Poll: Potential General Election: who are you voting for?

jfollows · 21 Nov 2019

bramling said:
Referendums have a place where a particular issue does not divide neatly down party lines.

Perhaps, but the 2016 referendum was called because the Conservative party couldn't reconcile its internal conflicts, and the leadership decided that the right referendum result would bottle up and keep quiet the Eurosceptic wing for the forseeable future. Then we had the "wrong" result, and of course the way people voted was very much nothing to do with voting down party lines.

RailUK Forums

jfollows · 21 Nov 2019

coradiafan2000 said:
Allow me to clarify. I'm 19 so this is the first general election I can vote in. I was also able to vote in the European election earlier this year. I was expressing frustration at not being able to vote in the EU Referendum and the 2017 election.

I personally believe the voting age should be lowered. There are so many people like me who were just coming out of school when the referendum happened, yet had no say despite their futures depending on it. It was an EU funded scheme that helped me get into employment after finishing my A levels.

Interesting, and thank you for the clarification.

I hope I don't sound too much like a patronising old git by saying that I understand what you're saying and you're much to be commended for your opinion. I missed out on voting for/against Margaret Thatcher in 1979 by about 5 months, but I have to admit that I was more exercised about getting away with drinking illegally before I was 18 than I was by being unable to vote.

Oh, and I'd probably have voted against in 1979, although by 1981 I was a paid-up Conservative & Maggie supporter .... that was then, anyway.

NoMorePacers · 21 Nov 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Going back into the deepest realms of British history, noting the relatively recent time that women received the vote, what has been the lowest-ever age for males of eligibility for voting?

There has been the raising of the age limit for certain punishments in past times for crimes committed by those of "tender years", that those who want to lower the age of voting eligibility would most certainly not want to be lowered.

You are not seriously equating the ability to vote with criminal activities, are you? For your own and everyone else’s sake I hope to God you’re not.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Nov 2019

NoMorePacers said:
You are not seriously equating the ability to vote with criminal activities, are you? For your own and everyone else’s sake I hope to God you’re not.

Now then, anyone who knows me would never accuse me of that o_O

.

All I am saying is that certain age-related matters are best left as they are and a civilized society raises the ages that a child can be punished in law.

infobleep · 21 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
I wasn’t impressed with Anne Milton when I met her, although fair play to her for standing as an independent. Suspect she will split the blue vote, which might let the LDs back, particularly in if Labour voters go tactical. Time was when you’d be hard pressed to find a Labour voter in Guildford!

I sure hope she splits the vote, even if she gets elected as an MP.. It's one less MP in parliament for Boris, assuming he gets elected.

Busaholic · 21 Nov 2019

bramling said:
At the end of the day both candidates have been selected as the cream of the crop, and deserve at least some respect for that.

I genuinely misread that at first, thinking you'd said cream of the cr*p, which some might describe as truer :lol:

coradiafan2000 · 21 Nov 2019

With regards to the title of this thread (who I'll be voting for), I'm still debating it. Despite Labour's promise to lower the voting age I highly doubt I'll vote for them. I live in a pretty safe Labour seat and I should imagine most of my family will be voting Labour anyway.

I'd never even consider the Tories. I volunteer at a foodbank and have seen for myself the effects of universal credit on people, among other things. The thought of another five years under the conservatives, especially with a known liar as their leader, genuinely has me worried for the future.

I voted Green in the European election, and iniatially thought that's how I'd vote in this election, but the emergence of the remain alliance has got me considering the Liberal Democrats. Their promise to immediately cancel Brexit sounds very appealing, so we can focus on more urgent issues (such as the climate crisis). However the cynic in me says that revoking article 50 on day one is much easier said than done, and we'll still be talking about Brexit for years to come regardless of the outcome. Jo Swinson also seems like a decent leader (admittedly not a very high bar considering the other options).

So in short, for me it's between the Greens and the Lib Dems.

SteveP29 · 22 Nov 2019

infobleep said:
In the spirit of the broadcast rules that radio and TV stations are forced to follow but newspapers are unfairly exempt from

Apparently last night's Question Time wasn't abiding by those rules very stringently, as apparently there were 8 anti Labour questions, according to social media last night and this morning .

Steve Harris · 22 Nov 2019

SteveP29 said:
Apparently last night's Question Time wasn't abiding by those rules very stringently, as apparently there were 8 anti Labour questions, according to social media last night and this morning .

Not really surprising, considering the release of their manifesto yesterday.

Puffing Devil · 22 Nov 2019

coradiafan2000 said:
With regards to the title of this thread (who I'll be voting for), I'm still debating it. Despite Labour's promise to lower the voting age I highly doubt I'll vote for them. I live in a pretty safe Labour seat and I should imagine most of my family will be voting Labour anyway.

I'd never even consider the Tories. I volunteer at a foodbank and have seen for myself the effects of universal credit on people, among other things. The thought of another five years under the conservatives, especially with a known liar as their leader, genuinely has me worried for the future.

I voted Green in the European election, and iniatially thought that's how I'd vote in this election, but the emergence of the remain alliance has got me considering the Liberal Democrats. Their promise to immediately cancel Brexit sounds very appealing, so we can focus on more urgent issues (such as the climate crisis). However the cynic in me says that revoking article 50 on day one is much easier said than done, and we'll still be talking about Brexit for years to come regardless of the outcome. Jo Swinson also seems like a decent leader (admittedly not a very high bar considering the other options).

So in short, for me it's between the Greens and the Lib Dems.

Think hard before voting for the Greens or Lib Dems. If your first priority is to prevent a Tory government make sure that your vote for a weaker opposition party will not enable a Tory win; the rest can be sorted later.

infobleep · 22 Nov 2019

SteveP29 said:
Apparently last night's Question Time wasn't abiding by those rules very stringently, as apparently there were 8 anti Labour questions, according to social media last night and this morning .

Well they would have to be balanced in another program episode I believe. I don't think it's based on one programme episode alone but then I've not read the BBC election regulations or those of Ofcom that closely.

furnessvale · 22 Nov 2019

SteveP29 said:
Apparently last night's Question Time wasn't abiding by those rules very stringently, as apparently there were 8 anti Labour questions, according to social media last night and this morning .

I didn't see the programme, but what is meant by "anti"? For example, I would not consider questioning where the money is coming from to pay for this ambitious manifesto to be anti, rather it is giving Labour the chance to explain and justify their position.

bramling · 22 Nov 2019

Busaholic said:
I genuinely misread that at first, thinking you'd said cream of the cr*p, which some might describe as truer

Thing is I was actually being serious, to a point at least. These two have been selected supposedly as the best of the current crop of politicians, which is supposed to be a microcosm of society as a whole. If things are seen as having degenerated to such a low level then it’s a rather sad reflection of our society as a whole, and something for *everyone* to think about. Easy though it is we can’t just blame the politicians.

jfollows · 22 Nov 2019

Busaholic said:
I genuinely misread that at first, thinking you'd said cream of the cr*p, which some might describe as truer

David Aaronovich, a reformed Trot I believe, wrote in The Times earlier this week (on Wednesday 20 November), which I quote below because it's behind a paywall. But of resonance to me is his point: The promises are shams. And so are the candidates. I may not have liked all the party leaders in my lifetime who claimed at elections to be future prime ministers. But in every case, including that of Theresa May, at least I thought they’d make a better prime minister than me. Harder working perhaps, longer-suffering, economically literate, politically more astute. This year, for the first time, I look at them and think even I could make a better job of it.
That's something which I identify with also: I know I could do a better job than any of the party leaders too and I've not thought that before. They are indeed all dreadful.

DAVID AARONOVITCH

november 20 2019, 5:00pm, the times
A hung parliament is best we can hope for
david aaronovitch

The two main party leaders are dud candidates making undeliverable promises who will lead the country to the extremes

If you think no one won the great TV debate you’re quite wrong. The main objective of the Corbyn and Johnson camps was not to “land a killer blow” but to make sure that there were no “I agree with Nick” moments. The ugly duopoly know they are each other’s strongest arguments; they didn’t want anyone else to get a look in and they succeeded.

The broadcasters, in this instance ITV, were under no obligation to agree. They did so for mostly self-serving reasons which I understand too well but for which they have created a chaff-blizzard of argument about “balance across an election”. The result was that 6.7 million viewers watched this exclusive exercise and then, in the follow-up on all outlets on Tuesday evening and yesterday morning, you could pretty much have been forgiven for thinking that only two parties existed. Job done.

It was appropriate though, because in many ways this is a sham election. It doesn’t do the one thing those who demanded it claim it will do — resolve Brexit. In fact it has delayed any such resolution. The issue of what kind of Brexit, if any, we get remains unresolved and there is still every chance of a no-deal exit (the British people’s least favoured option) if and when we fail to agree a trade deal with the EU by the end of next year.

It’s a sham because until we know what that deal is, we won’t know how fast the economy is likely to grow or even to contract. Last month the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave four forecasts based on different Brexit scenarios. A no-deal scenario would mean no growth at all for two years and only 1.1 per cent in 2022. A realistic trade deal with accompanying stimulus would suggest 1.5 per cent growth. Continued delay would mean less than 1.5 per cent growth. Revoking Brexit altogether “might result in growth of 2 per cent a year”.

Yet on those growth assumptions rest the ever-expanding list of promises, giveaways and “fully costed” aspirations of the two main parties. In Labour’s case no ordinary person will have to pay a penny more in tax in order for the country to afford just about everything any pressure group has ever asked for. I know we have to wait till later in the week for the finalised manifesto but the growth assumptions that must lie behind this package should make for intoxicating reading. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson produces 20,000 police officers here, a sudden ability to try knife cases immediately in an overwhelmed court system there, and let’s see what he manages to discover he can do for the armed forces. Another aircraft carrier, perhaps. Or twenty frigates. While of course spending far more on the NHS and on schools yet not even taxing the rich, let alone you and me. All this when there are ominous signs of a global economic slowdown.

The premise is a sham. The promises are shams. And so are the candidates. I may not have liked all the party leaders in my lifetime who claimed at elections to be future prime ministers. But in every case, including that of Theresa May, at least I thought they’d make a better prime minister than me. Harder working perhaps, longer-suffering, economically literate, politically more astute. This year, for the first time, I look at them and think even I could make a better job of it. As the quietly emphatic man in the audience of Tuesday night’s debate said to the two leaders: “The whole nation will have watched you both throughout this campaign in utter despair. How can we trust you to have the personal integrity and individual strength of character to look after our nation’s interest?”

The answer with both men, for different reasons, is that we can’t. It’s not just neutrals who think so. This election there will be people campaigning hard for either man who, in their semi-private moments, will tell you their man is a dud.

Johnson first. I was charmed for so long, like so many others. If someone schmoozed me and amused me I was inclined to forgive them the occasional lapse in character. But the result of such indulgence has been the creation of a Trump-lite, low-ethics zone in British politics.

It’s not just that he’s a stranger to the truth. Take Jennifer Arcuri. While Johnson was London mayor, he was clearly close to this young tech entrepreneur. Yet both she and he deny that there was a conflict of interest. She may have received £11,500 from the mayor’s promotional agency and gained access to trade missions but, she says, “there was no favouritism here”.

The trouble is that’s not what a conflict of interest means. Ask McDonald’s why two weeks ago it sacked its CEO, Steve Easterbrook, for having an affair with an employee. Not because he actively engaged in favouritism but because the company “has longstanding rules against conflicts of interest”. Having a close friendship with someone you’re funding is a conflict of interest. Good people don’t do it.

And even as Johnson was thanking the quietly emphatic man for a “very important question”, Conservative HQ decided to make its Twitter account look like an independent fact-checking exercise. Rumbled, the foreign secretary told an interviewer yesterday that the voters “didn’t give a toss” about such shenanigans.

The problem with Jeremy Corbyn is not that you can’t trust him but that you can. Another day, another video of him embracing a public antisemite; another day, another Labour pin-up revealed goading “Zio-nazis”. And what do the Labour moderates in the party do? Run away like Tom Watson or pretend that it just isn’t happening. Two weeks ago Sally Gimson, a friend of Sir Keir Starmer and a centre-left stalwart, was defenestrated as the Labour candidate for Bassetlaw in a Momentum-led stitch-up. Sir Keir tweeted that she was a good person but then, without further comment, the party waters closed over her.

I’m a man of the centre left. David Gauke, until this autumn one of the Conservative Party’s leading moderates, is a man of the centre right. This election he’ll be standing as an independent. His analysis is that given the extreme state of the two main parties the best we can hope for is a hung parliament with as big a bloc of independents and Liberal Democrats as possible. For all the problems a hung parliament throws up, I agree with him. You don’t like the Lib Dems’ policy of revoking the referendum result? I understand. You’re unsure about Jo Swinson? Makes sense. But I think if you’re a decent, tolerant voter then your priority should be to deny the Johnson/Corbyn cartel the power it seeks and vote accordingly.

coradiafan2000 · 22 Nov 2019

Puffing Devil said:
Think hard before voting for the Greens or Lib Dems. If your first priority is to prevent a Tory government make sure that your vote for a weaker opposition party will not enable a Tory win; the rest can be sorted later.

Thank you for your advice, I'll certainly keep it in mind. As I mentioned previously, I live in a pretty safe Labour seat, although I am concerned by the popularity of the Brexit party over here, and I think my constituency did vote to leave. So I probably shouldn't dismiss Labour just yet.

Tetchytyke · 22 Nov 2019

ainsworth74 said:
I'd much rather that we put the party leaders in front of someone like Andrew Neil for an hours grilling

Maybe not Neil, who recently called the journalist who exposed Cambridge Analytica a "mad cat lady". Be can't be trusted to be neutral.

There aren't any journalists who are neutral now. Kuenssberg's father was caught trying to corrupt a Labour leadership election and she is clearly bitter about it. Neil was previously actually employed by the Tories and has always been heavily aligned with Rupert Murdoch. Nick Robinson was a Tory Association president at Oxford. On the other side, Peston's always been strongly Labour.

It's a shame that we've lost neutrality.

radamfi · 22 Nov 2019

If you are so interested in politics that you become a political editor, you are bound to have political opinions. There are strict laws in the UK for TV and radio regulating balance, especially during election periods. If you see transgressions then Ofcom would be interested.

Mojo · 22 Nov 2019

SteveP29 said:
Apparently last night's Question Time wasn't abiding by those rules very stringently, as apparently there were 8 anti Labour questions, according to social media last night and this morning .

And apparently tonight’s Question Time special was very anti-Boris. So I’m not so sure.

coradiafan2000 · 22 Nov 2019

I was going to watch it, but Jeremy Corbyn was on first and I find him incredibly boring to listen to, so I booted up the PlayStation instead.

I'd honestly rather read the Labour manifesto myself and make up my own mind.

Intermodal · 23 Nov 2019

Mojo said:
And apparently tonight’s Question Time special was very anti-Boris. So I’m not so sure.

I don't think it was necessarily anti-Boris, perhaps just more truthful about Boris. The audience put to him questions about his previous time in office and his behaviour, and he could not answer them. It just appeared anti-Boris because the truth is so damning. The bloke doesn't have a good record so anytime you talk about his life or past it's gunna reflect badly on him.

JamesT · 23 Nov 2019

NoMorePacers said:
You are not seriously equating the ability to vote with criminal activities, are you? For your own and everyone else’s sake I hope to God you’re not.

The two things can be equated as they’re to do with responsibility for your actions.

The minimum age for voting should be considered in a wider context of when society deems someone old enough to be responsible. You’re legally a child until 18, which is reflected in many of the minimum ages in laws.
If we say someone is responsible enough to vote, does that mean they should be allowed to drink, get married without parental consent, go to war, own a house? On the flip side, if we’ve decided that someone shouldn’t be able to do any of these things before the age of 18, what makes voting different?

coradiafan2000 · 23 Nov 2019

JamesT said:
The two things can be equated as they’re to do with responsibility for your actions.

The minimum age for voting should be considered in a wider context of when society deems someone old enough to be responsible. You’re legally a child until 18, which is reflected in many of the minimum ages in laws.
If we say someone is responsible enough to vote, does that mean they should be allowed to drink, get married without parental consent, go to war, own a house? On the flip side, if we’ve decided that someone shouldn’t be able to do any of these things before the age of 18, what makes voting different?

The bottom line (at least I believe) is that when you're 16, your life is undergoing huge changes. Society expects you to know what you want to do after leaving school, what you want to study and what career you want, it's our first taste of the adult world and it can be overwhelming for some, it was and still is for me.

I genuinely believe it's only logical that at such a pivotal moment in one's life, they should have a say in how the country is run. The result will have just as big an impact on us as our parents, perhaps even bigger.

Apologies if I rambled.

Xenophon PCDGS · 23 Nov 2019

JamesT said:
The minimum age for voting should be considered in a wider context of when society deems someone old enough to be responsible. You’re legally a child until 18, which is reflected in many of the minimum ages in laws.

A point well worth bringing into the discussion, that is often overlooked.

NoMorePacers · 23 Nov 2019

I shall say this.

A 90 year old on a life support machine can vote (even if they die the next day), but a 16 year old with their entire life ahead of them cannot.

And before you get any ideas into your mind, I am NOT suggesting removing voting rights from older people. It's simply a thought-provoking statement.

coradiafan2000 · 23 Nov 2019

NoMorePacers said:
I shall say this.

A 90 year old on a life support machine can vote (even if they die the next day), but a 16 year old with their entire life ahead of them cannot.

And before you get any ideas into your mind, I am NOT suggesting removing voting rights from older people. It's simply a thought-provoking statement.

A very good point

DynamicSpirit · 23 Nov 2019

NoMorePacers said:
I shall say this.

A 90 year old on a life support machine can vote (even if they die the next day), but a 16 year old with their entire life ahead of them cannot.

A 14 year old with their entire life ahead of them also cannot vote - and I suspect almost no-one seriously thinks that they should be able to. Clearly, whatever age you draw the line at for saying that someone is old enough to vote, it's going to be arbitrary and unfair to some people. But is there a reason why 16 is a better place to draw that arbitrary line than 18? And for those who believe it should be lowered to 16... what's special about 16 that justifies voting at 16 but not at - say - 14?

DynamicSpirit · 23 Nov 2019

NoMorePacers said:
I shall say this.

A 90 year old on a life support machine can vote (even if they die the next day), but a 16 year old with their entire life ahead of them cannot.

If a person is voting for the good of the whole country, rather than merely for their own self interest (which, ideally, you'd hope that most people would be doing), does it matter that they won't live long enough to personally see the results of their vote?

coradiafan2000 · 23 Nov 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
A 14 year old with their entire life ahead of them also cannot vote - and I suspect almost no-one seriously thinks that they should be able to. Clearly, whatever age you draw the line at for saying that someone is old enough to vote, it's going to be arbitrary and unfair to some people. But is there a reason why 16 is a better place to draw that arbitrary line than 18? And for those who believe it should be lowered to 16... what's special about 16 that justifies voting at 16 but not at - say - 14?

As I said in a previous post, I think 16 is a pivotal moment in one's life. You're leaving school and for the first time in your life you have responsibilities, and you have to decide where to take your life.

Xenophon PCDGS · 23 Nov 2019

coradiafan2000 said:
As I said in a previous post, I think 16 is a pivotal moment in one's life. You're leaving school and for the first time in your life you have responsibilities, and you have to decide where to take your life.

I refer you back to the earlier posting where it was said that anyone under the age of 18 is deemed to be a child in the eyes of the law.

Not all students leave school at the age of 16, as will be attested to by the number of sixth-form colleges that so exist.

yorkie · 23 Nov 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Not all students leave school at the age of 16, as will be attested to by the number of sixth-form colleges that so exist.

They are colleges in my book. A secondary school environment is vastly different to a college environment.

Poll: Potential General Election: who are you voting for?

Potential October GE: Who will you vote for?

Conservative

Labour

SNP

Plaid Cymru

Lib Dems

TIG

DUP

Sinn Fein

UUP

SDLP

Green Party (or any local Green affiliate)

Other independent or minor party (please state!)

Spoiled ballot

Not voting

Brexit Party

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff