the snap general election thread

posh*spice

The Housing market is on the edge of collapse - you know sometimes things happen for funny reasons - if the housing bubble bursts on Labour's watch - :eek:

Brexit ain't going away - we've been fighting for decades - we go again.

posh*spice

fun4everyone wrote: »

and wobbly May has made a huge error of judgement taking us all for granted.

It would indeed appear to be so. But people also seem to be taking for granted the 7 hard years it has taken to get the uk's finances in an acceptable state after 13 years of Blair/Brown.

posh*spice

And another thing - why didn't TM throw Jeremy Hunt out of her cabinet? The man's a liability.

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

posh*spice wrote: »

And another thing - why didn't TM throw Jeremy Hunt out of her cabinet? The man's a liability.

Maybe didn't have the power ........... and perhaps amongst the reasons for this General Election.
More seats = more power for such things too.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

What we know about Corbyn is that if you threaten him with bombs and bullets, he appeases you. He campaigns to disband the security services while sharing a platform with you. Black September hijacker Leela Khalid hijacked planes and Corbyn happily shared a platform with her.

The idea that capitulating to anyone who threatens you would make us safer is laughable. Terrorists the world over would know that if you plant a few bombs in London, Corbyn will side with you, blame the victims, and give you anything you want that's in his gift. The comparison with Russia's attitude to plane hijackers is instructive: Russia doesn't negotiate with you, they just storm the plane and you die. As a result, nobody hijacks their planes.

We would become an instant target for every nutjob who wanted an easy target.

[/URL]

.string.

Carl31 wrote: »

there was a poster somewhere that said "lets spend the £350m on the NHS instead", which I took to be a suggestion, not a statement of intent, I'm not really sure why anyone would

Quite often my friends say "lets go to the pub", it doesn't always mean we end up there, it was just a suggestion

BobQ wrote: »

Either the change raises the target amount or it does not. Even experts can only estimate the outcome. It could be more or less than expected and any deviations addressed as they arise.

If May cuts the WFA it will raise how much? Nobody knows since she will not explain who will get it and who will not. Is that any worse than Corbyn saying his tax will raise a given amount?

What does May have up her sleeve? Charges for NHS services? Like Hunt has speculated on for 10 years now.....

I come from a different position on this, but it's not about whether we should, as a nation, put more money in the NHS, for me it's about the recklessness of going on a spending spree (I mean here the total manifesto expenditure and loans promised by Labour) at this time of uncertainty. I don't​ like the element of risk also - as in "it might go up, it might go down".

michaels

Moby wrote: »

[/URL]

We may be thick but we are smart enough to figure out that older people are both more likely to vote Tory and less likely to have carried on in school having had to earn an income rather than being feather-bedded into their 20s. But then all old people who have worked hard to amass assets and would rather not just give them away to those who are younger and haven't yet had time to amass assets of their own because they are thick init.

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

Moby wrote: »

Useless chart deleted

Oh well done for that bit of pointless propaganda.
Which does not take into account so many things, does it?
Like, for example:

School leaving age was under 16 until 1972 - and Universities were attended by around 3.5% of those who went to school.
Nowadays full time education is compulsory (except in certain circumstances) until the age of 18 and the number of those going on to university has increased to around 40%.
That pretty much confirms more older voters using their acquired knowledge to me, rather than your bigoted suggestion.

michaels

fun4everyone wrote: »

Agreed. The vulnerable and needy in society need to be properly cared for. Also the police force actually has to serve the public. At the moment they are "too busy" to bother responding to robberies in progress, arson attacks or violent incidents in progress.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-23/police-told-businessman-were-too-busy-to-help-when-he-could-see-his-office-being-burgled-live-on-cctv/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827728/Arson-evidence-police-tell-fire-crews-Force-claims-busy-attend-couple-s-home-petrol-bombed-slept.html

God help you if you need an urgent operation on the NHS. These cuts are savage and unacceptable for any decent country. Yet the Torys keep making them deeper and deeper whilst at the same trying to bring back fox hunting. Weak and wobbly May has made a huge error of judgement taking us all for granted.

All these cuts and yet the tax take as a proportion of gdp is the highest it has been for 30 years, someone is telling porkies me thinks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/uk-tax-burden-will-rise-highest-level-30-years-ifs-warns/

IveSeenTheLight

Rinoa wrote: »

How do you know she didn't immediately offer to put someone in her place but Rudd insisted she wanted to carry on.

A true leader would have thanked her for the offer but insist in putting another or indeed step in themselves and not expose them at a time when the grieving process would still be kicking in.