you tap a few numbers into your calculator and work it our for yourself.

I would be very surprised if he actually went though with that plan though.
 
Rolandofgilead said:
This is true and also somewhat depressing. I’m watching BBC News now and they seem to be of the thinking that the document is genuine and the DUP will not support the Tories because of it.

Corbyn is trying to bang home this trust issue against Johnson. He has to go for blood tonight. For once in his political life he needs to be ruthless. The question is, can he do it? Especially in a true blue area like Southampton.
Click to expand...
Southampton isn't true blue. It was Labour and mostly still is, except one constituency which the tories just managed to turn by 31 votes in 2017.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Looks like they have missed a sentence about Johnson increasing the basic rate band to £80K, which would result in the net cash figure of £78.5K quoted. This was his proposal, therefore it is factually correct, even though the increase in basic rate band is not mentioned in the article, so it is confusing unless you tap a few numbers into your calculator and work it our for yourself.

I would be very surprised if he actually went though with that plan though.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the article uses a promise that was dropped from the Tory platform just so it could arrive at a higher figure, despite the article apparently being published today. That's pretty misleading! At least it explains one departure from reality, but there are more. Could you tell me how they arrive at £66,500 as being the Labour figure, rather than £71,500.
 
sun_tzu said:
because tonight is a debate not an interview... your gonna have to find much better questions than that if you want boris to struggle to lie his way out of it
Click to expand...

By now, most people have realised what he is like. Won't stop them winning though will it.
 
RedChip said:
Southampton isn't true blue. It was Labour and mostly still is, except one constituency which the tories just managed to turn by 31 votes in 2017.
Click to expand...
Yeah I just double checked and you’re right. My apologies, I remembered a conversation with a friend of mine who is from Southampton and he said it was a Tory stronghold and I never checked. Serves me right. Thanks for correcting me.
 
Rolandofgilead said:
Yeah I just double checked and you’re right. My apologies, I remembered a conversation with a friend of mine who is from Southampton and he said it was a Tory stronghold and I never checked. Serves me right. Thanks for correcting me.
Click to expand...
That's OK. For anyone not local, it is a good guess that it is true blue because most of the south is. Southampton is one of the few red spots down here.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Ok, so the article uses a promise that was dropped from the Tory platform just so it could arrive at a higher figure, despite the article apparently being published today. That's pretty misleading! At least it explains one departure from reality, but there are more. Could you tell me how they arrive at £66,500 as being the Labour figure, rather than £71,500.
Click to expand...

Neither could I @Sassy Colin. The only way it could make sense (and still be wrong) is if the Labour figure is the only one from which National Insurance contributions have been taken. I'm left with the belief that the article must be unremittingly biased and/or its author utterly incompetent. He has managed to hallucinate a - £12k difference out of a -£1k reality. That just leaves the impression of the article being a naked con job based on misleading inputs and terrible maths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.