Spamcan81
Member
Won't be voting Conservative but I know a fair few Labour voters who fit your description of a typical over 55 Tory yet laughingly call themselves socialists.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Poll: Potential General Election: who are you voting for?
- Thread starter AlterEgo
- Start date
- Status
Won't be voting Conservative but I know a fair few Labour voters who fit your description of a typical over 55 Tory yet laughingly call themselves socialists.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I kinda agree - but with a strong proviso, of, sufficient for whom to live on? A wage that's sufficient for family with two children to live on, or for a single parent with two children renting a house privately to live on, would probably give a life of untold luxury to a single person living with their parents, or to a single person who already owns a house. And conversely, a wage that's sufficient for a single person to live very comfortably could probably leave a family with one breadwinner in abject poverty. This kind of consideration always seems to be missing from the arguments to solve poverty by raising the minimum wage (along with the issues of whether increasing the minimum wage would just lead to inflation and therefore leave the people it was intended to help no better off).
Probably because they have zero chance of winning. Their only viable option for any chance of power will be to accept scraps from the masters table. If there was a hung parliament, they will be in a rather awkward position. Do they side with the Conservative Party (the likely winners) and admit defeat on their remain stance. Which would cause complete embarrassment and destroy their credibility or do they side with Labour and still end up having to back Brexit and when that goes horribly wrong lose even more credibility because they will fail at a coalition once again.
Conservative and Labour only really have one stance when asked about a hung parliament and that is that they intend to win and that is the only scenario they are interested in.
Conservative and Labour only really have one stance when asked about a hung parliament and that is that they intend to win and that is the only scenario they are interested in.
cactustwirly
Established Member
Well if there was a hung parliament, they would only side with the Tories on the condition of a second referendum with a remain option.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Because the right-wing establishment* parties have had decades and centuries of experience of encouraging the less well-off to vote against their own interests.
*'Establishment' here is used to encompass both political, economic and other forms of establishment. While The Brexit Party would argue that it is not an 'establishment party', it's leader has been an MEP for 20 years (thus is part of the political establishment), and it is funded by people like Aaron Banks, Richard Tice, and other businessmen, all of whom are part of the economic establishment.
I would suggest consulting the Living Wage Foundation to seek your answers. In particular the two documents halfway down this page:
https://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation
thenorthern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 May 2013
- Messages
- 4,114
Sort of although the United Kingdom is a very centralized state meaning that most decisions are made at a national level.
Also certain things like tax cuts or major projects can benefit some areas at the expense of others. In my area a lot of the decisions of the past 9 years by the government has been beneficial to my constituency.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
So you like automation and machinery then, as the report states - it’s actually a good idea? You’ve changed your tune.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
..he says sarcastically as he posts from a PC that someone had to design from chip level,develop, and programme and integrate to do the nice clicky bits in a user friendly fashion.
anyone in here old enough to remember programming in BASIC?
the early computers even before basic,you'd have to learn either ASCII,HEX or machine code(ie pure binary 1's and 0's)
these days is so much simpler,but behind each icon on your desktop is a bunch of source code that someone had to write the script for,to make it locate the right file,perform actions x and y in the correct sequence,etc etc.
technology is GOOD!,as long as people remember there is a human cost to letting it run riot.
it's even better gig if you can actually DO the programming,because the skillbase is so limited.
would you prefer going back to 2 or 3 days delay each way for a letter correspondence,or have an email reply in a minute or two?
automation is coming,whether you like it or not,but I do agree there needs to be some limitations.
for example.ray kurzweil's "transhumanism" where everyone is plugged into the borg,I find disturbing, but something like thought controlled prosthetics I would be totally in favour of
Last edited:
As I said before I was going to vote for the Liberal Democrats, but they've since lost my vote. I cannot vote for a party which, if they won the election, would simply ignore the votes of seventeen million people. I don't agree with the result of the referendum, but I think that's absolutely outrageous.
I'm now going to vote Labour, although that's because I think they're the least worst rather than the best.
I'm now going to vote Labour, although that's because I think they're the least worst rather than the best.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,080
I agree with you in almost every detail there. Where I live in St Ives constituency we have Lib Dem only having lost to Tories by 320 votes last time, with the same ex-MP candidate standing again, but the Greens aren't standing down and may get several thousand votes. Last election they didn't stand 'by local arrangement' to try to get the LD elected, but now, with this supposed national pact, they're standing! I suspect Lib Dem internal politics here - Andrew George, the former MP referred to, was critical of Swinson's 'we'll revoke Brexit' policy at their recent party conference, for similar reasons to those you give. In predominantly Leave Cornwall it's madness to say the LDs would just ignore the original Referendum result, unless they achieve the fantasy majority that Swinson claims to be possible, in which case they could be said to have that mandate. So, I shall be voting for the LD candidate but NOT the party. Incidentally, my wife has an ex-colleague friend with whom she remains in touch, who almost became a Lib Dem MP years ago, losing by only a few votes, and remains close to those at the top of the party. His view, on the phone to her yesterday, was, interestingly, that the Lib Dems should aid Labour if the latter won more seats than the Tories, regardless of their leader.
If they were to form a majority government, having run on a promise that they would revoke Article 50, then clearly revoking Article 50 is the will of the people. Or do the votes of people in 2016 somehow override the votes of people in 2019.
There are valid reasons to deny the Lib Dems your vote, but that is not one of them.
Last time I checked, disagreeing with a party's policy on a subject which is important to you is a valid reason not to vote for them. I don't agree with the Liberal Democrats' policy to revoke Article 50 without another referendum, so I'm not voting for them.
I would much rather Article 50 was revoked after the public voted for it in a second referendum, which is what Labour are proposing. That's one of the reasons I've decided to vote Labour, even though I expect them to win in my constituency anyway.
cactustwirly
Established Member
I'm conflicted, I do want to vote Lib Dem for national issues, but I also want to vote for my current Tory MP who is very good at campaigning for local issues, especially for improved rail services.
Brilliant post. I’ve also been there and done that, albeit not with the Golden Arches but in another kitchen (in public service, natch). I was doing 60-70 hour weeks on split shifts.
The price of Lib Dem co-operation (in coalition or not) with *any* party, regardless of which one, will be a delay to Br**it and a second referendum to determine it. Similarly, the price of the SNP co-operation with any party will be indyref2. In both cases I think it will be easier for Labour to accept the terms than the Conservatives. This is why the outcome of the election will be interesting, as it will come down to a very fine margin in a handful of seats. I confidently predict that the next government, and the future of Br**it, will be decided by fewer than a hundred thousand voters in perhaps 30 seats. Which is why it is important that everyone who can votes, and votes intelligently.
How successful has he/she been in getting those rail services, and if so, was it a direct result of the campaigning?
My Conservative candidate (and sitting MP*) is claiming, and I quote: “I’ve secured more regular trains between St Albans and London and the introduction of Contactless payments.” I don’t remember her sitting in the timetabling meetings between 3-7 years ago where the Thameslink timetables were discussed and decided. Nor any mention of her desire to see ‘more regular trains’. It certainly wasn’t used as criteria in the decision making process.
She’s also “been working hard to help those impacted by severe noise pollution from Luton Airport... (and) ... will continue to campaign for a full review and change to the disasatrous RNAV flight path.” That will be the RNAV flight path, introduced several years ago, that standardised the flight arrival and departure flight paths such that the number of her constituents directly overflown by aircraft (under 10,000 feet) to or from Luton has been reduced from tens of thousands to precisely zero. Meanwhile heavies and super heavies from Heathrow head directly overhead at 5-6000 feet, and no doubt she supports Heathrow expansion, being very good at toeing the Government line.
You couldn’t make it up. Except she has. Unfortunately there’s a shy majority in St Albans who still vote for her. If only the Labour and Green vote, who have no chance here now, would hold their noses and vote tactically...
*her most publicised contribution to parliamentary debate in her 14 year tenure has been about dog sh*t. You couldn’t make it up. Except she has.
It is. But the policy that you disagree with doesn't "ignore" 17 million voters.
So how do you think those who still wish to leave the EU are going to feel if Article 50 is revoked despite initially being promised the result of the referendum would be implemented? Do you think they're going to feel their wish to leave the EU was listened to?
I completely agree with Caroline Lucas and Norman Lamb. The referendum result has to be acknowledged, regardless of the outcome of this election.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
So if someone being an elected representative for 20 years qualifies them to be “part of the establishment”, what does that make Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and the like?
In the last 3 years a bit over 1.5 million people have died, so probably that 17 million is now closer to 16.5 million (allowing for voting split, turnout and those not eligible to vote).
In another 10 years it will be closer to 15 million. The point being; at what point do you then stop saying that we have to stick by the result as it's the will of the people.
To be honest, I don't really care about their hurt feelings.
The results of the referendum were implemented - we invoked Article 50. If a party then runs on a platform of revoking it and wins a majority government then it's perfectly democratic to revoke.
You'd be correct to say that it's a bad policy politically since it alienates people who are in favour of a more controlled exit from or a changed relationship with the EU, but undemocratic it is not.
As a case study, local government are cutting school buses using national policy at by DfE.
That policy doesn't require the local government to consider national policy set out by DfT for the assessing of highway schemes. Nor does it need to consider the ability of people to get along the route with a bike (so not allowing that as an option, which is likely to increase carbon emissions by people driving - contrary to government policy) or allow parents to accompany their school aged child with a buggy (which means that younger siblings have to walk too).
Given that it's not uncommon for children aged up to 8 to have a younger sibling not at school, and whilst it's less common for those aged 8 and over it's still not that rare, that's a lot of children not at school being expected to walk up to 2 miles (siblings of those under 8) or up to 3 miles (siblings of those over 8).
The system is so messed up that although DfE encourage local educational authorities to have children from the September before they turn 5, but definitely from the start of term before they turn 5, free school transport doesn't have to be provided until the child is 5.
The result being a "safe" walking routes which are far from for for purpose, councils approving spending to improve the routes even though:
a) there is no way of assessing of the traffic volumes in the future will grow so that crossing points are then deemed unsafe, which could mean that the money is spent but not enough savings are produced before either more spending is required or the buses are reinstated
b) the DfE's consultation on the assessment of safe walking routes had just finished and it could well be that even small changes in the policy could render the improvements not suitable, meaning zero savings before the buses are reinstated.
Add to the mix a local MP who has upset a significant number of people on this matter, including those without children as any extra traffic created by children being driven to school will add to the congestion of a motorway junction which a lot of local people use.
As such local issues are important and are influenced by national policy, so are valid to vote on at a national election.
It doesn't take much thought to realise what this "policy" is about. The Lib Dem's know full well they have zero chance of getting a majority in this election, so their policies for "if we get a majority" are not going to be implemented.
However, if they end up in a coalition, they can use what they had in their manifesto to negotiate with the other parties. It doesn't take much of a leap to take a promise to revoke to become a compromise of a second referendum in order to support another party who didn't have a revoke or second referendum on their manifesto.
Esker-pades
Established Member
That makes them part of an establishment.
It certainly means that claims to be 'an outsider' from Farage et Al are false.
Couple of things to note:
1. Being part of the establishment isn't necessarily bad
2. I specified right-wing earlier, so this is slightly irrelevant
The referendum result has not been implemented. The question was Remain in the EU or Leave. We haven't left yet. Article 50 is the start of the process to leave. I will concede the rest of your point.
Actually I’ve been a firm believer in decent quality jobs for a while. Not the BS “jobs” created by the likes of Uber and Deliveroo. I’ve been saying that people in this country need to be upskilled for a while. I believe Labour are promising free adult education courses to enable adults to upskill themselves ready for more productive employment. The current UK economy is purely based on rubbish dead end service sector work where the aim is purely to get people off the dole queue statistics.
433N
Guest
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 752
Well, you can choose who you vote for in the GE on the basis of local school bus practicalities, but personally I'll be looking at the bigger picture.
Oh, that's almost certainly the intent.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
As I keep pointing out, opinion polls over the last couple of years have averaged about 53% for remaining.
And that's exactly what the policy is: "I don't care".
No it wasn't, we haven't left the EU.
I must have missed it, but can you please show me where I said "I'm not voting for Liberal Democrats because the policy I disagree with is undemocratic"? I didn't say it was undemocratic, I quite clearly said I don't agree with the policy because I think it is a poor one.
You've previously said you don't think the policy ignores those who voted to leave, and now you've just said it would alienate leave voters. Make your mind up.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I agree it's actually democratic but not good politics, but that's a minor issue compared to some of the policies of the other parties. Not least Brexit itself where the electorate was basically hoodwinked and what we get, if we get it, will bear no resemblance to what a narrow majority of those voted were led to believe.
- Status