Engineer readers opted for the Conservatives as the party with the best policies for engineering and manufacturing
The Conservatives came out ahead in our eve-of-election poll, but as in the real thing, they failed to command a majority. Of the 575 respondents, all of whom replied between Tuesday lunchtime and Thursday evening, 42 per cent opted for the Conservatives; the largest group by some distance, but not past the halfway point for a clear majority. Of course, we are aware that the British electoral system does not work on the basis of proportions of the total voting share, although it might be interesting to see whether the results of the last two General elections had shifted opinions on that since the voting system referendum of 2011.
Last week’s poll saw Labour second on 7 per cent, None of the Above on 17 per cent (our equivalent of spoiled ballots, presumably), the Liberal Democrats on 11 per cent, and others on just 3 per cent; 17 people out of that 575. Only a small proportion of those could conceivably have opted for the Democratic Unionist Party, which has ironically been left in a position of disproportionate influence in the real Parliament, but that’s the British electoral system for you.
What is interesting is that comparing this poll to the one we ran at the start of the campaign, the proportions for each party were virtually identical. Labour got one more percentage point at the end of the campaign, and the LibDems three points fewer — with all the movement coming from the None of the Above group— but otherwise fifty days of campaigning had no effect on our readership’s opinions (although we did get over 200 more respondents). There was certainly no sign of the “Labour surge” that was such a feature of the real poll — perhaps an indication of the age range of working engineers?
This poll is now closed, but with the aftershocks of the election still being felt and many matters still to be resolved, we would welcome more comments.
That would be the Greens. You can’t keep doing the same things that brought you the current mess and expect that THIS time all will be all different because everybody and his cat is promising you everything.
The question needs refining :’policies most advantageous for the engineering and manufacturing sectors of the UK?’
If you are a startup, frontier company (or a risk taking existing one) the advantageous policies would be different to a zombie, laggard, possibly family owned company , who just sweat out their existing machinery, IT and hoard talent that could be put to use elsewhere and survive through low interest rates and grants etc. In previous recessions these would have gone to the wall. Policy over the past 10 to 15 years has been to keep duff businesses going rather than make hard choices.
We need to split the ‘engineering and manufacturing sectors’ into two categories ‘frontier types’ and ‘laggards’- each would have differing requirements for policy and often the policy requirements may conflict.
Going forwards we have to be optimisic and trust in ourselves. We cannot look back or have policies that return the UK to the bad old days of the 70s. The emerging new technologies should be seen as positive which invigorates us personally and a change to improve our skills set. Our young need to be vigourousy encouraged to work at their education and challenge those that wish for nothing more than mediocrity.
While it is appreciated to have foreign investment we should be investing in ourselves for our future and that of our families. The tax burden that falls on each and everyone of use need to be reduced to allow for that investment to take place.
We have voted to leave the EU this is a positive step on the journey but the job is not yet done. Once outside of the EU we can promote the UKs engineering and manufacturing to the world and that I believe we could be a very successful at.
Who pray tell us, decided UKIP should be lumped together with The Greens, Plaid, the SNP?
Is anyone supposed to take your poll serious?
Its mainly a question of the known capabilities [Tory] than Labour who are an unknown in their current state. To me capabilities are more necessary than large numbers of people and we need more capable people in all activities if we are to improve on productivity. Engineers are relatively low paid compared to Bankers/others but overall are better experienced due to the long training they need. Politically I prefer the safer option but Tories have a lot of gaps left unfilled.
Just can’t bring myself to vote conservative any more. The problem is the corruption, everyone knows that, like the Humber bridge, we don’t need HS2, we probably don’t need Hinkley point, and we certainly don’t need trident, but they will provide engineering jobs, and some private companies, also Tory cronies, will make an absolute fortune out of them, and like the Humber Bridge, which was slated to cost 80 to 100 million, and ended up costing 800 million, the overruns will be the icing on the icing on the cake. Labour will get my vote this time, and I am really glad he is not an experienced or professional politician, because I have had an absolute belly full of them and their insider trading and back door dealing!
I believe that the Humber bridge was for Barbara Castle (who also chopped more than Beeching) – as part of her local vanity project.
And both Labour and Tories supported HS2 ;-{{{
Perhaps we could have a hanged parliament (O Cromwell might well have agreed) – or some (literal?-) purging of civil servants (if they are the real cause)
It is one thing to say you are going to do something, and another to get on with doing it. The Conservatives have had their chance. I happen to prefer Labour, but I think any of the parties could do a better job of it. Conservatives have the interests of the top 5% in the plans, not the real tax payers.
Lower energy costs, a better supply of skilled labour and a continued willingness to invest in the UK is all that is required.
Employ some engineers to reduce energy needs. Move from a shareholders’ company to a non-profit company where profit has only one way to go – reinvestment into the company instead of shareholders’ pockets. Treat labour like humans and they will scramble to bring their friends, too.
The election announcement has already cost the country millions of inward investment… A Labour win would start outward investment I’m afraid. We should learn from history of Labour mismanagement.
Let’s hope for a a hung parliament….
& keep on doing that until we get PR (proportional representation )
The existing system of voting serves politicians very well, but not the country or general population as a large proportion feel dis-enfranchised.
Hope you took out a bet on that.
Let’s hope for a a hung parliament…. You got one!
& keep on doing that until we get PR (proportional representation ) I am probably one of the few persons who has lived in a British Colony (1964/5) which had PR forced upon it: as the vehicle for ensuring that a Marxist (Dr Cheddi Jagan – who had ‘won’ three previous elections by ‘first past the post’ until direct rule from Westminster -or was it Washington/Langley Va- was imposed because ‘we’ (or was it they) did not like the way he was running things?
The existing system of voting serves politicians very well, (at least those of the Right -who simply change the rules to suit) but not the country or general population as a large proportion feel dis-enfranchised.[They are, but when has the interests of ‘all’ ever been of importance to the few: those I have always called the RIPs: Rich, In place and Powerful? able to buy protection (Courts) votes (MPs offered bribes and baubles) and a life unchallenged and unchecked (by the peons -us?)
17 percent is not necessarily spoiled papers! The two main parties have a very partisan approach. Neither produces an ideal outcome, but swinging in favour of either the bosses/owners or workers from time to time. There is no consensus, despite both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn stating ‘for everyone’. That palpably never happens. With the tax system (in the main) being manipulated to suit a particular stance. Many of these politicians seem to forget that the real argument is between suppliers and customers. Without customers with spare cash less that is produced can be bought. Pay people less and they must buy less. The other side of the argument is that money poured into maintaining the owners’/bosses’ (especially bankers’) pockets goes more or less straight into an off-shore savings account. That money spent on infrastructure filters its way through society benefitting everyone in the process. And we have the equally ridiculous situation of those making the rules awarding themselves handsome pay and expenses rises while doing the opposite for the millions of others making society work. Austerity has meant that the gap between rich and poor has got worse.