• 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.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Austerity was peddled on the Thatcherite line that a country has to be run like a household, and if you're spending too much you need to cut back. This makes sense to a lot of people, but Osborne is clever enough to know that it's not like that if you're a country. Cutting back reduces economic activity which in turn reduces tax take so the deficit doesn't go away. Which is why I think he was being a cynical populist by adopting this policy to win the election when he knew, or ought to have known, that more borrowing, less cutting and selective tax increases would be the best way out of recession. Unfortunately for him it backfired by creating a lot of the unhappiness that was expressed in the form of Brexit - something he opposes as much as anyone.

As to the LibDems, I think they mitigated some of the worst effects of Tory policy (and they refused to agree the boundary changes which would have cemented the Tory majority in 2015 and changed subsequent events profoundly) but they couldn't really challenge something that was core to the Tory manifesto. With hindsight they could have done a lot more, such as stopping some of the pointless NHS reforms that weren't in the manifesto. But definitely the least bad of the available options now as far as I'm concerned.
 
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
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
Austerity was peddled on the Thatcherite line that a country has to be run like a household, and if you're spending too much you need to cut back. This makes sense to a lot of people, but Osborne is clever enough to know that it's not like that if you're a country. Cutting back reduces economic activity which in turn reduces tax take so the deficit doesn't go away. Which is why I think he was being a cynical populist by adopting this policy to win the election when he knew, or ought to have known, that more borrowing, less cutting and selective tax increases would be the best way out of recession. Unfortunately for him it backfired by creating a lot of the unhappiness that was expressed in the form of Brexit - something he opposes as much as anyone.

I thought it was a bit more complicated: You're correct that you can't really run the country like a household because, as you say, when you cut spending, that depresses the economy. However there is still some effect. So, for the sake of argument, if you lop £10 billion off Government spending, you might reduce the tax take by £5Bn, so you still reduce the deficit - but by only y £5Bn, not by the £10Bn that you cut spending by. Obviously the actual figures will be very different from that, but that's the principle.

So, if you want to reduce the deficit (which is an admirable aim) then either cutting spending or increasing taxes should eventually do it, just not as quickly as you might think if you don't understand the feedback loop.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Labour proposes free and unlimited movement of migrants with the following motion being passed at the Labour conference:

The Sun

LABOUR will allow unlimited freedom of movement and voting rights for EU nationals if they win an election.

Lefty delegates backed the plans at the party's conference today - but they were slammed by Tories who accused Jeremy Corbyn of allowing "dangerous" criminals to roam our streets with ease.

Under the policy EU nationals would also be allowed to vote in a second Brexit referendum if Mr Corbyn gets to No10.

In a Labour motion it said: “Free movement, equality and rights for migrants, are socialist values and benefit us all.”

Labour members have also been told that the party will reject any immigration system based on "incomes, migrants' utility to business and number caps or targets".

And the party will ensure an "unconditional right" to family reunion, scrap all "hostile environment" measures and seek to "actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives".
...


Sky News

A Labour government will campaign for, maintain and extend free movement rights for migrants, following a vote at the party's conference in Brighton.

Despite party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Labour MPs hurrying back to Westminster - after the prime minister's suspension of parliament was ruled unlawful - the last day of Labour's annual gathering still saw the party adopt new immigration policy.


A motion, passed by a show of hands of conference delegates, commits Labour to make manifesto pledges at the next general election to:

  • Oppose current Conservative immigration legislation and any curbing of rights
  • Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants
  • Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants' utility to business, and number caps or targets
  • Maintain and extend free movement rights
  • Scrap all "hostile environment" measures
  • Ensure unconditional right to family reunion
....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I thought it was a bit more complicated: You're correct that you can't really run the country like a household because, as you say, when you cut spending, that depresses the economy. However there is still some effect. So, for the sake of argument, if you lop £10 billion off Government spending, you might reduce the tax take by £5Bn, so you still reduce the deficit - but by only y £5Bn, not by the £10Bn that you cut spending by. Obviously the actual figures will be very different from that, but that's the principle.

So, if you want to reduce the deficit (which is an admirable aim) then either cutting spending or increasing taxes should eventually do it, just not as quickly as you might think if you don't understand the feedback loop.
That's why I suggested the correct approach would be more modest spending cuts combined with some tax rises - the latter targeted at areas that were relatively unaffected by the crash and wouldn't hit the "real" economy. Perhaps time for a minuscule tax on the vast financial transactions sloshing around the system, which would also dampen down some of the speculation that was the cause of the crisis in the first place. And with interest rates very low the government could have afforded to borrow more to cushion the blow.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
The consensus in 2010 was that some sort of austerity was required, remember Alistair Darling saying he’d cut deeper than Thatcher? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher
With an accelerating deficit all the politicians reckoned it looked best to appear economically responsible. Even if some economic theories say a downturn is the time to invest. Though that same theory says the time to cut is when the economy is doing well, so you don’t get left with unaffordable commitments when the music stops.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Perhaps they wish to have more Austerity (given Jo Swinson's endorsement of it)

Austerity wasn't such a bad idea at the time- all parties endorsed it, even Labour- but of course got hijacked by Gideon for ideological purposes. The LibDems got outflanked by the Tories' press machine pinning the blame on them.

Most of the worst of it came after the 2015 election, it should be said.

And plenty of people must have wanted more austerity- the LibDems vote collapsed, but mainly to the Conservatives!
 

Arglwydd Golau

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Messages
1,421
Austerity wasn't such a bad idea at the time- all parties endorsed it, even Labour- but of course got hijacked by Gideon for ideological purposes. The LibDems got outflanked by the Tories' press machine pinning the blame on them.

Most of the worst of it came after the 2015 election, it should be said.

And plenty of people must have wanted more austerity- the LibDems vote collapsed, but mainly to the Conservatives!

Indeed Labour did endorse if at the time....and that was precisely one of the reasons Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader, many members felt that it was wrong that the poorest in society should pay for the damage caused by the bankers etc....we really really weren't all in it together.
You are correct that much of the worst came after the 2015 election...it was planned to be a long term thing, and the Lib Dems new it!
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Not to influence anybody yet to vote in this poll but the runaway leaders are quite the surprise!
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
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.

It could also be the people most likely to discuss politics are the ones most disapproving of it. Perhaps the Tory euro-sceptics on this forum don’t feel like they have enough to get off their chest.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
And doesn't reflect the general public.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Con 32.3
Lab 25.4
Lib 19.6
Brex 12.7

I still don't understand how anyone can vote Labour with Corbyn let alone 25% they must be mindless tribalists.

The far left extremist policies such as seizing business, property and land would put us a disaster course econmically. The more moderate policies and politicians are good but the party is being dragged to far to momentum extremists.

Their Brexit Policy is utterly delusional.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I still don't understand how anyone can vote Labour with Corbyn let alone 25% they must be mindless tribalists.

The far left extremist policies such as seizing business, property and land would put us a disaster course econmically. The more moderate policies and politicians are good but the party is being dragged to far to momentum extremists.

Their Brexit Policy is utterly delusional.

Which is why the Tories want a GE. They are, bad as they are, presently the only credible party of Government, and they know that.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The Tory strategy is to go for northern Labour seats while accepting that they will lose many in the south to LibDems and possibly Labour. It looks like they will also lose most of their representation in Scotland. One issue with this strategy is that most of the Tory ministers represent seats in the south and the opposition parties will make a special effort to unseat Boris and other prominent Brexiters in seats where the electorate leans to remaining. So even if they get more MPs they could find themselves without the sort of senior people they would expect to have to run a government. On a cynical note I'd suggest that might actually be a better outcome, as being a rapid Brexiter seems to correlate with general incompetence.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
The far left extremist policies such as seizing business, property and land would put us a disaster course econmically. The more moderate policies and politicians are good but the party is being dragged to far to momentum extremists.

Which Labour policies involve "seizing business, property and land"?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
Which Labour policies involve "seizing business, property and land"?

Potentially their plans for private schools though they seemed to row back quite rapidly from the initial firey rhetoric that proposal contained.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282

Depending on the details not all of those would result in the seizure of assets.

For instance the empty shop one could be that the council's offer a peppercorn rent to the owner (who otherwise would be getting nothing) and then offer it to those groups suggested to cover their costs. The lease period could be like a residential one, with a minimum of 6 months and one month's notice from 5 months onwards.

This would make other empty shop units more attractive as there would be more footfall past them.

In the example of start ups those extra staff working in the town centre would likely be buying stuff locally meaning that other shops may just about stay viable.

One local shopping centre had opened a mini soft play in an empty unit so as to make it more attractive to go shopping there.

Like most things it very much depends on the detail.

For instance if there's for to be a minimum number of shops empty before it can happen and only does so in a shop which is of a similar size to other empty shops, etc.

As an example if it could only be done if there's a minimum of 3 empty shops and more than 20% of shops are empty (which doesn't include any which are being offered to groups for use), none can be offered of there's a planning application in for redevelopment and other tenants have a right to veto the proposed use (so for instance a start up travel agent wouldn't likely be able to open up next to an existing travel agent).
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London

Scanning through those articles, I don't see how any of them merit the description "seizing business, property and land" or "far left extremist lunatics". What is described in those articles appears to be a mixture of what would amount to compulsory purchases and possible increases/changes to some taxes. Also worth pointing out that some of those articles are based not on actual manifesto policies but on resolutions passed at the Party conference. That's an important distinction because it's not at all unusual in UK politics for grass-roots members of parties to vote for conference resolutions proposing somewhat impractical policies, which are then screened out when manifestos are actually drawn out.

Personally I'm not massively happy with some of what is being proposed under Corbyn, but I think on this occasion you're misrepresenting Labour policies to be much worse than they actually are.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,122
Which is why the Tories want a GE. They are, bad as they are, presently the only credible party of Government, and they know that.
That’s surely not a given if Boris’s negotiations fail & Brexit misses the their self imposed Halloween deadline.
Then whether a majority opt to believe no deal is then unavoidable depends on which side ultimately runs a more effective election campaign,
 
Last edited:

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
One issue with this strategy is that most of the Tory ministers represent seats in the south and the opposition parties will make a special effort to unseat Boris and other prominent Brexiters in seats where the electorate leans to remaining. So even if they get more MPs they could find themselves without the sort of senior people they would expect to have to run a government. On a cynical note I'd suggest that might actually be a better outcome, as being a rapid Brexiter seems to correlate with general incompetence.

Is it not possible to be a minister in the UK without being an MP?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Alec Douglas-Home became PM while still a member of the House of Lords although he did renounce his peerage shortly afterwards.
Before that the last one would appear to have been the Marquess of Salisbury, who left office in 1902.

Lord Adonis is a more recent example of a minister who wasn't an MP. When this happens I assume they need another minister in the same department who is an MP to speak on their behalf in the Commons. Oddly enough I think I saw a suggestion that he might also renounce his peerage to stand as an MP.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Cameron's 2015 majority came from people in the south west switching to Tory from LibDem.
I think your interpretation of how LibDem seats fell to the Tories is a lot more nuanced than that. Many previous LibDem voters were p'ssed off by their chosen party's enthrallment to the Nasty Party, and how comfortable they were in forming part of the government. Complacency Clegg, of course, but others like Danny Laws and Danny Alexander (who? what?) who were more than happy dipping their snouts in the trough: Vince Cable's utterly unenforced surrender of the Post Office, its reverberations spreading throughout the region now, etc etc. Many didn't vote at all in the 2015 election, others voted Green. Personally, I swallowed my distaste and voted LibDem to try to prevent a particularly throwback redneck becoming my (Tory) MP, and Andrew George, in the last seat to declare in the UK, almost clung on. Despite the Brexit tendencies of so many St Ives voters (but not the Scilly contingent, who are definitely not silly!) I reckon Mr George has a good chance of regaining the seat at at an imminent election, as he's well-regarded locally and was never a Clegg favourite.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Before that the last one would appear to have been the Marquess of Salisbury, who left office in 1902.

Lord Adonis is a more recent example of a minister who wasn't an MP. When this happens I assume they need another minister in the same department who is an MP to speak on their behalf in the Commons. Oddly enough I think I saw a suggestion that he might also renounce his peerage to stand as an MP.

He is. Standing in Vauxhall, Kate Hooey’s seat (she’s standing down). Not sure if he is actually selected as PPC yet though.
 

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
Like with so much in the UK: It is possible in theory, but it's a convention that the PM comes from the Commons.

I'm not surprised about that answer. But would Johnson be able to continue as PM if he lost his seat in the commons?

Basically a member of uk government has to be a member of parliament, whether commons or lords, otherwise he wouldn’t be able to speak.

But still be able to work?

I have to admit it sounds a bit strange to me, living in a country where you can not be an MP if you are a member of the government.
 

DaleCooper

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2015
Messages
3,507
Location
Mulholland Drive
I'm not surprised about that answer. But would Johnson be able to continue as PM if he lost his seat in the commons?



But still be able to work?

I have to admit it sounds a bit strange to me, living in a country where you can not be an MP if you are a member of the government.

I think you may have misunderstood the word "commons", this refers to the lower house of Parliament - The House of Commons" - where MPs sit.
 

Struner

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
767
Location
Ommelanden, EU
I'm not surprised about that answer. But would Johnson be able to continue as PM if he lost his seat in the commons?
But still be able to work?
I have to admit it sounds a bit strange to me, living in a country where you can not be an MP if you are a member of the government.
No, like I said, any member of the uk government has to be a member of one of those chambers of parliament & so that includes the head of government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top