• 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?

Potential October GE: Who will you vote for?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 84 19.1%
  • Labour

    Votes: 129 29.4%
  • SNP

    Votes: 29 6.6%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 0.9%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 130 29.6%
  • TIG

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • UUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Green Party (or any local Green affiliate)

    Votes: 14 3.2%
  • Other independent or minor party (please state!)

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Spoiled ballot

    Votes: 7 1.6%
  • Not voting

    Votes: 13 3.0%
  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 24 5.5%

  • Total voters
    439
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
Who says that is bad?

What is your plan to improve standards across the board once you have banned private education?

Everyone in charge of education over the past forty years has decided that academic selection is bad, hence why the grammer school system has been dismantled in most places.

The only way to obtain improved standards across the board is to promote a combination of academic rigour and a comparatively disciplined teaching environment.

The second bit seems to be the more difficult to achieve in some settings.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Everyone in charge of education over the past forty years has decided that academic selection is bad, hence why the grammer school system has been dismantled in most places.
Except Theresa May, who was indulging her Daily Mail tendencies and voting base rather than taking account of any evidence.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Instead of outlining how they intend to improve state schools to a level higher than those of private schools ( thus rendering the private system pointless) they merely try to make sure that mediocrity is made normal.

I don't disagree with your analysis, but any party that abolishes the tax breaks for private schools will get my vote.

State schools will never be able to compete with selective private schools operating outside of tax and education laws that apply to everyone else.

I'd pull Eton down and turn it into flats for asylum seekers if I got my way.

But on a more serious note, I'd make the schools pay business taxes unless 50% of their cohort pay no fees, I'd make them follow the National Curriculum, and I'd make them subject to OFSTED inspections.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
State schools will never be able to compete with selective private schools operating outside of tax and education laws that apply to everyone else.

I'd pull Eton down and turn it into flats for asylum seekers if I got my way.
The problem isn't selective schools, it can be a very effective system depending on how students are selected. The problem with too many British public schools is that the wealthy self-select by virtue of being wealthy and the schools focus on creating 'leaders'* rather than on academic success.

*AKA posh, arrogant, ***kers.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,157
Location
West of Andover
Besides if Labour do get rid of private schools, where will they send their own offspring to be educated? :lol:

The party of "do what I say, not as I do" springs to mind.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
I don't disagree with your analysis, but any party that abolishes the tax breaks for private schools will get my vote.

Really? It is such an obvious lefty dog whistle. It is pointless and helps no one and is, frankly, a waste of time because it does nothing that I can see to raise standards for all. That is before we consider the obvious jealousy and anti aspiration platform this supports.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best for your kids yet Corbyn wants to ensure that mediocrity is the best anyone can have. It is silly.
 

Meole

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2018
Messages
452
Besides if Labour do get rid of private schools, where will they send their own offspring to be educated? :lol:

The party of "do what I say, not as I do" springs to mind.
Corbyn attended a private school for part of his education as did his son so he understands the issues.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
because, of course, once the evil private education system is dismantled those same rich parents wont just pay for a private tutor for little Jonny...........

What's likely to happen is the good state schools will find the house prices going up nearby.

They, by having rich parents, will then be able to do effective fund raising for more stuff. Meaning that the school would be better equipped than it would otherwise be.

This then in turn means that the school would be better than those around it, pushing house prices up still further.

Repeat a few more times and the school is then mostly only attracting those who are wealthy as the village or part of town that it's catchment is only accessible to those with a lot of money. This then makes fund raising easy (the sort of people who wouldn't think twice about attending a ball for £100 a head, especially as it's helping educate little Johnny, which easily raises £3,000 in one night, especially if there's conversations asking the lines of "oh we missed you at the ball last night, why weren't you there?" As it's the place to be seen).

As an example what would your school do with an extra £40 per child from the parents association? (For a two form entry primary school that's about £17,000) A new computer suite? 7 I-Pad minis for each class? Lots of new books?

Now imagine what £80 per child (£34,000) or even £120 per child (£51,000) would be able to do.

Now consider that money is each and every year and books only need replacing every 8 years, computers/ipads every 4, etc. It would result in a very well equipped school.

If the funding is significant enough then they could look at things to reduce their ongoing costs (maybe even things like solar panels) meaning that they can be kitted out even better as their budget will stretch further.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
The only real way to do this is to fund all the schools in the North and deprived areas more than the schools down south and in the suburbs, therefore all the rich will move to the North and deprived areas, society will be fixed. There I have just wrote my first Labour Policy best get on the phone to Corbo and Seamus.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,157
Location
West of Andover
The only real way to do this is to fund all the schools in the North and deprived areas more than the schools down south and in the suburbs, therefore all the rich will move to the North and deprived areas, society will be fixed. There I have just wrote my first Labour Policy best get on the phone to Corbo and Seamus.

And all of a sudden more kids are being sent abroad to international schools to get a better education.

Joining all the pharmaceutical R&D companies in leaving the UK
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Was reading a newspaper yesterday and one ideal of Labour was unlimited immigration with unlimited access to benefits.

While controlled immigration can benefit the country with people bringing in skills that are needed, having a open door policy while ignoring the needs of its own citizens by prioritising others is electoral suicide by Labour.

It’s ill thought out policies like this that make Labour unelectable under Corbyn.
 

AntoniC

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2011
Messages
862
Location
Southport
My seat of Southport is currently Tory (boo hiss) so I definitely wont be voting for them, so my options then are Labour or Lib Dem.
I voted (tactically) Lib Dem in 2017 but this split the protest vote as Labour finished second (unexpectedly) and Lib Dems third.
So, at the moment I dont know - I *may* vote Labour for the first time if I like their policies (I dont like JC) or I may play safe and vote Lib Dem.
Decisions, Decisions
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,581
I have an issue with voting for someone who will say anything to get into power. What will such a person do once they have got power, and in particular what will they say and do to stay in power. Boris is the archetypal example of someone who will say anything to get into power, and we already have several worrying examples of how he behaves once he has got power. You would expect that someone in his position would know the difference between prerouging parliament and recessing it, but apparently he knows better than ALL eleven of our most senior judges. Having claimed that prerouging parliament had nothing to do with Brexit, he then tells us that cancelling it was anti-Brexit. I wouldn't trust the man further than I could throw him.

Unfortunately I am not convinced that Corbyn is much better. His refusal to come off the fence on Brexit for fear of alienating one side or the other is fooling no-one - it is only making both sides distrust him.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
My seat of Southport is currently Tory (boo hiss) so I definitely wont be voting for them, so my options then are Labour or Lib Dem.
I voted (tactically) Lib Dem in 2017 but this split the protest vote as Labour finished second (unexpectedly) and Lib Dems third.
So, at the moment I dont know - I *may* vote Labour for the first time if I like their policies (I dont like JC) or I may play safe and vote Lib Dem.
Decisions, Decisions
Is there any information on your Labour candidate's views and whether they align with yours (or Corbyn's)? With Labour currently it's more necessary than ever to vote on the actual candidate not just the party line, for Labour in particular.

I'd also vote tactically against the Tory but only if I was pretty sure the Labour candidate would support Remain strongly and would also be prepared to break with some of their more extreme policies, as part of a coalition agreement for example.
I've done a few searches on ours and there is nothing to see except a few very short biographies and a Twitter page that you have to follow before you can read it. So that's another potential vote they've lost.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,421
Was reading a newspaper yesterday and one ideal of Labour was unlimited immigration with unlimited access to benefits.
.
I can't find that in the shadow Home Secretary's conference speech, perhaps you can find a link? Surely it can't be a newspaper scaremongering , could it? 'Unlimited' access to benefits sounds like 'unlimited' coffee in 'spoons!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I can't find that in the shadow Home Secretary's conference speech, perhaps you can find a link? Surely it can't be a newspaper scaremongering , could it? 'Unlimited' access to benefits sounds like 'unlimited' coffee in 'spoons!

As per the Guardian:

Labour members have voted overwhelmingly to give full voting rights to all UK residents, committing the party to extend the franchise to millions of immigrants.

A motion tabled by the Labour Campaign for Free Movement was passed at the party’s conference in Brighton on Wednesday morning, after MPs were forced to rush back to Westminster to attend the newly reconvened House of Commons.

As well as extending voting rights, the text commits a future Labour government to closing all immigration detention centres, ending “no recourse to public funds” policies and seeking to extend free movement rights to people around the world.

The motion also opposed immigration systems based on a person’s income or “utility to big business”, and any caps or targets on the number of people moving to the UK.

...

Full Fact provide some nuance on what the actual situation is as well:

Following the conclusion of the Labour Party conference on Wednesday, the front page of the Telegraph’s Thursday edition reported that the party had agreed a policy to remove all controls on immigration.

This is incorrect, as the Labour party pointed out.

At its annual conference, Labour passed a broad proposal for its future migration policy.

The motion said Labour will include manifesto pledges to, among other things, “maintain and extend free movement rights”, “close all detention centres” and to “reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.” The full text of the proposal is available here.

Afterwards, Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott was quoted by the Guardian as saying: “Be assured, our plans for government include these provisions and a lot more,” indicating that the proposal would be adopted as party policy.

The provisions laid out in the motion do seem to represent significant reductions in the barriers to immigrants coming to the UK and settling here. However claiming these proposals amount to the removal of “all controls on immigration” is exaggeration.

...
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
As per the Guardian:



Full Fact provide some nuance on what the actual situation is as well:

Even IF (which it doesn't sound like it is, but I'm saying this to make a point) it were to allow access to everything as if they were a UK citizen there would be relatively few people who would come to this country just to claim them.

For starters you've for to get here, which isn't that easy or cheap.

Once you've got here you've got to apply, now assuming that you've got to have an address to apply that's going to take a bit of time to sort out.

Even then there's a 4-5 week delay before you get paid anything.

With claiming housing benefits you have to have no home, but also can't have made yourself homeless (i.e. you have to have been evicted) as such you can't just come here and get a house (as that's making yourself homeless).

A simple rule change could be that if you claim benefits and you've only come to the UK in the last 12 months then, unless you've claimed asylum on arrival, you will be provided with return travel and offered it at any point thereafter if you so wish to do so. If you take up the return travel then your details will be kept on file and you'll only be able to re-enter the UK or it's territories upon repayment of the costs of this travel (unless for asylum purposes). If you've paid taxes than 5% of taxes paid will be counted towards repayment of your travel if you take up that offer (however no tax rebate will be permitted for taxes paid below the tax free threshold for that year. Nor will you be entitled to any future benefits, such as state pension, which you would have otherwise be entitled to).

That change would mean that you've got to be able to sustain yourself at least a year before your able to claim benefits and get money rather than be offered return travel.

You may find that some people work for a period of time and then get free travel back to their home country (such as to retire) however the numbers are likely to be small and by closing the ability to claim state pension then this would limit people doing so.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Dipped back into this thread to see how the voting is going. Given that well over 250 people have voted, the results are still some way from being ‘statistically significant’ from a pollsters perspective (most opinion polls have at least 1000 respondents).

However it would appear to be reasonable to conclude that the RUK readership of this thread are more than twice as likely to vote Lib Dem than any other party. Which is astonishing. I’m not quite sure whether this says something about RUK contributors, the Lib Dems, or society as a whole. You could get a decent essay out of this!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Dipped back into this thread to see how the voting is going. Given that well over 250 people have voted, the results are still some way from being ‘statistically significant’ from a pollsters perspective (most opinion polls have at least 1000 respondents).

However it would appear to be reasonable to conclude that the RUK readership of this thread are more than twice as likely to vote Lib Dem than any other party. Which is astonishing. I’m not quite sure whether this says something about RUK contributors, the Lib Dems, or society as a whole. You could get a decent essay out of this!

Indeed, typically the perception would be that a rail basis forum (with the likelihood of union members skewing the results) that we'd see a fairly strong Labour vote.

The Lib Dems bring typically the third (or forth since the SNP do so well in Scotland) party in most elections wouldn't be expected to do overly well in any poll.

The only thinking that I've got is that either:

We are mostly remainers and so wish to vote for the biggest party which is clear on its stance on Brexit.

We are reflecting the potential view that Brexit in its current form or potential form isn't what those who wanted to leave thought that it would be and so people have shifted their view and therefore voting choice.

It being an internet based forum we don't attract the typical Tory Party Euro Sceptic and so this skews the result, however they are much more likely to vote in a traditional election.

Any combination of the above, or even some other reason.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The other reason that leaps to mind is that going by people's posts, there are "traditional" Labour voters here who are put off doing so by some combination of Corbyn himself, the people around him or the policies and behavior of the party. I would certainly consider voting Labour (depending on the candidate as I posted somewhere above) but very put off by the antics at the conference - seems to be straight back to the 80s.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
The other reason that leaps to mind is that going by people's posts, there are "traditional" Labour voters here who are put off doing so by some combination of Corbyn himself, the people around him or the policies and behavior of the party. I would certainly consider voting Labour (depending on the candidate as I posted somewhere above) but very put off by the antics at the conference - seems to be straight back to the 80s.
I’d agree with that, but I’d go one further and say that there are plenty of traditional Labour voters on here that are pretty angry at the mess the party finds itself in at a time when they should be absolutely knocking the Tory’s out of the park.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,421
However it would appear to be reasonable to conclude that the RUK readership of this thread are more than twice as likely to vote Lib Dem than any other party. Which is astonishing. I’m not quite sure whether this says something about RUK contributors, the Lib Dems, or society as a whole. You could get a decent essay out of this!

Perhaps they wish to have more Austerity (given Jo Swinson's endorsement of it)
 

Robin Edwards

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
369
I’d agree with that, but I’d go one further and say that there are plenty of traditional Labour voters on here that are pretty angry at the mess the party finds itself in at a time when they should be absolutely knocking the Tory’s out of the park.
I do agree Cowley although given the much greater mess we're in with Johnson & Co, given the choice I'd favour what I would judge as the lesser evil.
Placing Corbyn the personality to one side, I find most of the labour policies to address the imbalance that has grown to be preferable to me as a choice to be made. Selling us that austerity and the pain that has inflicted on the most vulnerable in society, was the only option has been a con and to continue to drive people into more servitude whilst building the wealth of the already wealthy as Johnson will do, can not go on imho.
I'm afraid I don't trust the Yellow Tories since last time I trusted them!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Indeed, typically the perception would be that a rail basis forum (with the likelihood of union members skewing the results) that we'd see a fairly strong Labour vote.

The Lib Dems bring typically the third (or forth since the SNP do so well in Scotland) party in most elections wouldn't be expected to do overly well in any poll.

The only thinking that I've got is that either:

We are mostly remainers and so wish to vote for the biggest party which is clear on its stance on Brexit.

We are reflecting the potential view that Brexit in its current form or potential form isn't what those who wanted to leave thought that it would be and so people have shifted their view and therefore voting choice.

It being an internet based forum we don't attract the typical Tory Party Euro Sceptic and so this skews the result, however they are much more likely to vote in a traditional election.

Any combination of the above, or even some other reason.

Good thoughts.

I have a view, which may not be shared by many, that most people who post on this forum have a reasonable understanding of the realities of life, are well read, literate, and up to date on ‘affairs of state’. And thus are able to understand what Br**it will do to this country. As the Lib Dems are the only national party with an unequivocal remain stance, that must be a draw.

Add in the current mess that is both the Conservative and Labour Parties, which has unquestionably caused more moderate voters for each to think twice, and the Lib Dems are sitting pretty.

I too would consider voting Labour, with more moderate policies, but never ever with old Steptoe (or any of his cronies) in charge.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Perhaps they wish to have more Austerity (given Jo Swinson's endorsement of it)
The whole nature of a coalition is that the smaller party in particular has to swallow some stuff they don't want, to get a chance for some of their policies to be taken on board. With hindsight the LibDems probably shouldn't have gone into it and certainly shouldn't have been so enthusiastic about it, ending up shafted by Osborne and paving the way for Brexit. But at the time the need was for a stable government in the midst of the financial crisis, and the numbers meant that a LibDem/Labour coalition would have had to have pretty much every minor party on board as well to get a majority.
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,421
The whole nature of a coalition is that the smaller party in particular has to swallow some stuff they don't want, to get a chance for some of their policies to be taken on board. With hindsight the LibDems probably shouldn't have gone into it and certainly shouldn't have been so enthusiastic about it, ending up shafted by Osborne and paving the way for Brexit. But at the time the need was for a stable government in the midst of the financial crisis, and the numbers meant that a LibDem/Labour coalition would have had to have pretty much every minor party on board as well to get a majority.
I see where you are coming from but there was of course the myth peddled by Cameron and Osborne that Labour was responsible for the worldwide financial crisis, tell a lie often enough etc etc and once that was picked up by mainstream media the die was cast. The LibDems were very enthusiastic about it (the need for Austerity) at the time, they might like to row back from it a bit now, but Swinson has said, I think, that she has no regrets
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
The concept of austerity - cutting back on government spending - was sound. The devil was (as always) in the details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top