[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;47671940]What time do polling stations usually close? I won't be available until like 7pm[/QUOTE]
10pm :)
[url=https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/]Final YouGov seat projection[/url]
[QUOTE]Raw data from Guardian LAB 37% CON 33% but Lab turnout expected to be lower.[/QUOTE]
Is it me or does it seem unlikely that the conservatives will even be able to form a majority coalition? There obviously won't be a lab-con coalition, Sinn Fein doesn't go to Westminster and SNP has pledged to keep Cameron out of office. Most sites and polls I've seen show that even a con-lib-ukip-dup-green-respect coalition wouldn't have a majority
Screw it, I'm voting lib dem.
Probably going to vote Labour this time round.
I was tempted by SNP / Green, but I'd sooner see a stable majority government than SNP and Labour playing chicken with each other in the Commons, and where I live a Green vote would be wasted, so until we see some sort of proportional representation system in place I'd rather vote for a party which actually has a fighting chance in my constituency.
[QUOTE=CoolCorky;47667282]Tomorrow's headlines:
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/g6PJsg4.jpg[/thumb][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/rIEEJ8k.jpg[/thumb][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/dqngUkh.jpg[/thumb][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/YaMyALf.jpg[/thumb]
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/akqqsJy.jpg[/thumb][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/LfWclUo.jpg[/thumb][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/KrWuUh2.jpg[/thumb]
The gloves are off it seems, with most papers completely dropping any remaining impression of being balanced.[/QUOTE]
That sort of stuff should be banned by journalism laws. Disgraceful.
So glad 'citizen media' and the internet is slowly turning the newspaper obsolete.
[editline]6th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grizz;47672177]Raw data from Guardian LAB 37% CON 33% but Lab turnout expected to be lower.[/QUOTE]
Wish it was that way, but it's The Guardian. Of course they're going to say Labour has the edge.
[QUOTE=benbb;47672534]That sort of stuff should be banned by journalism laws. Disgraceful.
[/QUOTE]
Why?
Newspapers are allowed to be biased and if you don't like their bias then don't buy it.
[QUOTE=benbb;47672534]
Wish it was that way, but it's The Guardian. Of course they're going to say Labour has the edge.[/QUOTE]
The polls aren't run by the papers themselves. ICM (responsible for The Guardian's polling) has had a Tory lead closed up, today.
The Sun has YouGov. Mirror has Survation. etc. Don't ask me about Panelbase
[QUOTE]LAB 34% (NC)
CON 32% (+1%)
UKIP 17% (NC)
LD 8% (+1)
GRN 4% (NC)[/QUOTE]
Going to a vote count tomorrow night, should be fun
So the YouGov 10,000 respondent poll apparently doesn't help us at all.
Being reported as a 34%-34% tie for LAB/CON. No change there, then. A fitting grand YouGov finale for the campaign.
Meanwhile, final ComRes/Daily Mail poll:
[QUOTE]CON - 35% (-)
LAB - 34% (+2)
UKIP - 12% (-2)
LDEM - 9% (-)
GRN - 4% (-)[/QUOTE]
Labour has closed the gap in Tory-favoured polling today, but ultimately it has only brought the polls further in line.
[QUOTE]Final Survation Poll:
Lab 33
Con 33
LD 9
UKIP 16
SNP 5[/QUOTE]
All to one conclusion...
It's going to be a mess. Good night.
[QUOTE=smurfy;47667302]PA's estimated declaration times are out btw
[url]http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/general_2015_by_time.php[/url]
[editline]6th May 2015[/editline]
Sheffield Hallam 4:30, Thanet South 6:00, be there or be square
[editline]6th May 2015[/editline]
Be awake or a be a fake[/QUOTE]
I hope Sunderland are first to declare again, it's nice that there's something we're good at
WHY ARE PEOPLE EVEN VOTING CONSERVATIVE JESUS
IT HAS BEGUN!
My prediction if anyone wants to laugh at me tomorrow:
Overall, hung parliament to a worse degree than 2010.
-Tories win most seats and number of votes
-Labour Second on both fronts as above,
-UKIP win 3 seats
-SNP win 45+ seats in Scotland and wreck Labour
As for the final outcome, I'm feeling a Labour minority.
Tories won't be able to go back into coalition with Lib Dems as they are going to get fucking rekt. They won't/can't align with UKIP, Green, Plaid, SNP or anyone else.
Labour will end up being supported by the SNP, Plaid, Greens, DUP regardless of whether they want to or not.
Other than that, if Labour disagree to a Confidence and Supply agreement, parliament will be so useless we'd have to have another general election.
#MysticMeg
[QUOTE=Hezzy;47675171]WHY ARE PEOPLE EVEN VOTING CONSERVATIVE JESUS[/QUOTE]
People have been told that the "long term economic plan" is working, even though growth has slowed to a crawl, we are teetering on the edge of super low inflation / deflation and borrowing has increased by more than the previous government who "borrowed too much and overspent".
Whats that saying, that if you tell a lie enough times eventually people believe it?
[QUOTE=Benf199105;47675974]People have been told that the "long term economic plan" is working, even though growth has slowed to a crawl, we are teetering on the edge of super low inflation / deflation and [b]borrowing has increased by more than the previous government[/b] who "borrowed too much and overspent".
Whats that saying, that if you tell a lie enough times eventually people believe it?[/QUOTE]
Have I missed something? Can you explain how you got to that conclusion?
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;47676144]Have I missed something? Can you explain how you got to that conclusion?[/QUOTE]
I probably mis-worded that due to it being 7am when I wrote it. I was referring to the increase in borrowing and the national debt as a % of GDP, apologies for the confusion.
Osbourne even only in 2013 had borrowed more than the previous Labour government, who the Conservatives accused of overspending and claimed they had created a "bloated" welfare state coupled with excessive public spending.
In his first 3 years as Chancellor Osbourne borrowed £430.072 billion, whereas the last Labour government borrowed just £429.975 billion in the 13 year period. In a period of the first 3 years then, Osbourne had already out borrowed the previous 3 terms of Labour.
The OBR in Nov 2010 had Debt as a % of GDP at 53.5%. In December 2014, after all the years of austerity and "tough decisions", Debt as a % of GDP is 80.4%, which if you'd like the round figure, is an increase of 26.9%.
He will also have borrowed an extra £207 billion than he claimed he would.
Osbourne has actually increased the national debt by more than every single Labour Government, who on the whole have only had 2 periods in government where parliament has been dissolved and the national debt has increased; which were the fallout from the Great Depression in 1929-1931 and the Global Financial Crash of 2008.
[quote]In the last 200 years of economic history there have only been three prolonged periods of debt accumulation worse than George Osborne's tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer: The First World War (+110% of GDP), the Second World War (+100% of GDP) and the tenure of Tory Chancellor Nicholas Vansittart 1812-1823 (+64% of GDP).
Having increased public sector debt by 26.9% in five years, George Osborne has undeniably created more new debt than any single Labour government in history ever has. In fact it's a bigger proportional increase in the national debt than all of the Labour governments in history combined.[/quote]
I hope that is a sufficient reply, sorry for the confusion.
You're confusing the deficit with debt and I'm not sure whether you're doing it deliberately or not. Your stats on paper sound very bad for the Conservatives' financial records if [i]and only if[/i] you ignore the fact that they inherited a budget deficit of £175 billion from the outgoing Labour government. You're cherry picking numbers from the budget and putting no context to them whatsoever in order to paint the Conservatives as having grossly mismanaged the economy.
If you actually follow the deficit year by year, then yearly borrowing has been coming consistently down.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;47676259]You're confusing the deficit with debt and I'm not sure whether you're doing it deliberately or not. Your stats on paper sound very bad for the Conservatives' financial records if [i]and only if[/i] you ignore the fact that they inherited a budget deficit of £175 billion from the outgoing Labour government. You're cherry picking numbers from the budget and putting no context to them whatsoever in order to paint the Conservatives as having grossly mismanaged the economy.
If you actually follow the deficit year by year, then yearly borrowing has been coming consistently down.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not? I have a degree in Economics, I am quite sure I know the difference between the Debt level (the actual amount of debt) and the Deficit (the rate at which the national debt is currently increasing, the counter would be a surplus, but thanks for checking up on me).
"[The] deficit will then be eliminated to plus 0.3 per cent in 2014-15 and plus 0.8 per cent in 2015-16. In other words, it will be in surplus. Public sector net debt as a share of GDP will be 62 per cent this year, before peaking at 70 per cent in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69 per cent in 2014-15"
Osbourne failed on his own terms to reduce the deficit and continues to borrow over and above any target he set, which is increasing the National debt. Debt as a % share of GDP is also nearly 11% higher than he targeted in the Budget in 2010.
The Tory rhetoric of "paying down the national debt" is complete bollocks, all they've actually done is allow it to increase, and facilitated it's increase by borrowing. They may have slowed the rate of increase, correct, but that is a failure on their own terms as per Osbourne and Cameron's manifesto and quotes around election 2010. You can't argue that, they are just facts.
Defending that is like saying "Well shit, my house is on fire, but i sprayed some foam on it and I've managed to slow the fire down but ah yeah, it's just spread into the roof space now and the attic is on fire, oh well".
Yes, the Conservatives aimed to eliminate the deficit by now and they failed to do so. That's entirely irrelevant to your point that they'd increased borrowing when, in actual fact, all they've done since they came into Government is decrease it.
If you have a degree in economics then you know full well, at least in the manner in which you phrased your post, that you were condemning the Conservatives' financial record on a faulty and deliberately misleading premise. How is it reasonable to pin record borrowing on the Conservatives in the years immediately preceding a record deficit overseen by the party they replaced? The Conservatives have managed to maintain healthy economic growth while reducing the deficit and unemployment; I hope you realize what a disaster it would have been for a budget deficit of £175 billion to have been eliminated overnight. If you do, then hammering the Conservatives for their borrowing figures is simply spiteful.
In your example of a house on fire, it would be akin to Labour knocking over a candle that lit the house on fire, the Conservatives barging them out of the way holding a fire extinguisher and then you and Labour standing behind them shouting 'Is this the fastest you can put it out?!'.
walked out my polling station after voting today, bunch of people around the person from the snp there having a nice chat, and the tory guy was just standing there all alone. almost felt quite bad for him. they've basically got no chance of winning in my constituency anyway thank fuck
[QUOTE]The ones that are gonna be most angry are the Greens. The benches were green to start with before all the other colours came in. So they were winning by 100% and now they've been left with [I]fuck all.[/I]
But that's democracy.[/QUOTE]
- Philomena Cunk's guide to a majority.
tbh the biggest issue I care mostly about is the NHS.. and labour's manifesto just doesn't cut it.
Nobody here really talks about the NHS but there are some real messed up staffing issues and these absurd A&E targets which are impossible to meet.
I'd like Egg Miliband to walk into an A&E around new years time when about 50 people are waiting and tell me what he'd do.
[editline]7th May 2015[/editline]
and this doesn't count the extra 20 which have actual medical emergencies.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;47676346]Yes, the Conservatives aimed to eliminate the deficit by now and they failed to do so. That's entirely irrelevant to your point that they'd increased borrowing when, in actual fact, all they've done since they came into Government is decrease it.
If you have a degree in economics then you know full well, at least in the manner in which you phrased your post, that you were condemning the Conservatives' financial record on a faulty and deliberately misleading premise. How is it reasonable to pin record borrowing on the Conservatives in the years immediately preceding a record deficit overseen by the party they replaced? The Conservatives have managed to maintain healthy economic growth while reducing the deficit and unemployment; I hope you realize what a disaster it would have been for a budget deficit of £175 billion to have been eliminated overnight. If you do, then hammering the Conservatives for their borrowing figures is simply spiteful.
In your example of a house on fire, it would be akin to Labour knocking over a candle that lit the house on fire, the Conservatives barging them out of the way holding a fire extinguisher and then you and Labour standing behind them shouting 'Is this the fastest you can put it out?!'.[/QUOTE]
As i stated in my reply, i'd mispoken and corrected that by saying the increase in borrowing over the target and the failure to reduce the deficit on their own terms.
My premise was neither faulty or misleading, the party has failed on many of the key issues which it has claimed it has succeeded on, most notably "paying down the debts" / reducing the deficit to 0.3 percent in 2014-2015 and +0.8% in 15-16, which it has spectacularly failed to do. Similarly the national debt continued to rise over and above target and borrowing was higher than intended or forecast.
Secondly, on the general claim you're making about the previous establishment being somewhat responsible for leaving a large deficit, and it being unfair to "pin" borrowing on the Conservatives.
The collapse of the world banks was caused mostly by a hangover of Clinton era de-regulation allowing for American bankers to gamble on derivative lead, CDO backed, sub-prime mezzanine tranch investment programmes. These were invested in heavily by most funds, pensions, insurance companies underwrote policies for protection, on the failed and incorrect assumption that house prices could only go one way, up.
The last government, apparently, according to Osbourne left "the largest debt in the developed world", when actually we had the lowest debt in the G7, (look at the Treasury Select Committee recordings from 2010). Figures from the OECD also highlighted that Debt as a % of GDP during the crisis was no worse than France, Germany or the USA.
It is also widely accepted that the deficit left by the previous government was due to the bailing out of financial institutes and the protection and security given to regular people to protect their savings from mis-management and criminal ineptitude.
In their time in office it is claimed, most often by Conservatives, that Labour overspent and borrowed excessively, causing the deficit. This general claim is false, as Labour inherited a deficit in 1997 following John Major's Conservative Government, and they reduced the deficit from 3.9% GDP to 2.1% which is close to 50%, the figures show that during this period there cannot have been overspending or poor decisions, as the economy was benefiting from this policy.
Thirdly, I'd contest we have had anything like "healthy" economic growth thanks to the backwards austerity neoclassical school of economics largely debunked in modern society. Growth has actually been heavily curtailed thanks to Osbourne's underestimation of the multiplier investment effect, and the USA are a prime example of Keynesian policy working.
[thumb]http://s3.epi.org/files/2012//Screen-Shot-2013-02-04-at-2.39.43-PM.png[/thumb]
And finally, in the house example, It was actually a banker who knocked over the candle, causing a huge fire, Labour started to put out the fire, then a new guy showed up with the promise of a big shiny fire engine with better hoses and a programme to rebuild the house. Actually he turned up in an old clap trap fire engine gave it a lick of paint, and told everyone the fire was being put out, whilst actually, to the rear of the house, it was continuing to spread.
I'm enjoying debating this, but feel it is probably derailing. But these are all just facts, the Tories have failed on their own terms and haven't done what they said they would. They chastised the previous administration for borrowing and debt levels, whilst being guilty of the same crimes.
As Cameron said "if we don't deliver our side of the bargain, kick us out in five years". And I believe a larger percentage of the people will be voting that way this time.
Final Ipsos-MORI poll
[QUOTE]
CON - 36% (+1)
LAB - 35% (+5)
UKIP - 11% (+1)
LDEM - 8% (-)
GRN - 5% (-3)[/QUOTE]
Final ICM poll
[QUOTE]LAB 35% (-)
CON 34% (-1)
UKIP 11%(-)
LDEM 9% (-)
GRN 4% (+1)
[I]*In marginal battlegrounds where Con were 2% ahead in 2010, Lab has 11% lead today. Sub-samples, for sure, but not tiny ones[/I][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hezzy;47675171]WHY ARE PEOPLE EVEN VOTING CONSERVATIVE JESUS[/QUOTE]
Why aren't people voting Conservative is a better question?
We have the most incompetent and ideological Labour opposition since the 1980's.
Happy Election Day Everyone!
[video=youtube;CdhoDrSv7Q8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdhoDrSv7Q8[/video]
[QUOTE=Benf199105;47676548]As i stated in my reply, i'd mispoken and corrected that by saying the increase in borrowing over the target and the failure to reduce the deficit on their own terms.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Understand though that that misspeaking was the catalyst for this debate.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;47676548]Secondly, on the general claim you're making about the previous establishment being somewhat responsible for leaving a large deficit, and it being unfair to "pin" borrowing on the Conservatives.
The collapse of the world banks was caused mostly by a hangover of Clinton era de-regulation allowing for American bankers to gamble on derivative lead, CDO backed, sub-prime mezzanine tranch investment programmes. These were invested in heavily by most funds, pensions, insurance companies underwrote policies for protection, on the failed and incorrect assumption that house prices could only go one way, up.[/QUOTE]
My point was that, regardless of the cause, the Conservatives followed a Labour budget that in 2009-10 forecast Government revenue of £496 billion and Government expenditure of £671 billion. Expenditure with which a full 26% was borrowed. With that in mind, for you to claim...
[QUOTE]In his first 3 years as Chancellor Osbourne borrowed £430.072 billion, whereas the last Labour government borrowed just £429.975 billion in the 13 year period. In a period of the first 3 years then, Osbourne had already out borrowed the previous 3 terms of Labour. [/QUOTE]
... as if that was a blight on the Conservatives' financial policies was disingenuous at best. Whether it was Labour's fault or not; that was the legacy they left and that was what the Conservatives had to work with off the bat. They were always going to be forced to borrow and if you claim Labour shouldn't be held accountable for the financial crisis then you should have the open-mindedness to accept the Conservatives couldn't be held accountable for their initial borrowing figures. The bringing up of whether or not the Conservatives met their initial targets is besides the point.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;47676548]Thirdly, I'd contest we have had anything like "healthy" economic growth thanks to the backwards austerity neoclassical school of economics largely debunked in modern society. Growth has actually been heavily curtailed thanks to Osbourne's underestimation of the multiplier investment effect, and the USA are a prime example of Keynesian policy working.[/QUOTE]
Again, I feel you're being disingenuous here. The graph you use as a source captures the UK's economic recovery at its lowest and ends right before a slump in the US recovery.
[url]http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/economic-growth-quarterly-600x415.png[/url]
Economic growth right now is not dissimilar to the economic growth we had between 2002 and the financial crisis. Keynesian economics are all well and good, but continual Government overspend starts becoming dangerous when debt levels get too high with debt levels of 100% of GDP commonly touted as a danger zone where investor confidence starts to waver. Ours currently sits at 90% of GDP. Maintaining economic growth at the levels we have done while ensuring debt levels as a percentage of GDP are reigned in and lowered is definitely 'healthy' in my book.
As for whether we're derailing. I initially took issue with what seemed to be you claiming the Conservatives had increased borrowing over that of the previous Labour administration. If you claim you simply misspoke on that one then fair enough. At the end of the day even Ed Miliband recognises the need to eliminate the deficit. Whether you advocate eliminating it through cutting spending or through higher spending and implied higher growth, I hope we can at least agree on that base necessity.
I may have skipped over this, I don't know, sorry if I did, but when's the vote count? Is it later tonight (UK time?)
[QUOTE=The mouse;47676737]Why aren't people voting Conservative is a better question?
We have the most incompetent and ideological Labour opposition since the 1980's.[/QUOTE]
While the matter of incompetent is up for debate I haven't voted Tory because I don't necessarily approve of a party that lets disabled people get called scroungers or layabouts and penalises them with the bedroom tax. Nor do I want a party that is trying to privatise the NHS and has already sold off Royal Mail.
So yeah, Labour got my vote today based on that and what that website said where I stood.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47677041]I may have skipped over this, I don't know, sorry if I did, but when's the vote count? Is it later tonight (UK time?)[/QUOTE]
[url]http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/general_2015_by_time.php[/url]
Each constituency declares it's counts at these estimated times.
[QUOTE=The mouse;47676737]Why aren't people voting Conservative is a better question?
We have the most incompetent and ideological Labour opposition since the 1980's.[/QUOTE]
I'm voting for Green. I know there's no chance we're going to hold a majority, but I want to stick by my guns and vote for who I believe in. If everybody votes tactical you're not going to get anywhere.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
