General Election, June 8th

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You're just arguing over semantics, Strokes.

 

You are not free of poverty just because others are living in a more absolute poverty.

I have to argue with you guys over something, now we are all in agreement that conservatives are shit, being petty over semantics is all I have  

[Carl the Llama]

56 minutes ago, Webbo said:

All you can say is is she was honest. Maybe that was a mistake?

You absolute troll

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I have to argue with you guys over something, now we are all in agreement that conservatives are shit, being petty over semantics is all I have  

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

George Galloway was correct on this too, he is still a massive ball bag.

Oooof, yes and then some. Fair point.

[Sharpe's Fox]

You guys probably won't be surprised by this but I actually really like George Galloway  

[Webbo]

[The Doctor]

Galloway has always been a bellend. Never forget the day he gave out his mobile number and address to a room of students who hated his guts. or his claiming to be britains finest black leader. Or taking to Twitter to celebrate winning the Blackburn west by-election in 2011.

[Strokes]

25 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

You guys probably won't be surprised by this but I actually really like George Galloway  

In all honesty, I kind of do too but that doesn't really help my point  

[LiberalFox]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think the social care policy, while perhaps admirable in its intent - to make people pay for themselves if they can afford to - hasn't really been thought through.  This is presumably what happens when you tell everyone you won't call an election and then change your mind.  They were clearly not prepared, and though this was something they could just drop in.

 

I don't like the almost presidential approach TM has taken to the campaign, and I don't like the apparent end of compassionate conservatism we have seen in recent years.  I am starting to pine for the days of coalition, when my liberal economic instincts and social conscience were being largely sated at the same time. 

 

Struggling to see how the coalition government could be considered socially liberal.

 

+Introduced Pupil Premium

 

-Tripled tuition fees for students.

-Cut benefits for the disabled.

-Introduced harsher assessments for disability benefits.

-Introduced harsher conditionality for jobseekers and massively increased use of "sanctioning".

-Reduced access to legal aid.

-Introduced "bedroom tax".

-Introduced "benefits cap".

-Toughened rules around visas.

-Criminilised previously legal drugs without sufficient evidence for a ban.

-Oversaw a reduction in per capita health spending and an increase in NHS waiting times.

-Meddled with the education system to the detriment of pupils and staff.

 

I've probably missed a few.

[katieakita]

23 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm not an expert on such issues. I don't know anything about the "NT transformation program", a quick google suggests it was an attempt at reforming the structure of the post office? What went wrong and how were the lib dems at fault for that?

 

As for Royal Mail the 2010 LD manifesto states: 

 

• Give both Royal Mail and post offices a long-term future, by separating Post Office Ltd from the Royal Mail and retaining Post Office Ltd in full public ownership. 49 per cent of Royal Mail will be sold to create funds for investment. The ownership of the other 51 per cent will be divided between an employee trust and the government.

 

Meanwhile the Conservative 2010 manifesto says very little about The Post Office or Royal Mail apart from:

 

"nothing underlines the powerlessness that many communities feel more than the loss of essential services, like post offices and pubs, because of decisions made by distant bureaucrats. our new ‘community right to buy’ scheme will give local people the power to protect any community assets that are threatened with closure. in addition, we will:give people a ‘right to bid’ to run any  community service instead of the state; and,reform the governance arrangements in football to enable cooperative ownership models to be established by supporters."

 

I find it amusing that the Tories consider pubs an essential service although I'm not sure how many pubs have been shut down by bureaucrats either. 

 

In reality we've ended up fully privatising Royal Mail which I believe was wrong as the original manifesto idea would have complied with EU law and kept the advantages of state ownership. On top of that the shares in the Royal Mail were offered at too low a price to a closed market of wealthy interests. The result being a lot of rich people were able to make £millions of unearned income when the share price became subject to a free market. Vince Cable defended this as being necessary to deliver a quick and smooth privatisation. I think the privatisation was badly handled and delivered poor value for the taxpayer and reeks of corruption. On the other hand I don't think Vince Cable is corrupt, nor do I think he would naturally support slash and burn privatisation (he's generally considered more to the left of the party). I think the Tories should take the blame there. 

 

I'd be interested to know a bit more though.   

Where to start, the government owned Post Office currently faces a GLO  against it that when successful will cost the taxpayer millions in compensation payments. Cable and co were made fully aware that innocent people had been wrongly prosecuted and lives ruined by the conduct of Post Office Ltd, despite all the evidence provided to them they choose to ignore the corruption within an organisation they were supposed to be in charge of. When the NT program was failing a payment of £500,000 was found to pay a puppet organisation supporting the Post Office to say all was well. When the dust settles on these settlements criminal proceedings will be launched against those who have broken the law and there are also strong rumours of an investigation into the abuse of public office and if there is any justice the likes of Cable,Davey,Swinson and Lamb will be held to account

[Guest]

The Sun are going all out to keep the Tories ahead with a front page about Corbyn supporting the IRA and "his support being as important as the supply of weapons".  Hmm, hyperbole much? The guy was a nobody until 2 years ago!

Unfortunately the Sun does have a huge influence in this country - there's a reason why Blair went after its support in '97. 

If people overlook a parties record in office NOW due to things that happened 30-odd years ago then something's wrong. As others have said earlier, I don't doubt that Corbyn held views that were not, lets say, mainstream, BUT I 100% am convinced that there's nobody less likely to have wanted fighting that him. 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The Sun are going all out to keep the Tories ahead with a front page about Corbyn supporting the IRA and "his support being as important as the supply of weapons".  Hmm, hyperbole much? The guy was a nobody until 2 years ago!

Unfortunately the Sun does have a huge influence in this country - there's a reason why Blair went after its support in '97. 

If people overlook a parties record in office NOW due to things that happened 30-odd years ago then something's wrong. As others have said earlier, I don't doubt that Corbyn held views that were not, lets say, mainstream, BUT I 100% am convinced that there's nobody less likely to have wanted fighting that him. 

The suns readership has more than halved since blairs days, it does quite carry the weight it used too.

[davieG]

The problem is that these parties are so afraid of putting up taxes that they resort to all sorts of unfair and unrealistic methods to raise necessary funds. I think it would be much more honest to increase general taxes for everyone after all this whole care thing is a lottery and every one should contribute to it.

[LiberalFox]

23 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Where to start, the government owned Post Office currently faces a GLO  against it that when successful will cost the taxpayer millions in compensation payments. Cable and co were made fully aware that innocent people had been wrongly prosecuted and lives ruined by the conduct of Post Office Ltd, despite all the evidence provided to them they choose to ignore the corruption within an organisation they were supposed to be in charge of. When the NT program was failing a payment of £500,000 was found to pay a puppet organisation supporting the Post Office to say all was well. When the dust settles on these settlements criminal proceedings will be launched against those who have broken the law and there are also strong rumours of an investigation into the abuse of public office and if there is any justice the likes of Cable,Davey,Swinson and Lamb will be held to account

 

I'll have a look into it but government ministers can't prosecute people or halt prosecutions (maybe the Home Secretary?). It sounds like whatever happened it will be dealt with by the legal system.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Did you read the Times article? 

 

We're not talking about the Iraq War and this attempt to excuse his behaviour by some sort of moral equivalence is beneath you Alf.

 

We've got The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Times saying he wasn't trying to bring about peace. We only need toddybads mate off twitter to agree and we've got every heavyweight commentator going

 

You're a cheeky monkey, Webbo! 

 

I posted a proper reply to your post this morning, answering several points....and you responded with a ridiculous 6-word reply about Mrs. T not attending Republican rallies!

 

I responded to your 1996 editorial criticising Corbyn for inviting Adams to Westminster, by pointing out that Adams was a Westminster MP 1983-92 & 1997-2011 and was a key figure in peace negotiations a year later .....and you again ignore that, asking me if I've read your Times article?! You're a comedian, sir! 

 

Then you top it off by saying "we're not talking about the Iraq War"! This is the Election thread. Who are you to say that this election is all about Corbyn's views on Ireland 30 years ago - and that Iraq is irrelevant?! Iraq is still in flames now, and May has pushed trust and leadership to the forefront of the election. It is highly relevant that May believed Campbell's dodgy dossier and trotted meekly into the lobbies behind Blair & IDS to support an unjustified war that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths - at a time when 1-2 million people took to the streets of London saying it was wrong, when Robin Cook informed Parliament that this was folly in arguably the most eloquent Commons speech ever and when Corbyn also opposed that war. If this election is partly about which leader you trust - and about the ability to make important judgments in international relations/Europe, then that shows May in a very poor light....and I'm no Corbynista.

 

I understand why you want to stick with parroting smear stories about the IRA. As a propagandist for right-wing Tory policies, it's a bad time for you. Your party will probably still romp to victory but has shot itself in the foot, making a monumental misjudgment about social care policy - and your leader has just come across as shifty, dishonest, uninspired and second-rate in her Andrew Neil interview. Admittedly, a similar fate probably awaits Corbyn and the other leaders (Nuttall tomorrow night is going to be like putting a baby rabbit in a cage with a tiger!). I'd prefer to discuss CURRENT political issues - social care, tax, housing, investment, ISIS, NHS, immigration and Brexit - including the Irish border. But if you insist on debating the past, you can't exclude the biggest foreign policy issue for decades! 

 

I'll reply to your Times article if you reply properly to the points in my earlier post:

- May is on record as supporting fox hunting; 

- you are guilty of slander in accusing Corbyn of supporting knee-capping;

- Corbyn's arrest was during a protest for fair trials and the terrorist in question had yet to be convicted;

- this was a time when a lot of innocent Irish people were in jail for crimes they hadn't committed;

- Corbyn supported Troops Out & a united Ireland, but not terrorism...unless you have proof to the contrary?

- Thatcher (& Major & Blair) authorised negotiations with the IRA,

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You're a cheeky monkey, Webbo! 

 

I posted a proper reply to your post this morning, answering several points....and you responded with a ridiculous 6-word reply about Mrs. T not attending Republican rallies!

 

I responded to your 1996 editorial criticising Corbyn for inviting Adams to Westminster, by pointing out that Adams was a Westminster MP 1983-92 & 1997-2011 and was a key figure in peace negotiations a year later .....and you again ignore that, asking me if I've read your Times article?! You're a comedian, sir! 

 

Then you top it off by saying "we're not talking about the Iraq War"! This is the Election thread. Who are you to say that this election is all about Corbyn's views on Ireland 30 years ago - and that Iraq is irrelevant?! Iraq is still in flames now, and May has pushed trust and leadership to the forefront of the election. It is highly relevant that May believed Campbell's dodgy dossier and trotted meekly into the lobbies behind Blair & IDS to support an unjustified war that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths - at a time when 1-2 million people took to the streets of London saying it was wrong, when Robin Cook informed Parliament that this was folly in arguably the most eloquent Commons speech ever and when Corbyn also opposed that war. If this election is partly about which leader you trust - and about the ability to make important judgments in international relations/Europe, then that shows May in a very poor light....and I'm no Corbynista.

 

I understand why you want to stick with parroting smear stories about the IRA. As a propagandist for right-wing Tory policies, it's a bad time for you. Your party will probably still romp to victory but has shot itself in the foot, making a monumental misjudgment about social care policy - and your leader has just come across as shifty, dishonest, uninspired and second-rate in her Andrew Neil interview. Admittedly, a similar fate probably awaits Corbyn and the other leaders (Nuttall tomorrow night is going to be like putting a baby rabbit in a cage with a tiger!). I'd prefer to discuss CURRENT political issues - social care, tax, housing, investment, ISIS, NHS, immigration and Brexit - including the Irish border. But if you insist on debating the past, you can't exclude the biggest foreign policy issue for decades! 

 

I'll reply to your Times article if you reply properly to the points in my earlier post:

- May is on record as supporting fox hunting; 

- you are guilty of slander in accusing Corbyn of supporting knee-capping;

- Corbyn's arrest was during a protest for fair trials and the terrorist in question had yet to be convicted;

- this was a time when a lot of innocent Irish people were in jail for crimes they hadn't committed;

- Corbyn supported Troops Out & a united Ireland, but not terrorism...unless you have proof to the contrary?

- Thatcher (& Major & Blair) authorised negotiations with the IRA,

Quote

The former chairman of Troops Out, Richard Stanton, described the Brighton bombing as a “justifiable act of political warfare” and said “the Republican movement is entitled to use force against the British state as part of the war we started”

It isn't a smear if it's true.

 

- May is on record as supporting fox hunting; So what, so do I?

- you are guilty of slander in accusing Corbyn of supporting knee-capping; You're judged by the company you keep.

- Corbyn's arrest was during a protest for fair trials and the terrorist in question had yet to be convicted; That makes it alright?

- this was a time when a lot of innocent Irish people were in jail for crimes they hadn't committed; I don't see the connection?

- Corbyn supported Troops Out & a united Ireland, but not terrorism...unless you have proof to the contrary? See above

- Thatcher (& Major & Blair) authorised negotiations with the IRA, Negotiating with your enemies isn't the same as cheer leading for them.

[Foxxed]

I'm excited about May now. I want her to do a u-turn on the Single Market.

 

Currently she's u-turned on brexit, u-turned on national insurance, u-turned on having a snap election and u-turned what seems to be an increasingly large number of manifesto commitments now.

 

I wonder if her MPs are thinking "Hmmm... this gives me an idea... You know what I'd really like..."

 

I can't wait for the Brexit negotiations. A solid u-turn reputation will surely give her a strong and stable base for those negotiations.
 

Quote

"So Emmanuel, Angela - what do you think of Britain's position?"

"..."

"..."

"Hello?"

"It's okay. We're just waiting for you to do a u-turn. We'll wait."

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

I suppose I have to take some of the blame for Webbo's fixation on 30 years ago since I did raise the issue but in my defence I did clarify that it's not the most important electoral topic and I haven't been quoting people who aren't Jeremy Corbyn as though their words are Jeremy's thoughts verbatim.

 

Back to the modern era and I'm only now getting the chance to watch May vs. Neil.  So far she's just repeated the same line about not having to worry about selling one's house during one's lifetime.  I think Mrs. May thought this would be a great line to give the strong & stable treatment, it seems she's looked at the referendum result and the obvious ramifications it will impose on this country and come to the conclusion that most Brits don't care about what will happen to their estate or their dependants once they are dead.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

I suppose I have to take some of the blame for Webbo's fixation on 30 years ago since I did raise the issue but in my defence I did clarify that it's not the most important electoral topic and I haven't been quoting people who aren't Jeremy Corbyn as though their words are Jeremy's thoughts verbatim.

 

Back to the modern era and I'm only now getting the chance to watch May vs. Neil.  So far she's just repeated the same line about not having to worry about selling one's house during one's lifetime.  I think Mrs. May thought this would be a great line to give the strong & stable treatment, it seems she's looked at the referendum result and the obvious ramifications it will impose on this country and come to the conclusion that most Brits don't care about what will happen to their estate or their dependants once they are dead.

You wanted proof, I've given you proof. 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

You wanted proof, I've given you proof. 

Remind me never to make you my defence lawyer  

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Remind me never to make you my defence lawyer  

I've given you incidents, quotes. What more do you want?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I've given you incidents, quotes. What more do you want?

You to read and respond to the many posts countering your supposed proof that have been ignored over these past few pages.  Stop picking the perceived easy fights if you have all the answers.

[Carl the Llama]

Theresa May is very clear that she has every intention to reduce taxes.  Looking forward to further tax rises in a few months.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You to read and respond to the many posts countering your supposed proof that have been ignored over these past few pages.  Stop picking the perceived easy fights if you have all the answers.

Give me a selection of the successful counters. What faults have you found in the  Telegraph or Times articles?

[Foxxed]

It's incredible May seems to be attempting to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

She has the same problem as Brown I think. His media image was wonderfully protected. But then he had to actually do TV and such and was found out.

 

She's a superb party and cabinet politician, for what that's worth, but winning an election involves a different skill set.

 

The Tory strategy now will try to claim Corbyn is pro terrorism. I wonder if this will work or will be seen as a desperate tactics after she's widely seen to be struggling.

 

I think she'll still win - since UKIP are giving their roughly 7k to the Tories in Labour marginals - but she's doing a great job at reducing her majority to 80 or so.