|
How are you going to vote on May 7th? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative |
|
72 | 6.22% |
| Labour |
|
410 | 35.41% |
| Liberal Democrat |
|
46 | 3.97% |
| UKIP |
|
69 | 5.96% |
| Green |
|
199 | 17.18% |
| SNP |
|
121 | 10.45% |
| DUP |
|
0 | 0% |
| Sinn Fein |
|
35 | 3.02% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
20 | 1.73% |
| Respect |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
56 | 4.84% |
| BNP |
|
23 | 1.99% |
| Some flavour of socialist party |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Some flavour of communist party |
|
27 | 2.33% |
| Independent |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Other |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Total: | 1158 votes | ||
|
Hoops posted:One of my least favourite thing about the British Parliament is the fetishisation of tradition and ceremony, all this bollocks with robes and sceptres and dragging the speaker to his seat. Just debate the laws and vote on them, and try and make the country better to live in.
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Jedit posted:A reminder once again that despite what they claimed, the SNP manifesto would actually demand higher levels of austerity. Only if you believe the household budget model of the economy put forward by a right wing think tank that was set up to campaign against capital gains tax.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
They're trying to make the SNP sound like the Bash Street Kids.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Fans posted:A reminder once again that the SNP's manifesto was the only one based in some kind of numerical fact, rather than promising to fund the economy out of nebulous "Money saving" ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:They shuffled up when Skinner showed up to give him his seat, Labour's being ridiculous. The SNP want to sit in the opposition are the Lib Dems were using, there's nothing wrong with that. The libdems werent on the opposition benches though? Fans posted:A reminder once again that the SNP's manifesto was the only one based in some kind of numerical fact This is bollocks.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Wasn't it actually UKIP who were the only ones whose manifesto was fully costed? I genuinely don't know, I saw it on question time. It was the SNP's. I don't believe the study even bothered to do UKIP's.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:They're trying to make the SNP sound like the Bash Street Kids.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Thanks, interesting stuff on Spain, I hadn't realised that. The actual number of immigrants is over 600,000 a year I believe. Given the currrent state of things I think 316k a year is going to cause problems. It dilutes services for everyone. It's not like London is growing new hospitals and schools. (aware it could be and there's loads of money etc)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I like this simile, it's bang on. I might steal something Gonzo McFee posted to use in real life, eww. Nobody can just be nice, can they. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Nobody can just be nice, can they.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
316,000 people net gain for the UK? Arrghhhh let's make the country poo poo, that'll show 'em (verbatim from hansard, probably) Isn't this a good thing because A. we're all getting old and need people to start paying for our pensions B. immigrants are a net gain? I don't understand the daily mail etc. view of immigrants ruining everything they hold dear. Surely a ton of people coming to Britain when we're not building enough homes puts house prices up?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Hoops posted:You're right tbh, sorry. Wasn't serious, mate.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:The actual number of immigrants is over 600,000 a year I believe. IIRC from the Beeb's article it's 641k gross, 318k net. They want to get it down under 100k (net, presumably). It went up by fifty loving per cent last year, according to the Beeb. Quite HOW this ambitious plan is to be enacted I'm not sure, given that the bulk of the article focuses on illegal immigrants, who as far as I'm aware are a small minority of the total, and to be honest, a number we don't actually properly know, since it's not like illegal workers tend to identify themselves as such. It appears to be a Of course, another way to reduce net immigration is to cause a whole bunch of your political opponents to think they'd probably be better off emigrating, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Fans posted:It was the SNP's. I don't believe the study even bothered to do UKIP's. The study didn't do UKIPs because they were the only party to get their budget audited and it would have just been a duplication. But seriously if the IFS think your budget is good that is not something to be proud of.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Terrorist attacks tend to get lumped in together as a vague homogeneous category despite the specific origins and motivations of different groups and attacks so the more realist types of theories aren't much use. National security and political approval aren't necessarily the same thing either, and it's very possible that good security approaches don't garner anywhere near the level of popularity that bad security approaches would (I'm sure examples are easy to think of). Personally when it comes to this kind of issue I like the Copenhagen approach- states create their own security threats by a deliberate expression of danger or fear, often for political motives, sometimes out of ignorance or arrogance. Iraq was not a security threat to the US, and yet it became one for all intents and purposes. The most effective reaction to Islamic terrorism, as we know, is to stop murdering people in the Middle East, so any country that responds to an Islamic terror attack with anything other than "ok we'll stop murdering your families" isn't actually doing much for their security. The Copenhagen school is Buzan and Waever and the like isn't it? That's what I meant by securitization theory; since it focuses on discourse, I was hoping there'd been some analyses of public attitudes as part of that. It'd probably be more general in focus than normal I guess though, since from memory securitization papers tended to focus on assessing what constitutes a successful securitization move, rather than looking at wider contexts. Boring academic chat: as interesting as I found a lot of Buzan and waever's work (especially waever bringing in aspects of deconstruction and post structuralism), I always thought the role of the audience and reception was under valued, and that a much wider focus on public opinion and culture in general was necessary
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Wasn't serious, mate.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Niric posted:The Copenhagen school is Buzan and Waever and the like isn't it? That's what I meant by securitization theory; since it focuses on discourse, I was hoping there'd been some analyses of public attitudes as part of that. It'd probably be more general in focus than normal I guess though, since from memory securitization papers tended to focus on assessing what constitutes a successful securitization move, rather than looking at wider contexts. I never read the original academics, Copenhagen theory was lightly touched on in my course but if you just understand it as constructivism applied to securitization it's pretty straightforward. The problem with IR theories, as always, is they never go far enough into exploring the sociological aspects and implications of their proffered theories. It's very much "beep boop theory reflects model, model represents theory" without actually trying to understand the underlying issues.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:I don't understand the daily mail etc. view of immigrants ruining everything they hold dear. Surely a ton of people coming to Britain when we're not building enough homes puts house prices up? It's a toughie for the Daily Mail alright - fear of the ~~brown people~~ vs house price rises. I guess I'm not really surprised that the first trumps the second in their eyes. Don't forget, they're literally only here to abuse your children, claim your benefits, steal your job, and poo poo on your lawn.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:The actual number of immigrants is over 600,000 a year I believe. Reminder that immigrants are a net contributor to the state, i.e. they use less public services than they pay for. The problem isn't immigrants, it's a systemic issue where the government simply doesn't have a handle on providing the resources that the country needs (and is paying for). I mean even if all immigration stopped right now, the population is still rising faster than we're building houses and schools and so on. There's still a shortfall that needs addressing, except without immigrants there's a drop in the tax take, raising THE DEFICIT which must be held down at all costs. And not only is the government loath to spend money on public services, they don't particularly want to pop the housing bubble either. Immigration might be a lever used to put pressure on the working class, but they're not the ones pushing on it - and it doesn't need to be that way And this talk of Farage being the only one saying any of this - everyone was saying that there needs to be more houses, more investment in infrastructure, more public spending to provide for the needs of the economy and the people in it. Farage was just the only one using it to bash immigrants living here, just as he used every other topic to bash immigrants living here, whether there's any factual basis or not. I don't see the point in giving him props on this
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Well, it might be more accurate to say everyone was saying how terrible it is that we have such a housing shortage but nobody was really proposing to do anything very much about it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Well sure but they were all proposing house building schemes of various sorts, and this and that investment. It's not like Farage alone was striding forth into the housing crisis with pragmatic and objective measures to save us once and for all. He was offering basically the same deal and honking about there being too many immigrants
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Without immigrants the UK would already have become the third-world hellhole a majority of its voters deserve to live in
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
How many people are dying each year?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:How many people are dying each year? I think I know where the NHS reforms are headed...
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
The fact that having net migration of 300,000+ while building less than 100,000 houses annually is incredibly dumb is a legitimate political point The solution is that we should be building more social housing, rather than demonising immigrants for the crime of trying to improve their personal situation. Although I do think that if you do introduce strong policies against illegal immigrants, you should focus on punishing the people that knowingly employ illegal immigrants rather than those who come to the UK illegally, since I'm going to guess that people employing illegal migrants aren't going to be paying them the minimum wage or closely following employment legislation, and that harms working class people generally - both migrants and those born in the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:Without immigrants the UK would already have become the third-world hellhole a majority of its voters deserve to live in Or all the old people would have died off due to lack of care and we'd have a young dynamic nation of go getters. And without immigrants or old people we'd all be entrepreneuring from our affordable single occupancy 4 bedroom townhouses and country retreats
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:How many people are dying each year? Number of births: 778,803 (2013) Number of deaths: 576,458 (2013) A move towards slight population deflation would ease a lot of the problems with housing shortages, high population density, school places, wages, etc, but might mean increased resources per capita having to be spent on the elderly.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:This is bollocks. Let's do some reading together! http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN170.pdf quote:The SNP plans appear to be underpinned by a specific plan for total spending, social security and tax policies for the next parliament. In marked and positive contrast to the other parties, they have not predicated their fiscal plans on achieving any additional revenues from uncertain and unspecified anti avoidance measures.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:How many people are dying each year? Not enough
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Together we can avert the looming pension crisis by making sure no one lives long enough to collect one.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Does that mean that pubs can allow smoking sections again?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Or all the old people would have died off due to lack of care and we'd have a young dynamic nation of go getters. And without immigrants or old people we'd all be entrepreneuring from our affordable single occupancy 4 bedroom townhouses and country retreats What about non-aspirational masochists who don't want to become rich or "sell out"?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Fans posted:Let's do some reading together! Let's continue reading together it's fun! quote:However, unlike the And from this you concluded that the SNP manifesto was solely 'based on numerical fact'.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:And from this you concluded that the SNP manifesto was solely 'based on numerical fact'. What level of borrowing they're comfortable with is a good thing to know, but them not stating it doesn't mean their stuff suddenly becomes uncosted again.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:What about non-aspirational masochists who don't want to become rich or "sell out"? 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Fans posted:What level of borrowing they're comfortable with is a good thing to know, but them not stating it doesn't mean their stuff suddenly becomes uncosted again. If the SNP manifesto is accurately costed you should know what level of borrowing they would be comfortable with by looking at the shortfall.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Costing of manifestos seems a bit pointless anyway since no government in history has ever stuck to their manifesto.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Costing of manifestos seems a bit pointless anyway since no government in history has ever stuck to their manifesto. Also the ridiculousness of the idea that anybody has the faintest clue what the economy is going to be doing in 4 years time.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:What about non-aspirational masochists who don't want to become rich or "sell out"? Well there's bound to be a lot of houses left empty for them to squat in, paper over the windows and write manifestos
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
dispatch_async posted:Also the ridiculousness of the idea that anybody has the faintest clue what the economy is going to be doing in 4 years time. I'm still hoping for a property crash in the SE. My lovely flat has increased in value by a THIRD in the last 3 years. I'd gladly take a hit to my equity to see all the property owners wailing about "muh investment!!!!!" and demanding government subsidies to pay their stupid mortgages.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:35
|
|
