the snap general election thread

Spidernick

I think that Arklight does have a point around how the anti-Corbyn attacks no longer seem to be hitting home. It does remind me of Trump somewhat, who is quite clearly not fit to lead his country, but the attacks on him proved to be counter-productive. Similarly in the EU Referendum, what was termed 'project fear' did the opposite to what was intended, as we had apparently had 'enough of experts'.

I still don't think that Corbyn will win, but who knows in these strange times. May must be really nervous at the moment and wondering if she might not have been better leaving well alone and running with her small majority for another three years.

bobbymotors

Really.

all this talk of a corbyn win, corbyn resurgence, hung parliament etc.

It's not going to happen. The conservatives will win with n overall majority.

You are quite at liberty to disagree with me, and if you do, please have a little bet with me, winnings to charity via pay pal or whatever.

I'll pay £12 to one of your £1 if the conservatives do not win an overall majority, because despite what some posters put on here there is no corbyn resurgence, nor will there be. He is unelectable as a prime minister, absolutely unelectable.

posh*spice

Arklight wrote: »

There are two points you, consistently, fail to understand.

The first is that there have been so many lies printed about Jeremy Corbyn that people simply ignore anti Corbyn bias now. As you are probably well aware, the LSE conducted a study that determined that 75% of news is biased against Corbyn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html#gallery

If your media wanted people to start believing them now them it should have kept its powder dry a little more, because no one is really listening any more. People's minds are either closed that he's a dreadful person because the media says so (as yours seems to be), and ignore new stories. Or they just ignore new stories because they switched off when Sky News pontificated that Jeremy Corbyn's cat was a communist sympathiser two years ago, because it has a foreign sounding name.

I did click on your link, it's devoid of context and fails to convey anything he said on Iranian TV or why he might have gone. It doesn't say whether he could expense the trip, whether he passionately advocated women's rights. Nothing. Maybe he did pocket the £5k and used it to buy guns for the IRA. Maybe he bought a few airfares for him and his staff and a week in an hotel.

Maybe his communist cat needed to go in a cattery.

The second, much more problematic fact for your political ilk, and another one that sails over your heads, is that most of us just don't care. We aren't communists, terrorists, or extremist cat owners. We are voting for ourselves and he seems like a decent man who reflects what we want to vote for.

We're sick of seeing rich men in £1000 shirts shaking their heads at us from the television and explaining that like it or not we just have to get poorer every year.

Corbyn is our two fingers.

Enjoy.

V

I hope you win.

The reality of trying to deliver all your wonderful services on a shoe string will hit home. The Tories and LibDems have fought a brave fight over the last 7 years to get our deficit down from £160 billion bequeathed from Labour to the current £50 billion.

I'm sure the LP will have it back at £150 billion in a heart beat.

I'm tempted to vote Labour myself just to see the result.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Fella

Todays Guardian headline takes the biscuit:

"May puts Manchester bombing at heart of election with attack on Corbyn"

So Corbyn chooses to make political capital out of the Manchester atrocity, May points this out, and the Guardian runs with that headline.

What a worthless rag the Guardian truly is, only read by people who want their own liberal elitist view reinforced to them each day. I gather it's going bankrupt, the sooner the better.

gfplux

Sapphire wrote: »

Just in passing, I think that if corbyn did win the election, many wealth creators would exit the country. I would, but can't because I have family here, unfortunately.

The thought that he could win – and what that would bring on so many levels – is making me feel ill and stressed.

Apart from committed hard lefters, those naive enough to vote for him simply have no idea of the consequences for the country (perhaps they don't care about that any more, and don't have any allegiance to the UK due to brainwashing and other factors), themselves or their children… Well, I guess they would need to find out the hard way.

Wealth creators have family as well. As someone who has left the UK, not because of politics, I can tell you it is very difficult to leave your country of birth behind.
So don't worry that Corbyn will create a wealth creator drain. Perhaps you should worry that Brexit is more of a threat in that respect.

gfplux

martinsurrey wrote: »

I see you and Mrs Abbott were in the same Maths class at school!

I'll keep it simple

Would more people rather a hard Brexit over a soft Brexit?
fact = yes

Would more people rather a hard Brexit over a no Brexit?
fact = yes

Would more people rather a hard/soft Brexit over a soft/no Brexit?
fact = yes

is there any combination of options not including hard Brexit that wouldn't be a larger majority if you swapped ANY option with Hard Brexit.
fact = no

I am not sure that the MAJORITY of people understand what a hard Brexit would mean and even the present Tory Government are not sure as the possibility has not been costed.
Also I have no idea what a soft Brexit means.
That is a rhetorical question. Please don't explain as there is a thread for that.

gfplux

setmefree2 wrote: »

Analysis here

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/Presentations/Carl%20Emmerson%2C%202017%20General%20Election%2C% 20manifesto%20analysis.pdf

See page 15 - The budget deficit under LP will be £58 billion pa or 4.5% of GDP in 2012-22 (and only if it receives money back from Nationalized Banks.)

The LP keeps debt at 85% plus of GDP.

Just saying.

People should know what they are voting for.

Remember this there is no scope under LP plans for stimulus in the event of another recession if we are already racking up debt at that rate.....or I guess there is and we will back up to budget deficits of £150 billion pa.

And lets be honest this has got to be a best case scenario?

Are you sure the voter on the Clapham Bus cares about those numbers.
Voters in America didn't.

gfplux

setmefree2 wrote: »

What like pensioners?

It's really hard for me to understand how people keep voting for a party that is ruinous for the country's finances but hey ho - people keep doing it.

Looks like it's 5 more years of us living "like it's 1999"....followed by the austerity hangover years...

Any pensioner not enjoying a fat private pension should of course NOT vote Tory.
What amazes me is that some do vote Tory.

mayonnaise

Tories trying to politicise the Manchester attack backfires somewhat...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-michael-fallon-slates-jeremy-10508519

kabayiri

This debate won't go anywhere unless you break down the reasons why Corbyn will struggle to win.

One of the themes coming back from the referendum on a regular basis, on the doorstep, was mass immigration.

You might not agree with this being an issue, but it was there. It helped explain why UKIP achieved record numbers of votes for them in 2015 GE.

I don't see Corbyn addressing these concerns directly. He really doesn't seem to understand the North at all.

Labour has to outperform in the North and the Midlands, because they have been replaced by the SNP in Scotland. That's a significant number of seats.