Election Debates

First topic message reminder :

A number of debates are taking place. Below is May v Corbyn. What is everyones' view on the debate? who do you think came out on top? Did the debate change your mind on who you will vote for or convince you who to vote for if you were undecided?

Please stop feeding the WUM. It's abundantly clear that all he's trying to do is wind you up, Dolph.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:18-24 voted in 2015..ipsos

Labour 43..Con 27...Lib 5...Green 8...........

18-24..ICM 2017..

Labour 68...Con 16..Lib 8 Green 3...

Are most of them registered and can Labour get them out ??

A counter to that would be that ICM have the Tories with a 12 point lead.

Pr4wn wrote:Please stop feeding the WUM. It's abundantly clear that all he's trying to do is wind you up, Dolph.

Jog on if you're unable to accept a different opinion to yours, just because I don't share your views doesn't mean i'm on a wind up, oddly there's a lot of pro Conservative people in the world.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:18-24 voted in 2015..ipsos

Labour 43..Con 27...Lib 5...Green 8...........

18-24..ICM 2017..

Labour 68...Con 16..Lib 8 Green 3...

Are most of them registered and can Labour get them out ??

A counter to that would be that ICM have the Tories with a 12 point lead.

Good counter....You could even have used the opinium poll till about an hour ago..

Pr4wn wrote:Please stop feeding the WUM. It's abundantly clear that all he's trying to do is wind you up, Dolph.

Yep I learnt last night he is just a WUM which is why I blocked him. I posted a link to a video with comments showing how the majority of people were backing corbyn in the comments section. He then tried to tell me that I was wrong and the majority were backing May. I could see all the comments with my own eyes and I could see which comments were getting the most up votes and yet he was still trying to tell me I was wrong lol He was just looking for a reaction hence why I blocked him straight after that.

Calling someone a WUM and saying about 15 times you've blocked them is also a form of WUMming. The two of you seem to be as bad as each other frankly

GSC wrote:Calling someone a WUM and saying about 15 times you've blocked them is also a form of WUMming. The two of you seem to be as bad as each other frankly

I haven't blocked you and I wouldn't even think about blocking you, I have far too much respect for you

Last Survation poll.....

Con 46
Lab 34

Latest poll........

Con 40
Lab 39..

1 point difference... things are getting close.

Imagine if May debated Corbyn in a head to head, he would wipe the floor with her and probably have a 10 point lead.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Last Survation poll.....

Con 46
Lab 34

Latest poll........

Con 40
Lab 39..

Worth noting that the betting odds have barely changed over the past week, you can get a Labour majority at 7/1 whilst it's 1/8 for the Tories.

Start of the week...

Labour 30-35%.............5/6......................Now 11/8
Labour 35-40%.............3/1......................Now 15/8..

There is some movement for you....

Hints at a greater vote share but not a big impact on winning seats perhaps.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Start of the week...

Labour 30-35%.............5/6......................Now 11/8
Labour 35-40%.............3/1......................Now 15/8..

There is some movement for you....

who will you vote for?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Start of the week...

Labour 30-35%.............5/6......................Now 11/8
Labour 35-40%.............3/1......................Now 15/8..

There is some movement for you....

The betting reflects seats won not vote share Truss.

Yougov

Con 42
Lab 38...................

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Start of the week...

Labour 30-35%.............5/6......................Now 11/8
Labour 35-40%.............3/1......................Now 15/8..

There is some movement for you....

The betting reflects seats won not vote share Truss.

Vote share..

Icm 45 - 34..........

the yougov poll a few days ago and another one a week ago had the largest sample with 53000 people taking part and that poll has retuned a hung parliament

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Start of the week...

Labour 30-35%.............5/6......................Now 11/8
Labour 35-40%.............3/1......................Now 15/8..

There is some movement for you....

The betting reflects seats won not vote share Truss.

Vote share..

I meant the odds of 7/1 and 1/8 for a majority.

I tend to think it's going to be a fairly wide majority still.

When you start 24 points ahead and are boasting about a 150+ majority I should hope you do get a decent majority.....Anything less than 70 she wants to watch her back.

I still predict 80/100.......In other news..

30-35% = 6/4
35-40% = 13/8...

Goodnight..

Samo wrote:Theres only two situations you would ever push that button.

A. You fire first. Thats an act of agression. Trident is not a deterrent.

B. You fire second. Thats an act of retalistion. Trident is not a deterrent.

Its a lose/lose scenario.

Seriously? You don't think the fact Trident may be heading your way after you initially fire on the U.K. might be a deterrent from being an idiot in the first place? It might be retaliation, but it's still a deterrent.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Theres only two situations you would ever push that button.

A. You fire first. Thats an act of agression. Trident is not a deterrent.

B. You fire second. Thats an act of retalistion. Trident is not a deterrent.

Its a lose/lose scenario.

Seriously? You don't think the fact Trident may be heading your way after you initially fire on the U.K. might be a deterrent from being an idiot in the first place? It might be retaliation, but it's still a deterrent.

I think the point he was making was that if we came under attack from nuclear weapons and we fired back then trident has failed because it never deterred the attackers.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Theres only two situations you would ever push that button.

A. You fire first. Thats an act of agression. Trident is not a deterrent.

B. You fire second. Thats an act of retalistion. Trident is not a deterrent.

Its a lose/lose scenario.

Seriously? You don't think the fact Trident may be heading your way after you initially fire on the U.K. might be a deterrent from being an idiot in the first place? It might be retaliation, but it's still a deterrent.

I think the point he was making was that if we came under attack from nuclear weapons and we fired back then trident has failed because it never deterred the attackers.

I think the point Navy is making is that Trident is a deterrent to a nuclear attack in the first place and that hopefully there's no need to push any buttons at all.

The entire point is that you never push the button

But people know that you COULD push it if they attacked you

That's the entire story of the cold war

to be fair we don't need trident to be a deterrent. Lets say Russia fired nuclear weapons at us, it would destroy us but it would also destroy them. The radiation and toxins would wipe out half the earths population, would wipe out half the worlds food source, it would contaminate the water making it highly toxic. And that is not even mentioning the financial crash that would happen and the mass exodus of asylum seekers who would leave in their tens of millions to parts of the world not yet affected.

The biggest deterrent to firing a nuclear weapon should be that you will destroy your own country in the process.

Why do we have Trident? Cos we have an agreement to.

That's why both would keep it.

USA would never let its little friend be attacked.

You don't need trident..Give your nurses a rise.

Lets put Trident on the Thames and see how keen folk are to keep it then.

Ipsos

Cameron best leader rating against Miliband one week out +17

May v Corbyn one week out +4..

Samo wrote:Lets put Trident on the Thames and see how keen folk are to keep it then.

As long as it was kept aimed at Canary Wharf and the City I think most folks would be very keen on it.

What has May done that made people THINK she was a good leader? She gave lots of sound bites and catch phrases such as brexit means brexit and strong and stable but in reality she has done very little as the PM and as the home secretary. She failed in her immigration target and she has u-turned on a whole host of things.

Her approval rating is going down every day as folk actually see how painfully bad she is.

43 percent of kids voted in 2015..

Every 10 percent more on that total = 2 percent to the Labour vote..

Ask them to a grab a gran as well muscular and maybe your dreams will come true.

"It ain't over till the fat lady sings".....She has entered the building though and pressed the elevator button.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Theres only two situations you would ever push that button.

A. You fire first. Thats an act of agression. Trident is not a deterrent.

B. You fire second. Thats an act of retalistion. Trident is not a deterrent.

Its a lose/lose scenario.

Seriously? You don't think the fact Trident may be heading your way after you initially fire on the U.K. might be a deterrent from being an idiot in the first place? It might be retaliation, but it's still a deterrent.

I think the point he was making was that if we came under attack from nuclear weapons and we fired back then trident has failed because it never deterred the attackers.

That's fair enough.

Galted wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Theres only two situations you would ever push that button.

A. You fire first. Thats an act of agression. Trident is not a deterrent.

B. You fire second. Thats an act of retalistion. Trident is not a deterrent.

Its a lose/lose scenario.

Seriously? You don't think the fact Trident may be heading your way after you initially fire on the U.K. might be a deterrent from being an idiot in the first place? It might be retaliation, but it's still a deterrent.

I think the point he was making was that if we came under attack from nuclear weapons and we fired back then trident has failed because it never deterred the attackers.

I think the point Navy is making is that Trident is a deterrent to a nuclear attack in the first place and that hopefully there's no need to push any buttons at all.

I was trying to. It's a conundrum I'd hope no-one has to find out the answer to.

Samo wrote:Lets put Trident on the Thames and see how keen folk are to keep it then.

What difference would that make?? It doesn't sit there irradiating miles in its immediate radius. Wouldn't bother me a bit.

Musclular-mouse wrote:to be fair we don't need trident to be a deterrent. Lets say Russia fired nuclear weapons at us, it would destroy us but it would also destroy them. The radiation and toxins would wipe out half the earths population, would wipe out half the worlds food source, it would contaminate the water making it highly toxic. And that is not even mentioning the financial crash that would happen and the mass exodus of asylum seekers who would leave in their tens of millions to parts of the world not yet affected.

The biggest deterrent to firing a nuclear weapon should be that you will destroy your own country in the process.

Not sure why you keep repeating the same false statements, you're either exaggerating for effect or more likely have no clue about Nuclear weapons, there have been over 2000 verified warhead detonations and the human race is still standing. No country would wipe themselves out using a Nuclear warhead hence why having them is seen as a deterrent for retaliation.

Corbyn has done a party in the park with comedians and bands tonight in front of plenty....Trying to energise a stuttering campaign.

Thornberry has struggled with Rudd in other news.

Certainly been more interesting than Cam v Ed..Whatever happens.

Politics should be about choice...The British have got choice.

Whoever wins..life goes on.

It's true the nukes would devestate the UK probably perhaps not so much Russia the rest of the world would get on fine if they are not impacted through other means like toxic water. It's just ground zero would never be habitable again, the offending country would be punished by hundreds or thousands of returned nukes and would never recover. This is the problem that Putin has with the US. Because it seeks to remove the MAD principle by putting in that ballistic defense system that would render them safe in the event of a nuclear war as they could largely destroy them before they even reached the US. Hence the ficus on the submarine deterrent for all countries with nukes. This is also why in theory the US could use nukes without retaliation or significant retaliation and also why despite Trump China and Russia, the US is still the premier superpower. It's also the reason why nukes are ever unlikely to be used as the US could bomb the first launcher country into dust and it's own pretty robust constitution and safeguards would stop a megalomaniac from launching them first. Whether we need a deterrent or no depends on how much money you think it's worth spending on a system whose usability is entirely dependent on the whims of the US. I would probably be against it but I'd rather it was a complete disarmament worldwide rather than us handing it in straight of the bat.

ShahenshahG wrote:It's true the nukes would devestate the UK probably perhaps not so much Russia the rest of the world would get on fine if they are not impacted through other means like toxic water. It's just ground zero would never be habitable again, the offending country would be punished by hundreds or thousands of returned nukes and would never recover.  This is the problem that Putin has with the US. Because it seeks to remove the MAD principle by putting in that ballistic defense system that would render them safe in the event of a nuclear war as they could largely destroy them before they even reached the US. Hence the ficus on the submarine deterrent for all countries with nukes. This is also why in theory the US could use nukes without retaliation or significant retaliation and also why despite Trump China and Russia, the US is still the premier superpower. It's also the reason why nukes are ever unlikely to be used as the US could bomb the first launcher country into dust and it's own pretty robust constitution and safeguards would stop a megalomaniac from launching them first. Whether we need a deterrent or no depends on how much money you think it's worth spending on a system whose usability is entirely dependent on the whims of the US. I would probably be against it but I'd rather it was a complete disarmament worldwide rather than us handing it in straight of the bat.

Instead of getting all huffy about the US missile defence system, why doesn't he have Russia's military develop one of their own?

This stuff has been talked about since the 1980s when the "Star Wars" Strategic Defence Initiative programme was making headlines.

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/80s/SDI-StarWars.asp

The nickname “Star Wars” may have been attached to the program for some of its abstract and farfetched ideas, many of which included lasers. Furthermore, the previously released science fiction movie titled “Star Wars,” caused the public to easily associate this program with new and creative technologies. “The weapons required included space- and ground-based nuclear X-ray lasers, subatomic particle beams, and computer-guided projectiles fired by electromagnetic rail guns—all under the central control of a supercomputer system.” By using these systems, the United States planned to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles while they still flew high above the Earth, minimizing their effects. However, there was a large power requirement for these types of weapons — power requirements so vast that nuclear power was the method of choice. Thus, as the reality of creating numerous nuclear plants diminished, so did the ambitious designs. By the end of SDI, the primary focus of the weapons design group was focused on “land based kinetic energy weapons.” These weapons were essentially guided missile projectiles. At the end of the Strategic Defense Initiative, thirty billion dollars had been invested in the program and no laser and mirror system was ever used, not on land, not in space.

While I completely agree that worldwide nuclear disarmament is the preferred option, realistically its unlikely to happen. Technology is basically a Pandora's Box...once unlocked, you can't banish it, because there will always be someone, somewhere who will want it...and may even be mad enough to use it.

In lieu of that, the next most sensible option is the development of anti-ballistic missile systems. The US has the Patriot (tested during the Gulf War against Scud missiles), so I don't see why Russia (or any other country) couldn't develop similar systems.

In fact, I'm amazed Russia in particular doesn't already have such a system in place, knowing the US has developed one.


Although ABM systems theoretically make a nuclear war "winnable" and remove the MAD aspect, I don't think it makes this option any more attractive as even a handful of nuclear detonations (as opposed to hundreds) would still have horrific consequences, that would make any (sane) leader think twice.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:to be fair we don't need trident to be a deterrent. Lets say Russia fired nuclear weapons at us, it would destroy us but it would also destroy them. The radiation and toxins would wipe out half the earths population, would wipe out half the worlds food source, it would contaminate the water making it highly toxic. And that is not even mentioning the financial crash that would happen and the mass exodus of asylum seekers who would leave in their tens of millions to parts of the world not yet affected.

The biggest deterrent to firing a nuclear weapon should be that you will destroy your own country in the process.

Not sure why you keep repeating the same false statements, you're either exaggerating for effect or more likely have no clue about Nuclear weapons, there have been over 2000 verified warhead detonations and the human race is still standing. No country would wipe themselves out using a Nuclear warhead hence why having them is seen as a deterrent for retaliation.

Thats because the vast majority of those detonations have been TESTS, carried out deep underground, under-sea, or high-level atmosphere. Bit different to how they would be used in actual attacks.

Also, as far as the UK's Trident programme is concerned, I believe we would be better off developing an effective ABM system, given the costs involved.

We have 4 Vanguard class submarines, each capable of carrying 16 Trident DII missiles, which carry 8 warheads each (for a total of 512). Sounds like quite a lot, right?

However the UK only has a stockpile of "between" 160 and 225 warheads in total...enough for just 28 missiles maximum, which isn't even enough to fully arm 2 submarines. Typically they only carry 8 missiles each, with a total of 40 warheads.

Compared to the arsenals of the USA, Russia and China, this is a drop in the ocean and I feel the money it would take to upgrade / replace our missile subs would be better spent on developing and deploying defensive systems to stop enemy missiles raining down on us.

Knowing your nukes will be shot out of the sky, or at least will have a greatly reduced effect, could be a deterrent in its own right. Its certainly got Putin worried.

Final polls............

TNS 43-38
ICM 46-34
Comres 44-34
Surveymonkey 42-38
Opinium 43-36
Yougov 42-35

Only survation left which has been relatively labour friendly.........

Poll of polls around 45-36............9 points and I think good enough for an 80ish majority............

Pretty much how I see it...........

So long !!...

Cameron won in 2015 with a near 7 point win over labour and it resulted in a weak government.

Some of these polls predict a narrower victory for the tories tomorrow whilst some predict roughly the same victory. If the polls are right and the tories stay roughly the same this will be a big blow to May. How can you start the campaign with a 22 point lead and as some polls suggest end up with just a 5 point lead which is hung parliament territory.

May has got to go and looks like amber rudd is the replacement.

Regardless the result will not be as resounding as May hoped.

Also shouldn't be forgotten that this is a piss poor effort for an opposition to a austerity government to not be making an imprint.

well if labour get 38% that will be an increase of nearly 8% from 2015 which is quite a big jump in the space of 2 years.

This election was always going to be hard for labour because of brexit, people are still voting based solely on that.

If that were true, the Lib Dems wouldnt be an also ran

not quite sure what you mean by your last message.

The lib dems got 8% at the last election and look set for between 6-8% tomorrow. Problem with the lib dems is people still don't trust them after student fees and ema and vat increase and the bedroom tax and so on and so on when they were in power.

leave voters seem to be voting conservative as research has shown and remain voters are split between labour and plaid crymu in wales, snp and labour in Scotland and labour, lib dem and green in the uk.

The leave vote seems concentrated with the conservatives with ukip losing a massive amount of votes to the torys (poll prediction) and the remain vote is spit between the main left wing parties with labour picking up a few votes from lib dem and green and the majority of votes from new voters and the young who never voted in 2015.

Can't reconcile Brexit being the major issue and the only major party campaigning for the remain vote going nowhere.

Labour not having an actual policy on it most people recognise isn't a plus, but that hasn't killed them. Corbyns Labour just doesn't connect with voters that are open to changing their vote from Conservative, and  there just aren't major gains to be made in appealing to people who didn't vote on the scale that swings elections

Well if the polls are right and corbyn gets 38% that will be labour's highest vote share in 3 elections beating Miliband (2015), Brown (2010) and Blair (2005). Improvement has been made under Corbyn but as I said brexit is a big deal to many voters. And if one of the polls are right that labour will get 40.5 percent that will be just slightly lower than what blair got in 2001 when he won a landslide and was massively popular.

I read somewhere that on what percentage of ukip voters will change party and it was something like 23% will stay with UKIP, 11% go to labour and 66% will go to conservative. That is what I am talking about when I say brexit is a major issue. Brexit lovers (ukip voters) clearly prefer May to handle brexit rather than Corbyn.

And Labour are going to hoover up the Green, some Lib Dem vote etc without a coherent Brexit stance.

We're seeing a return to 2 party politics in this country, that's why both will likely increase a vote share. I suspect the votes Labour pick up will be very useless under FPTP however

Musclular-mouse wrote:not quite sure what you mean by your last message.

The lib dems got 8% at the last election and look set for between 6-8% tomorrow. Problem with the lib dems is people still don't trust them after student fees and ema and vat increase and the bedroom tax and so on and so on when they were in power.

leave voters seem to be voting conservative as research has shown and remain voters are split between labour and plaid crymu in wales, snp and labour in Scotland and labour, lib dem and green in the uk.

The leave vote seems concentrated with the conservatives with ukip losing a massive amount of votes to the torys (poll prediction) and the remain vote is spit between the main left wing parties with labour picking up a few votes from lib dem and green and the majority of votes from new voters and the young who never voted in 2015.

Which shows how dumb so many are. They were a (small) minority party in a coalition Government whom the Tories stitched up to take all the negative publicity.