the snap general election thread

mayonnaise

gfplux wrote: »

Up to now mid afternoon Tuesday no comments on the Chanel 4/sky news May and Corbyn show. I assume all posters watched it.
I watched it and thought Corbyn did well and May less well.
I don't think it will have changed many minds although Corbyn doesn't quite look the guy described in the Tory newspapers.

Yep, watched it and I'll be voting for Team Corbyn all the way!

alewin

mayonnaise wrote: »

Yep, watched it and I'll be voting for Team Corbyn all the way!

You mean the team Corbyn and his 40 or so MP's as opposed to the other 170 current labour MP's who do not want him as their leader.

Also with regards to the abolishing of University tuition fees, Corbyn said it would cost around £10 billion in the first year. It has to be much more than that because whilst we are still in the EU, all the EU students would qualify for free tuition as well, you can't discriminate against them.
So what if an extra 50,000 students attended University next year, although good but image the cost.

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

Did you watch today's politics show, they showed the radio video and were very critical. Listening to yo you would think they are always easy on Labour and hard on Tories which is not the case.

No I've been at work so not seen it.

However I wouldn't dispute that the Daily politics take an equally hard line with Labour & the Tories (or anybody else for that matter).

What I would dispute is whether this is good reporting. The Daily politics will tear into either side with equal ferocity. Sometimes this is fair enough, e.g. it might be some Labour MP with a ridiculously unfunded policy, or maybe some Tory claiming a U-turn isn't a U-turn, that kind of stuff.

In general however, I would argue all day long that what's being proposed by the two parties is not simply two equal but different arguments, therefore they should not be treated equally. The Tories are proposing a boring but stable steady-as-you are scenario. They've deliberately been vague on figures because they intend full well to raise certain taxes & don't want to say what. But basically they'll continue to try to repair the still-broken economy. It's a bad manifesto & low on detail but nobody with half a brain doubts this is their intention.

By contrast, the Labour manifesto is a ludicrous work of fiction that would cripple the country in about 6 different ways. They want to apply 1970s policies in a world that's moved on 50 years. It just won't work. It won't nearly work. All the companies big enough to count are Global & none of them will stay in the UK for any other reason than it's in their interests to do so. A Labour Govt would see public spending go through the roof whilst Corp tax receipts disappeared, quicker than you can spit. And that's just the economic side. Corbyn's sympathy towards terrorist groups, and by proxy his projection of guilt onto their victims is truly despicable and utterly irrefutable. And his inner clique are some of the worst people in Britain, let alone politics.

So why exactly, should Corbyn be given the same even-handed treatment as the Tories or the Libdems? He is an extremist, peddling dangerous, utterly deceitful & potentially ruinous policies. The simple fact is he's able to do these things because of a technicality that uber-moron Ed Miliband introduced that allows the Labour party to be overrun by it's most extreme 5%. As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn, his supporters, and every one of their ridiculous policies should be given a hundred times more scrutiny & disdain than anything any of the remotely legitimate parties are peddling.

System

*head in hands*

mayonnaise

alewin wrote: »

You mean the team Corbyn and his 40 or so MP's as opposed to the other 170 current labour MP's who do not want him as their leader.

Also with regards to the abolishing of University tuition fees, Corbyn said it would cost around £10 billion in the first year. It has to be much more than that because whilst we are still in the EU, all the EU students would qualify for free tuition as well, you can't discriminate against them.
So what if an extra 50,000 students attended University next year, although good but image the cost.

That's all good and well, but I just thought that Jeremy looked strong and stable and Theresa didn't.

Fella

Joeskeppi wrote: »

*head in hands*

"And never a decent argument to offer".

Chrysalis

Ironic moaning about the BBC not been right wing when 90% of the printed press is right wing. 90% isnt good enough?

Fella

Chrysalis wrote: »

Ironic moaning about the BBC not been right wing when 90% of the printed press is right wing. 90% isnt good enough?

The BBC is funded by a tax we have no choice in, therefore ought to be 100% independent.

Leaving aside the accuracy of your (inaccurate) figures the free press have the right to be as biased as they like. You're perfectly entitled to open an uber left-wing (if that's your thing.......) newspaper tomorrow & if you make it so compelling you takeover 99.9% of the printed press then that would be fair enough.

If you truly believe 90% of the free press prints right-wing material, you shouldn't be complaining about it. You should be asking yourself why 90% of your countryfolk appear to want to read about views that you're on the left of.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

No I've been at work so not seen it.

However I wouldn't dispute that the Daily politics take an equally hard line with Labour & the Tories (or anybody else for that matter).

What I would dispute is whether this is good reporting. The Daily politics will tear into either side with equal ferocity. Sometimes this is fair enough, e.g. it might be some Labour MP with a ridiculously unfunded policy, or maybe some Tory claiming a U-turn isn't a U-turn, that kind of stuff.

In general however, I would argue all day long that what's being proposed by the two parties is not simply two equal but different arguments, therefore they should not be treated equally. The Tories are proposing a boring but stable steady-as-you are scenario. They've deliberately been vague on figures because they intend full well to raise certain taxes & don't want to say what. But basically they'll continue to try to repair the still-broken economy. It's a bad manifesto & low on detail but nobody with half a brain doubts this is their intention.

By contrast, the Labour manifesto is a ludicrous work of fiction that would cripple the country in about 6 different ways. They want to apply 1970s policies in a world that's moved on 50 years. It just won't work. It won't nearly work. All the companies big enough to count are Global & none of them will stay in the UK for any other reason than it's in their interests to do so. A Labour Govt would see public spending go through the roof whilst Corp tax receipts disappeared, quicker than you can spit. And that's just the economic side. Corbyn's sympathy towards terrorist groups, and by proxy his projection of guilt onto their victims is truly despicable and utterly irrefutable. And his inner clique are some of the worst people in Britain, let alone politics.

So why exactly, should Corbyn be given the same even-handed treatment as the Tories or the Libdems? He is an extremist, peddling dangerous, utterly deceitful & potentially ruinous policies. The simple fact is he's able to do these things because of a technicality that uber-moron Ed Miliband introduced that allows the Labour party to be overrun by it's most extreme 5%. As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn, his supporters, and every one of their ridiculous policies should be given a hundred times more scrutiny & disdain than anything any of the remotely legitimate parties are peddling.

That post just shows your bias if the Labour manifesto vague you would expect the BBC to be critical of that and I suspect you would also be just as critical of it as you are now.

LuckyG

Herzlos wrote: »

Can you honestly say you are happier with the Tories approach to the NHS than Labour?

Definitely, I would hate to see it run into the ground and that's exactly what would happen if Corbyn gets in. Some of his ideas are unsustainable and somewhat crazy. That's putting it mildly.

I would 100% rather stick to the capped pay rise and be happy in the fact that the country isn't being run (or run into the ground as the case may be) by Corbyn.