General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
GFBlue said:
SNP for me but if I lived south of the border I'd vote Labour. Some of you should try and listen to what Corbyn has to say instead of believing the media - and regurgitating it on here. You laugh at how the rags are bum sucked and then fall for it when it comes to the political parties. Last time I checked being for the people and general fairness rather than vested interest/greed wasn't a bad stand point.
Click to expand...

Another pompous prick who thinks everyone with a different viewpoint is thick.

He hasn't even got a clear position on Brexit FFS.
 
GFBlue said:
SNP for me but if I lived south of the border I'd vote Labour. Some of you should try and listen to what Corbyn has to say instead of believing the media - and regurgitating it on here. You laugh at how the rags are bum sucked and then fall for it when it comes to the political parties. Last time I checked being for the people and general fairness rather than vested interest/greed wasn't a bad stand point.
Click to expand...
We have listened, he wants unilateral nuclear disarmament, nobody else, apart from his cabal of 18-25
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
We spend far less as a percentage of GDP then the EU average so the misleading term "record spending" is pretty meaningless.
Click to expand...
I'm getting 28.8% against 28.6% EU average (Social Protection spending) but a higher than average spend on social protection per capita (which is more important). Far less? You'll need to provide your sources please. Mine are here:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Social_protection_statistics

I'm also not sure why are measuring against the EU rather than say New Zealand or the US (other than the fact you know France and Scandinavia bump the EU up).

It's not meaningless in the remotest seeing as we are speaking about the UK only. One would imagine that spending was slashed by the Tories on the NHS and Education from reading this thread. When when look and see that the Tories are spending the same percentage now as Labour did ten years ago on the two then it ends that argument and the EU doesn't need bringing into it.

Come on Colin, try not to compare apples with lego.
 
Last edited:
Based on the current thread poll results (margin of error 1 million percent) it would appear, even in the left wing socialist infested annals of Blue Moon that the conservatives are going to anhiliate the opposition...
 
For education, the UK is also well above the EU average and is the highest of the big 5.
Main_indicators_for_public_expenditure_on_education_%28excluding_early_childhood_educational_development%29%2C_2012_ET15.png
 
It always amuses me how the left constantly tell everyone how they shouldn't read sections of the media, ie;
those sections which do not espouse what they believe. You rarely get anyone on here telling them not to read the Mirror,
unless as a response to the constant tiresome reference to the Mail, Sun etc;
Plenty want them banned, in true Stalinist style, simply because they hate the fact that nobody wants to read what
they think people should read.
There is incessant reference to right leaning press, and that if it weren't for this everyone would follow the true path
of universal socialism,and if we can shriek and footstamp long enough, the Guardian will eventually put them straight.
 
aguero93:20 said:
*ahem* I've tried to advocate a boycott of that particular rag on several occasions. Also, it hasn't been a political paper in any way, shape or form since the 70s.
Click to expand...
'Rag' is an apt description, however, the Mirror has always been a staunch Labour advocate and still is.
Nothing wrong with that, or the Guardian, my point is that it's tedious in the extreme when people assume
everyone's political views are solely based on these sources.
 
SWP's back said:
I'm getting 28.8% against 28.6% EU average (Social Protection spending) but a higher than average spend on social protection per capita (which is more important). Far less? You'll need to provide your sources please. Mine are here:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Social_protection_statistics

I'm also not sure why are measuring against the EU rather than say New Zealand or the US (other than the fact you know France and Scandinavia bump the EU up).

It's not meaningless in the remotest seeing as we are speaking about the UK only. One would imagine that spending was slashed by the Tories on the NHS and Education from reading this thread. When when look and see that the Tories are spending the same percentage now as Labour did ten years ago on the two then it ends that argument and the EU doesn't need bringing into it.

Come on Colin, try not to compare apples with lego.
Click to expand...
The original post was about Health and you've provided figures for benefits. Here's my source for the shortfall in health spending: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2...nding-compare-health-spending-internationally
 
law74 said:
Workfare, my next door neighbours daughter could only get a 4 hour a week contract in a retail shop about a year ago, so was still claiming job seekersey allowance, because she was on JSA she was sent on "workfare" and placed in the shop she had her 4 hours per week contract.
Add the hours she was working between her contracted (paid) hours and her workfare (unpaid) hours & dividing it into her total weekly income and she was getting about £2.20 per hour.
Can you justify this?



Though the 100 people getting the £35,000 per annum will be spending most of that in the local economy, paying VAT on their purchases, keeping shops and suppliers open and employing staff and keeping the chain moving, whereas the CEO would be more likely to have it hidden in an offshore account, or buying a bigger villa abroad, with little if any further gain to the regional economy (& that's before getting into the discussion of is it better to help one person massively or many people moderately).
Click to expand...

But regardless, the CEO is responsible for a company that might employ thousands of people. Why shouldn't he be allowed to buy a villa or whatever else? If you won the lottery, should we impose 90% tax because you clearly don't deserve it?

How do you know the CEO is not spending his money here, buying a house here, running a business propping up thousands of jobs? The CEO of my last company sat 10 desks away and was a top bloke who did more than enough to invest in staff and run the company best. Who am I to say he should pay more tax, not buy his villa etc?

I don't tell people not earning a lot whether they should be allowed to buy TV's they can barely afford, have pets, have children etc? Maybe if we are prepared to tell executives what they can and can't do maybe we should be doing the same to poor people who could be poor because they are making poor choices?
 
GFBlue said:
I'm 55 have worked in Defence for 30+ years and I would back nuclear disarmament tomorrow. It is a gross waste of taxpayers money!
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that you and the other half dozen or so who believe in unilateral disarmament may have some
difficulty using Jezza as a conduit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top