TruckNet Election Poll 2015

[carryfast]

Dipper_Dave:
Conserative for me as labour is too posh, poosible ukip / con coalition in the offing though.

For those still living in the 80’s, sort yourselves out ffs.

The fact is exactly the same issues apply now as in the 1980’s.That being the same old policy of an economy based on minimising incomes using imports and immigration to do it.The sad thing being that the working class is still split between either being turkeys voting for christmas in supporting it or thinking that socialism will fix it.

On that note any UKIP coalition with Cameron and his cheap labour pro immigration pro EU agenda will just be a case of joining the former thereby handing it to the latter.

IE by having not split at least along anti v pro immigration/EU lines it is just the same old 1980’s Thatcherite Cons v the same old Callaghan and Blairite Labs.Of which the Cons have more in common with Labour than UKIP.

In which case realistically it is just a race between UKIP and the SNP as to which can get the best level influence over the Cons in the case of UKIP and Labour in the case of the SNP.Unfortunately for anyone living in the South East it looking increasingly like the latter winning out.

[juddian]

Bump.

Anyone else voting?

[dogthehunter]

The current cons aren’t trying to stifle manufacturing but are trying to grow it … The decline in manufacturing has been happening since 1960 … But it went from 25 % of GDP in 1997 to 11% in 2010 … Blair and his ‘working class’ cronies decided to get rich by de regulating the banks … Anyone who thinks that Labour is about a normal voter is crackers …

[carryfast]

dogthehunter:
The current cons aren’t trying to stifle manufacturing but are trying to grow it … The decline in manufacturing has been happening since 1960 … But it went from 25 % of GDP in 1997 to 11% in 2010 … Blair and his ‘working class’ cronies decided to get rich by de regulating the banks … Anyone who thinks that Labour is about a normal voter is crackers …

Sounds like typical Con party lies.Bearing in mind it went from 16% in 2000 to 10% in 2013 and the 1970’s were the last time we ever saw 25% + figures.

fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org … ring_0.png

The fact is we’ll never get back to being a manufacturing nation or 1970’s wage levels in real terms without strong unions and a protectionist trading regime which imposes import barriers.Which obviously means leaving the EU and baling out of the global free market economy.Sadly no political party being up for all of that.With the ‘Labour’ party being no different to the Cons in that regard which is why it ended up with Callaghan instead of Shore when it mattered.

[switchlogic]

I’m on Team Stannis. He’s doing wonderful things in the north. The sooner he evicts Roose Bolton from Winterfell the better. #GameOfThrones

[billyhunt]

Most people, on here at least, seem to think that getting out of Europe will be the answer to all our problems, and that a referendum on it will be a huge victory for them. I dont think it’s a forgone conclusion by any means. While most detractors prefer to concentrate on the negative side of Europe, how much we pay, all those foreign johnnies coming here etc, there are plenty that actually get some benefit from us being part of it.
If & when we do get a referendum just don’t expect a landslide victory in favour of getting out. After all who honestly thought the Scots would vote no?

[winseer]

There’s no interest for those currently acting as politicians to change the system that actually makes it damned hard to get rid of them once elected.
You can get elected to start with by being the “Least worst” - and one in, you need a clear 2-1 majority of people (ie 66%ish) to vote against you before you are in danger of losing your seat.
Yup, 34% is enough to have a comfortable majority in any seat in the UK - BECAUSE the turnout is so consistently LOW.

IF everyone actually went out and voted, the incumbents would be level with the newbies for winning the seat - each and every time.
Of course, the incumbents know this - and resist tooth and nail to avoid the Australian “compulsary vote” system as a result.
Cleggy’s so-called “push on electoral reform” barked up the wrong tree entirely with this “alternative vote” system that is hated by all.
What was wrong with a “national” poll for the parties, with seats then being dished out according to how many actual votes you got - nationally compared, rather than locally compared?

Eg. Tory gets 20,000 votes, UKIP gets 19,000 in the same seat, with Libdem & Labour on 4,000 each might actually see UKIP get awarded 2 seats when in another ward the scores are 20,000 Labour 19,000 UKIP, 4000 Libdem and 1000 Tory - A bit like “Goal Aggregate” I suppose.

38,000 in two wards gets two seats, one for UKIP and the other for Labour with the “second place” of 24,000 as it were. Tories get nowt. Their aggregate was 21,000 and third in a two-place race.

If compared NATIONALLY rather than across just two seats in this example, you’d get situations where VERY high-popular-vote across different boroughs can unseat the safest seated candidate in the ward nearby - a kind of political “collateral damage” which I think would be a great asset to democracy in this and every other country in the world.

You don’t look after the toffs or commies in your town - without suffering the consequences of the parts of the locale “just outside” that will punish you dearly for all the “pull up the ladder” or “rights for criminals, benefit claimaints & failures” support policies put in place by the previous safe-seated incumbents…

Another system would be “using the internet to make available 24/7 a recall option” - If 75% of the public want to sack their local ward MP - They can do so with immediate effect, rather than have to wait for the lies to start in the next general election run-up, and the party machine to do a better job of preaching “our lies are more believeable than theirs” by leafletting a lot more than the other parties might do…

What a useful spin-off for the Farcebook “Like” button that would be eh?

[dave_the_renegade]

I vote for the MP who has served our constituency for several years, he is LibDem which isn’t who I would vote for normally, but he is the only MP who, in my lifetime has held surgeries in our village. And I will be 68 this year. No other MP Labour or Conservative have held surgeries when they held the seat. I vote for the man who does the best for the local people.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
What was wrong with a “national” poll for the parties, with seats then being dished out according to how many actual votes you got - nationally compared, rather than locally compared?

Eg. Tory gets 20,000 votes, UKIP gets 19,000 in the same seat, with Libdem & Labour on 4,000 each might actually see UKIP get awarded 2 seats when in another ward the scores are 20,000 Labour 19,000 UKIP, 4000 Libdem and 1000 Tory - A bit like “Goal Aggregate” I suppose.

38,000 in two wards gets two seats, one for UKIP and the other for Labour with the “second place” of 24,000 as it were. Tories get nowt. Their aggregate was 21,000 and third in a two-place race.

If compared NATIONALLY rather than across just two seats in this example, you’d get situations where VERY high-popular-vote across different boroughs can unseat the safest seated candidate in the ward nearby - a kind of political “collateral damage” which I think would be a great asset to democracy in this and every other country in the world.

You don’t look after the toffs or commies in your town - without suffering the consequences of the parts of the locale “just outside” that will punish you dearly for all the “pull up the ladder” or “rights for criminals, benefit claimaints & failures” support policies put in place by the previous safe-seated incumbents…

The idea of parliamentary majority not being decided on actual vote aggregate has always been one of the major flaws in the system.However it would actually just add to the real issue which is that of the lack of local veto and opt out of policies which are supported in one part of the country but which have a disproportionate effect on other parts which don’t support it.Such as those living in under developed/populated parts of the country supporting policies calling for more development and immigration.Which affects those parts of the country which are already lumbered with more than their fair share.

The fact is the flaws in the idea of ‘democracy’ itself are now becoming clearer and will just get much worse as we move away from a two party dictatorial system to a fragmented one made up of many varying ideologies and policy interests.None of which ( rightly ) would/should have any more right to rule and/or to force their wishes on any other.Which is why firstly the idea of the EU and the UK need to be the first to be ditched in that move away from the present top down federalist dictatorship which we are so far unfortunately lumbered with.Followed by a move to the localised type of government system with right of local regional veto/opt outs that characterised proper Anglo Saxon England.As opposed to the flawed alien invading systems which followed ever since.

[carryfast]

Dave the Renegade:
I vote for the MP who has served our constituency for several years, he is LibDem which isn’t who I would vote for normally, but he is the only MP who, in my lifetime has held surgeries in our village. And I will be 68 this year. No other MP Labour or Conservative have held surgeries when they held the seat. I vote for the man who does the best for the local people.

Ironically so far this is a Con/LibDem marginal.However a national election should be decided on national Party policy.In which case it is unbelievable how anyone can support the hypocrisy and lies of both Parties.IE the LibDems will talk about ‘protecting’ the local Green Belt and character of the area on the door step and in their election literature while calling for same to be built on together with massive population influx and increase as part of their national election manifesto.Which isn’t surprising considering their raving pro immigration position.With the Cons being no different in that regard.

Although,like the SNP,and Northern Labour vote,the Welsh obviously have the luxury of being able to support such policies while not being directly affected by them themselves.Unlike the South East.

[dave_the_renegade]

Carryfast:

Dave the Renegade:
I vote for the MP who has served our constituency for several years, he is LibDem which isn’t who I would vote for normally, but he is the only MP who, in my lifetime has held surgeries in our village. And I will be 68 this year. No other MP Labour or Conservative have held surgeries when they held the seat. I vote for the man who does the best for the local people.

Ironically so far this is a Con/LibDem marginal.However a national election should be decided on national Party policy.In which case it is unbelievable how anyone can support the hypocrisy and lies of both Parties.IE the LibDems will talk about ‘protecting’ the local Green Belt and character of the area on the door step and in their election literature while calling for same to be built on together with massive population influx and increase as part of their national election manifesto.Which isn’t surprising considering their raving pro immigration position.With the Cons being no different in that regard.

Although,like the SNP,and Northern Labour vote,the Welsh obviously have the luxury of being able to support such policies while not being directly affected by them themselves.Unlike the South East.

You should get a job as a political analyst Geoffrey, as you seem to know all the answers to everything political and otherwise.
I expect you are waiting by the phone for the royals to give you a bell, to seek you advice on what to call the baby.

[contraflow]

Dipper_Dave:
For those still living in the 80’s, sort yourselves out ffs.

+1

But me dad worked downtpit. Me grandad worked downtpit. Me great grandad dugtpit.

[mrginge]

Tory for me, purely because they are on about extending the Right to Buy scheme to people in housing association properties. If i can get a good discount on my flat i can take out a bigger mortgage on it to buy the other 50% council owned so in years to come i will own my place 100% outright.

[own_account_driver]

switchlogic:
I’m on Team Stannis. He’s doing wonderful things in the north. The sooner he evicts Roose Bolton from Winterfell the better. #GameOfThrones

Nah, I’m not keen on his Cherie Blair style witch.

Watched all the four leaked episodes and gotta wait ages for the next one now.

Really surprised me as I never thought goblins, wizards and all that ■■■■ was up my street.

[contraflow]

Own Account Driver:

switchlogic:
I’m on Team Stannis. He’s doing wonderful things in the north. The sooner he evicts Roose Bolton from Winterfell the better. #GameOfThrones

Nah, I’m not keen on his Cherie Blair style witch.

Watched all the four leaked episodes and gotta wait ages for the next one now.

Really surprised me as I never thought goblins, wizards and all that [zb] was up my street.

Little Finger FTW.

[carryfast]

mrginge:
Tory for me, purely because they are on about extending the Right to Buy scheme to people in housing association properties. If i can get a good discount on my flat i can take out a bigger mortgage on it to buy the other 50% council owned so in years to come i will own my place 100% outright.

Or to put it another way no different to someone who is over dependent on state benefits of whatever sort voting Labour because the Cons want to cut their payout to give to those in your position instead.

Whereas a ‘real’ Conservative policy would say there is no such thing as a free lunch you’ll have to save up for a deposit and pay the going market price for a house the same as anyone else and not rely on the state to fund your life style choice.IE yet more proof that the Cons are the same as Labour in being all about Socialism selectively when it suits them and Capitalism when it doesn’t.

[winseer]

A real Conservative policy doesn’t seem to be interested in forcing banks to lend to people that could otherwise easily afford a mortgage not likely to be more than 1-2% for the next decade or so.

House prices have not risen by much - but to those saving a deposit, it’s the increasing demands of lenders that make that deposit “forever inadequate”.

You buy a house for £200k say, but the bank will only lend you 80% based on it’s own valuation of £180k. This means that 20% deposit of £40k you had put by is no longer enough, because you’ve now got to come up with an extra £16k!

Governments literally left, right, & centre have yet to sufficiently regulate and squeeze the banks. They are supposed to be the country’s cash cow - not the other way around.
Forcing them to lend for longer at current rates (eg. 10-25 year fixes @ 1-2%) would have stablized the market - because you don’t make that rate available for anyone who won’t be living in that house being purchased with that mortgage.
BTL should be on car loan rates imho.

[own_account_driver]

Winseer:
A real Conservative policy doesn’t seem to be interested in forcing banks to lend to people that could otherwise easily afford a mortgage not likely to be more than 1-2% for the next decade or so.

House prices have not risen by much - but to those saving a deposit, it’s the increasing demands of lenders that make that deposit “forever inadequate”.

You buy a house for £200k say, but the bank will only lend you 80% based on it’s own valuation of £180k. This means that 20% deposit of £40k you had put by is no longer enough, because you’ve now got to come up with an extra £16k!

Governments literally left, right, & centre have yet to sufficiently regulate and squeeze the banks. They are supposed to be the country’s cash cow - not the other way around.
Forcing them to lend for longer at current rates (eg. 10-25 year fixes @ 1-2%) would have stablized the market - because you don’t make that rate available for anyone who won’t be living in that house being purchased with that mortgage.
BTL should be on car loan rates imho.

Yeah, I think this woud be called subprime mortgages, I can’t remember the details but, there’s something nagging me, at the back of my mind, about them.

[mrginge]

Carryfast:

mrginge:
Tory for me, purely because they are on about extending the Right to Buy scheme to people in housing association properties. If i can get a good discount on my flat i can take out a bigger mortgage on it to buy the other 50% council owned so in years to come i will own my place 100% outright.

Or to put it another way no different to someone who is over dependent on state benefits of whatever sort voting Labour because the Cons want to cut their payout to give to those in your position instead.

Whereas a ‘real’ Conservative policy would say there is no such thing as a free lunch you’ll have to save up for a deposit and pay the going market price for a house the same as anyone else and not rely on the state to fund your life style choice.IE yet more proof that the Cons are the same as Labour in being all about Socialism selectively when it suits them and Capitalism when it doesn’t.

The problem is the amount of money needed for houses now for first timers. I was lucky as i got some inheritance early because i find it hard to imagine any other way of getting on the ladder. Even then to get my 50/50 flat worth 125k at the time i had to put down just shy of 27k and then get the other 50k on a mortgage. I was 21yrs old (6yrs ago) when i did this.

It was much easier in years gone by.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
A real Conservative policy doesn’t seem to be interested in forcing banks to lend to people that could otherwise easily afford a mortgage not likely to be more than 1-2% for the next decade or so.

House prices have not risen by much - but to those saving a deposit, it’s the increasing demands of lenders that make that deposit “forever inadequate”.

You buy a house for £200k say, but the bank will only lend you 80% based on it’s own valuation of £180k. This means that 20% deposit of £40k you had put by is no longer enough, because you’ve now got to come up with an extra £16k!

Governments literally left, right, & centre have yet to sufficiently regulate and squeeze the banks. They are supposed to be the country’s cash cow - not the other way around.
Forcing them to lend for longer at current rates (eg. 10-25 year fixes @ 1-2%) would have stablized the market

The issue of unrealistic interest rates that rip off savers to subsidise home buyers’ low wage employment is no different to buying votes from social housing tenants with below market value house sales.

As for bank rates and conditions spare a thought for buyers in the Thatcher era who didn’t have the luxury of a cut price,state subsidised,below market value council house sell off.Bearing in mind 10% + interest rates and a strictly applied 3 times salary loan limit in an environment of 3 million + unemployment and resulting collapsing wages.