Speaking to a number of people across the political spectrum and reading various articles it would appear that the consensus formed is thus :

Conservatives will win with a substantially increased majority.
Labour will lose a large number of seats.
Lib Dems will gain quite a few seats, perhaps re-gaining some lost in the 2015 election particularly in their previous stronghold in the South-West.
UKIP will fair badly.
SNP will once again do very well in Scotland.
Labour could be looking for a new leader on June 9th.

I am really looking forward to seeing the results roll-in !!!!

Once again, may doesn't actually answer a question in pmq's and gets away with it.

There is a point in voting UKIP. We don't want May doing anything other than what the people voted for last year - a clean Brexit. The ballot sheet was clear, voting out meant out.

May needs to be held to account on this and not wuss out and water this down. UKIP are the only ones who will do this.

However, I would rather have May in than Jezza or that bellend Farron in a coalition, so I may end up tactically voting in order to make sure that the 'progressives' stay out of power.

However, I do feel the same as Cucking. They are pretty much all a shower of s***e, career orientated bellends. Only Sir Nigel and a few other politicians, for example although I detest his politics Dennis Skinner, deserve any praise, for being principled.

I'm pretty sure all it said was "leave the EU". Not "clean brexit". If you look at the raft of promises made by the leave camp they include things like single market access and a number of other things which imply anything other than a "clean brexit".

The fact is lots of people voted to leave the EU but not for the same reasons and not with the same vision for brexit. At least now that can be set partially right as parties can say what brexit actually means in their manifestos. Don't forget the Leave campaign was chaired by a Labour MP. It's like the Scottish referendum. Leaving the UK means many different things depending on who you ask. Noone currently has any mandate to set our future course outside the EU only to "leave the EU" but after that the direction is unclear.

Lib Dems have ruled out a coalition with Labour I believe.

^^^^^^ re:willo

Translation - 'watched Newsnight and read a newspaper in the last 24 hours'

Edited by Kermit8 (19 Apr 2017 6.02pm)

I rely on reports I've read for my assertions on the impact of immigrants on the public purse and here is something I got from a very quick google:

[Link]

I believe blaming foreigners for social and economic problems is easy and therefore casual. It also absolves governments and people born in the UK from the blame.

Posters like the one I uploaded previously that was issued by UKIP are racist in my opinion as they use people's ethnicity as a tool to create negative feelings.

Also Lewisham is quite nice now in parts and is benefiting from investment due to it's location in zone 2. I like the mix of shops and restaurants. You should go to the Model Market on a Saturday night after an early season Palace game. It's great!

What makes you think there was an "inability" to increase investment on infrastructure? Or for that matter investment in education and healthcare?

Tax take per capita will be impacted by earnings per capita and the tax rate. If tax take per capita falls, as you suggest that would imply lower earnings per capita or reduction in tax rates. Earnings per capita has broadly increased since 1979, however average taxes on personal income have fallen from 10% of GDP to 9% in that time. That's over 1% lower than in the US, having been slightly higher in 1979. It's also lower than Canada, NZ, the Nordics and a number of other OECD countries. Tax on corporate profits has also shrunk as a share of GDP from 3.6% of GDP to 2.5% since the Tories came back to power. Social security contributions are also way below the OECD average and have reduced under the Tories.

This is ideological. The Tories have decided to slash spending on infrastructure, policing, healthcare, education, while simultaneously reducing the tax burden. Reducing tax on companies doesn't promote inward investment in the way that politicians would have you believe. There are huge amounts of corporate profits which sit on balance sheets doing nothing. It actually takes money out of the economy far from creating some sort of multiplier effect.

But more even than just talking about tax take - the government has been using QE for years now to prop up asset prices. This is completely irresponsible, and also ignores what they should be doing with monetary policy - increase money supply to invest in the economy and improve productivity. Creating asset bubbles with public finances just helps line the pockets of those who own the assets - the already wealthy. Using the argument that printing money for government spending just creates inflation is only true when an economy is at full employment - something ours is nowhere near. You can increase money supply and increase GDP in real terms up to that point. But this is against Tory ideology.

Always enjoy the deafening silence after someone who clearly actually knows their economic stuff posts.

I think it is to an extent, a governments responsibility is to it citizens, and their prospects are part of that. Governments have to provide for the people they represent and their interests.

The problem is the scale of the problem at hand, especially given the increased academic level of requirement necessary for the new jobs.

Its noteworthy that even the Thatcher introduced a number of training schemes, aimed primarily at young people, such as the YTS, which did create opportunities for education and employment on apprentice schemes (I did one) but the problem was always what to do with the older workers, who were educationally unsuited to the new job markets that were springing up.

The issue I think of criticism that can be levelled at Thatcher here, is that her government did little to nothing to slow down the death of manufacturing and industry in the UK, instead opting more towards a free market approach, that left whole areas of the country in high unemployment zones.