The UK General Election Poll

[798686]

What's the average house price in London/SE? About....£160k here I think, lol. :/

 

[B_crackoff]

Maybe it would. So wheres the rest of the 2,250,000 for the first batch needed going to come from?

We wouldn't need that many - not with all the Europeans going home if we're out of the EU - then we can have a managed immigration strategy.


So exaclty how small would you say is ok? Id say a two up two down+kitchen and bathroom is ok for one person in this day and age. What do you reckon? This is another red herring. The real problem with council houses is not granny after the kids have left and hubby died, but the fact they have all been sold off and not replaced. Build some.

Most aren't 2 bed. they're 3 bed. Also see above.

Or some laws restricting the wealthy from second homes?

Full Council Tax? Lol.

I fear you are right. All these measures are needed. How would your life be, or the current crisis, if we all only had to pay half as much for our housing?National debt would be half?

I fear that soon we may be paying half for our houses - yet have the same debt!

Of course, the alternative and all in all rather better solution is for the country to have fewer children. China has a good policy on that, too.

Yikes, 2 is fine as it maintains the population. It's increases that can't be supported. We're quite rare in that we actually grow about 70-75% of what we need ourselves, & a nice hatchet to some country piles, & an exit from the EU would allow this to be 100%.

Ok, we'd have to import tea & coffee, but what about hydroponic farms for fruit on all that abandoned(&soon to be) brownfield area. Thus airmiles & carbon emissions reduced, jobs created.

What we export from the EU, is matched by our imports. Swap industries, & make it ourselves.

Protectionism is so environmental

 

[dandelion]

Protectionism is so environmental...We're quite rare in that we actually grow about 70-75% of what we need ourselves

Unfortunately the Uk hasnt been able to grow enough food to feed itself for 100 years. 75%=25% of population starves. (actually, usually means 100% of people eat all the food, then 100% starve for 3 months=all dead) We live by trade. This is not good news long term going into global warming and food/raw material shortages. What you are saying is we need a 25% population cut. We nearly lost 2 world wars for lack of food.

We wouldn't need that many - not with all the Europeans going home if we're out of the EU - then we can have a managed immigration strategy.

But we are pretty immigration neutral on europe already. Thats 2 million workers going home and 2 million pensioners coming back here. Thats a good deal?

 

[B_crackoff]

Unfortunately the Uk hasnt been able to grow enough food to feed itself for 100 years. 75%=25% of population starves. (actually, usually means 100% of people eat all the food, then 100% starve for 3 months=all dead) We live by trade. This is not good news long term going into global warming and food/raw material shortages. What you are saying is we need a 25% population cut. We nearly lost 2 world wars for lack of food.?

It's not because we can't!:smile: Your maths is incorrect too - you forget about waste, fat people, sell by date regulations on things which could easily be recycled to shelters, were it not for Elf& Safety & ambulance chasers. I grow about a sixth of all my food, & I throw away nothing. It ain't hard.

Nearly lost 2 world wars? We starved more after the war because we were helping out the Dutch. And back then the calorie intake was higher because both sexes did manual work, & it was the healthiest generation ever - even if the food was a little bland!

But we are pretty immigration neutral on europe already. Thats 2 million workers going home and 2 million pensioners coming back here. Thats a good deal?

What? This week? We're not over 10 years.

And believe me, those pensioners will be coming home anyway when the shit hits the fan in Spain, Italy, even France. Where else will they get the free healthcare. It doesn't work like that in France anymore.

We've got 10.6 MILLION economically inactive adults. That's more than enough workers wouldn't you say?Quarter of adults out of work, official figures show - Telegraph

And the pension age should be equalised immediately, & raised to 68, which is where it's headed. The guys heading to this age have had it pretty good over the last 16 years.

Imagine that. We'd have more teachers, & it wouldn't cost us much more than just paying them their pension. They could even work part time. A longer school day to better match working parents, & hopefully better educated kids.

 

[dandelion]

It's not because we can't!:smile: Your maths is incorrect too - you forget about waste, fat people, sell by date regulations on things which could easily be recycled to shelters, were it not for Elf& Safety & ambulance chasers. I grow about a sixth of all my food, & I throw away nothing. It ain't hard.

Britain came within weeks of running out of food in both wwi and wwii. Obviously because the germans were very good at sinking british ships, but at the time, strangely enough, the british government was working very hard to grow as much food here as possible. We are the most populated country in europe, the climate is iffy and the soil generally poor. On a non-industrialised basis there just isnt enough land. I have enough land to feed myself, maybe you do, but London? What will you do about people stealing your vegetables every night?

Nearly lost 2 world wars? We starved more after the war because we were helping out the Dutch.

Is that because there wasnt enough food in the whole world, or because we didnt have the money to buy it? Neither one sounds exactly hopefull.

And believe me, those pensioners will be coming home anyway when the shit hits the fan in Spain, Italy, even France. Where else will they get the free healthcare. It doesn't work like that in France anymore.

Time enough to take action when the numbers go the wrong way: just dont claim we are doing badly out od the EU population wise when in fact the numbers say we are currently getting a good swap of knackered for young, healthy and cheap to maintain.

We've got 10.6 MILLION economically inactive adults. That's more than enough workers wouldn't you say?

A very interesting statistic.
Yes I would. What it also means is 1) those people do not need to work, so obviously are basicly rich and comfortable. 2)Even if they might be tempted to work, either the available jobs dont pay enough to tempt them or the working conditions are so awful ass to put them off. Being worse off if you work also does not help.

I agree, we do not need imported labour. Id ban all non eu immigration. If we have skills shortages, god, did no one ever hear of education? How can we not be training enough doctors? The EU is a club one of whose aims is to equalise standards of living of all its members. Its inherently protectionist. The demonstrated fact is that it works. EU people will eventually go home because fundamentally people from other countries like being in their own country too. I doubt too many will eventually choose to retire to Britain, not sunny enough. So long term we can look forward to a good chunk of expensive OAPs retiring abroad without equivalent numbers here. Thats a good deal.

And the pension age should be equalised immediately, & raised to 68, which is where it's headed. The guys heading to this age have had it pretty good over the last 16 years.

Thats the government pension age. People shouldnt be forced to retire unless theyre incompetent, but quite a few choose to retire before this and can afford to. Right now, your saying keep a lot of rich people in well paid jobs so that some of those with no jobs or who will only take well paid ones, have to stay unemployed? Surely better more pensioners and less unemployed?

Imagine that. We'd have more teachers, & it wouldn't cost us much more than just paying them their pension..

You mean, wouldnt cost us much more than their contractual, pay related pension which as part of their work contract was agreed would be paid at a certain date at a certain rate? Not their statutory age 65 state pension which has gone down relative to pay for a very long time and is about the lowest in europe compared to how rich we are? Maybe it would be more honest to cut teachers pay rather than their pension?

 

[B_crackoff]

Britain came within weeks of running out of food in both wwi and wwii.

No it didn't., Not at all ever. There was no rationing in WW1. What cock-eyed references have you for this! After the war certainly there became a will to do more, but there's certainly enough space for crops & livestock.

peoplethe climate is iffy and the soil generally poor.

This is completely wrong - where are you getting this! The climate is one of the best for milk & crops. Compare again to other countries, then also add on hydroponic solutions -we are surrounded by water!

Potatoes, beets, cereals, & apples & pears grow in abundance. There is barely any soil erosion in the UK compared to 3rd world counties

On a non-industrialised basis there just isnt enough t lland. I have enough land to feed myself, maybe you do, but London? What will you do about people stealing your vegetables every night?

I'm in London. That's why we have police. Veggies don't exactly fill you up. They can turn the Olympic site into a giant allotment. That's what happens when people build flats. i'm more worried about foxes with my chickens!

Exactly what do you think will happen if we cut carbon emissions by 90% as the Greens want - we turn back into an agrarian culture. Bonkers!

Time enough to take action when the numbers go the wrong way: just dont claim we are doing badly out od the EU population wise when in fact the numbers say we are currently getting a good swap of knackered for young, healthy and cheap to maintain.

Ageist crap. 10.6 million economically inactive adults - that's a labour force and a half!

Being worse off if you work also does not help.

Work for benefits, if even 1 day a week - it all helps - there are plenty of community projects that need a hand.

So long term we can look forward to a good chunk of expensive OAPs retiring abroad without equivalent numbers here. Thats a good deal.

Spending the cash that they earned in the UK, & paying taxes on it, in the UK.

Thats the government pension age. People shouldnt be forced to retire unless theyre incompetent, but quite a few choose to retire before this and can afford to. Right now, your saying keep a lot of rich people in well paid jobs so that some of those with no jobs or who will only take well paid ones, have to stay unemployed? Surely better more pensioners and less unemployed?

No. Pensioners are entitled to higher benefits. If it means that people with money just live off their own personal pensions before receiving state pensions - good!

You mean, wouldnt cost us much more than their contractual, pay related pension which as part of their work contract was agreed would be paid at a certain date at a certain rate? Not their statutory age 65 state pension which has gone down relative to pay for a very long time and is about the lowest in europe compared to how rich we are? Maybe it would be more honest to cut teachers pay rather than their pension?

Contracts change, circumstances change. We have wars, economic crisises etc. Just because a bunch of incompetents didn't plan or foresee people living longer, doesn't mean the young should shoulder their gifted burden.

Labout thought pensioners would die at 80. If they reach 60 they'll live to 88! That means people HAVE to work longer. Remember, they're expecting everyone under about 45 to retire at 65, & there's no predictions for a longer life.

Furthermore, state employees & women were retiring at 60. Some working 39 years for a 66%final salary(idiotic anyway because you obviously get promoted , so the pension should be aggregated! e.g headmaster 5 years at end of service on £100, 000, & 35 years on average of £30,000 on lower grades, receives pension of 2/3 of £100,000 - it hasn't been earned!), are going to be paid 67% of salary, plus state pension & benefits, with no NI contributions to make - for nearly 30 years.

It can't be done. It's idiotic!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Endued]

Just saw the poll results. Oh, if only the whole of the UK was like LPSG.

 

[dandelion]

Just saw the poll results. Oh, if only the whole of the UK was like LPSG.

Ive posted it several times: yougov ask people who they really want to win rather than who they voted for. The result was over 50% wanted the libs to win. Which is about the same as the vote here.

 

[B_crackoff]

Ive posted it several times: yougov ask people who they really want to win rather than who they voted for. The result was over 50% wanted the libs to win. Which is about the same as the vote here.

A bunch of liars apparently.

The Lib Dems lost seats they held! It's just wishful thinking. No wonder they want a Single Transferable vote. It's the only system that could benefit them.

I wish I could say I was staggered by the Labour vote - all those postal votes etc., & public sector asses.

I would have preferred 30 more Libs, & 30 less Labs.

Whichever Govt we have will fall fall fall.

 

[B_crackoff]

Another election anyone? Cons can't make a majority, Lab & Libs can't. Cons & Libs won't work together idealogically.

What's so good about a hung Parliament now.

The worst of all worlds. That's what we've done here.

 

[dandelion]

Jason was so worried he might get a hung parliament upsetting the markets he suggested people ought to vote conservative, and thus got what he most wanted to avoid.

But we still dont know the result! its coming down to 1 or 2 mps as to what happens next and we may not get a final tally for weeks. The election in 3 weeks when the voters will know how everyone else has voted and what has happened will be fascinating. A by election poll on this result.

Ive posted it several times: yougov ask people who they really want to win rather than who they voted for. The result was over 50% wanted the libs to win. Which is about the same as the vote here.

A bunch of liars apparently.

The Lib Dems lost seats they held! It's just wishful thinking.

No wonder they want a Single Transferable vote. It's the only system that could benefit them.

Dont know why you say that. The pollsters seem to have been spot on. What they measure at the very start of the campaign has more or less stayed the same except the cons lost support instead of gaining it as time went on. 50% want a liberal government yet we get a labour/conservative tie.
No wonder they want a first past the post vote. Its the only system that could benefit them.

 

[Jason]

Dandelion, I don't think a Lab or Lib dem victory was ever on the cards. We had a choice of Con or Hung. We've got Hung. It is bad for the country. The pound fell overnight (at a time when funds were fleeing both Euro and dollar and the pound would ordinarily have gone up). The ratings agencies are okay right now but the cognoscenti think it is 50/50 that they will move against us. Todat the FTSE is down 3.6%. Add in the currency movement and every one of us has lost nearly 8% of the value of anything we own since 10pm last night. That's 8% off pensions, savings, the value of our industry, and the cost of sovereign debt is up (so we need yet more tax and more cuts).

We're stuffed. What is now on the table is to decide whether we get on with life anyway or jump in the oven. The only sane decision is a Con-Lib agreement of some sort.

 

[B_crackoff]

But we still dont know the result! its coming down to 1 or 2 mps as to what happens next and we may not get a final tally for weeks.
307 Con, 258 Lab, 57 LD or 306 Con, 258 Lab, 58 LD

The one in a few weeks is a Tory stronghold

50% want a liberal government yet we get a labour/conservative tie.
.

No they don't. On what basis. We've just had a massive vote with 30 million voting. Not a few hundred! And we've just seen how strong the Lib Dem vote is! There was a swing from LD to Con. In their own seats.


YouGov/Sun 2010-05-04 35 30 24 - closest pollster

 

[798686]

The Con-Lib offer is quite interesting. I think it could make a fairly good government - Cameron's got a big enuff mandate to get most things thru - but the Libs might rub off any ideas that are too right wing.

Will reassure Europe if Clegg is included - altho Cameron has made it clear their views on Europe and nuclear defense arent up for negotiation.

Could make Cameron's 'renegotiation' with Europe more moderate, and more likely to get through? Plus both are interested in sorting out the economy.

 

[dandelion]

Dandelion, I don't think a Lab or Lib dem victory was ever on the cards.

I dont think I agree. Browns idiot comment cost them votes. Labour have been shooting bits off themselves for ages, though maybe thats what you mean. It was possible for them to squeak in as con have now done or with a slight majority. I never imagined a lib majority.

We had a choice of Con or Hung.

Yes, in truth hung has been the prediction throughout with the possibility of con win if they did well in the campaign. they didnt do so either.

We've got Hung. It is bad for the country. The pound fell overnight (at a time when funds were fleeing both Euro and dollar and the pound would ordinarily have gone up).

Obviously the prospect of hung caused the wall street crash yesterday too? This is just traders seizing an opportunity and the more people talk about it the more money they make. Ok, I agree, its another tremor in a market which could do without, but it is not the most important issue.

The ratings agencies are okay right now but the cognoscenti think it is 50/50 that they will move against us. Todat the FTSE is down 3.6%. Add in the currency movement and every one of us has lost nearly 8% of the value of anything we own since 10pm last night. That's 8% off pensions, savings, the value of our industry, and the cost of sovereign debt is up (so we need yet more tax and more cuts).

Im sure you claimed a depreciating currency is good for trade, helps ease a debt crisis and generally is the solution to everything. (or does that only apply to Greece?)

Ive been listening to the leaders speeches today agin just now. They are quite beutiful examples of negotiation by media soundbite. Clegg makes a spatesmanlike impassioned plea which is really a hint to Cameron of his terms. Brown chips in with a better offer. Cameron says hes willing. How can you say this is not the way to conduct politics?

We're stuffed. What is now on the table is to decide whether we get on with life anyway or jump in the oven. The only sane decision is a Con-Lib agreement of some sort.

calm yourself. they will still be here arguing in 10 years. Do you think politicians are sane? Interestingly the BBC had camerons ex tutor on as a pundit last night. He was quite complimentary about Cameron being a clever and principled chap. Lets hope so. They should have dragged out a few more character references like that before! Can the conservatives agree to electoral reform? Its the one issue that matters.

 

[dandelion]

http://www.lpsg.org/180319-the-uk-general-election-poll-13.html#post2749449
But we still dont know the result! its coming down to 1 or 2 mps as to what happens next and we may not get a final tally for weeks.

307 Con, 258 Lab, 57 LD or 306 Con, 258 Lab, 58 LD

The one in a few weeks is a Tory stronghold

You have missed out the important ones! the important issue is con+who=326 and lab+who=326. The 9 nats seem inclined to join a labour alliance, which is 324 with the libs?

The final election in 3 weeks will now become a referendum on whatever happens between now and then. It could swing wildly depending on what people think.

50% want a liberal government yet we get a labour/conservative tie.

No they don't. On what basis. We've just had a massive vote with 30 million voting. Not a few hundred! And we've just seen how strong the Lib Dem vote is! There was a swing from LD to Con. In their own seats.

YouGov/Sun 2010-05-04 35 30 24 - closest pollster

but thats just it. people do not vote in a general election for the person they want to win but for the person they think may be able to win. The polling question clearly demonstrated there is a huge difference between the two. Neither lib or lab has anything like massive popular support.

 

[Jason]

If we do get Con - Lib agreement we will have a government that 64% of the UK voters voted for - and something approaching three-quarters of the English voters voted for. That would be quite something.

 

[dandelion]

If we do get Con - Lib agreement we will have a government that 64% of the UK voters voted for - and something approaching three-quarters of the English voters voted for. That would be quite something.

well 40% dont vote so thats 64%of 60% which is about 40% of the electorate, but its better than half that. Still means 'none worth voting for' got more votes at 40% (sorry, not sure what the final turnout was, but you get the idea. maybe 'none' would be pushed into 2nd place)

That sounds a bit negative. I think a number of the non-voters ought to be considered disinterested and thus 'dont care' or didnt vote because of circumstances and might have voted similarly to those who did. But Im certain another fraction think it wholly pointless so dont bother. They should be considered 'against'. But equally, a proportion of those who voted 'for' a particular party did so for tactical reasons. Anyway, more is good.