the snap general election thread

michaels

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life wrote: »

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.

We both fell for it, trying to answer propoganda with facts...rookie error now we are living in alternative facts land.

System

https://youtu.be/xJ6WDtYz5UE

How are we in this state? I'm going to make my own party.

fun4everyone

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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.

Yeah. What we have now is a leader who is actively avoiding all scrutiny in an election she called. She's unable to answer any questions directly. It's a complete joke. What is she seeking? A dictatorship style guaranteed power in office via a pretend "vote"?

posh*spice

.string. wrote: »

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".

I wouldn't mind if it was being spent on the nhs - it's not - the tories are actually going to spend more money on the nhs...

Labour Getting rid of tuition fees for the middle classes whilst cutting benefits.

IveSeenTheLight

In these circumstances, a true leader would have assessed the situation and mitigated any risks.

It would have been a perfect opportunity to step in, show compassion and stave off all the questions about her running scared or crumbling and collapsing under pressure in a live debate.

Stepping in with the reason of Amber Rudd family berievement would have earned empathy from the electorate as opposed to being used against her as the U-turn queen.

She once again has misread the situation.

kinger101

Conrad wrote: »

The audience bias was a hideous spectacle. Lucas on mentioning Trident got rapturous applause and whoops. I can think of dozens more examples.

Shows the left for the corrupt manipulation they go in for, what an appauling spectacle but Rudd still won.

Actually, I don't mind Lucas' position on Trident. She doesn't think we'd ever use such a weapon, and we hold them purely for vanity at great expense. The argument for keeping them as a deterrent is also strong. What doesn't work is sending out submarines unarmed just to keep people in jobs, though I guess that policy has now been abandoned.

BobQ

So now we have May saying that immigration should fall by 2022 but David Davis saying they cannot promise it will happen.

What is their policy. I thought it was Labour that is confused but its the Tories too.

Fella

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Stepping in with the reason of Amber Rudd family berievement would have earned empathy from the electorate as opposed to being used against her as the U-turn queen.

There is no way on earth that would have happened. The Mirror, the Guardian, the Huffpost etc, every single member of Momentum on social Media, Corbyn & all of his vile cabal of lackeys would have been calling her out for doing a U-Turn. If you think they'd have had the decency to not do so because of Amber Rudd's bereavement you're out of your mind. We're talking about the people who chose to make political capital out of the Manchester atrocity the on the very first possible day of campaigning. I.e. real scum.

May's strategy is poor, there's no disputing it. But to claim she could have responded to Corbyn's pathetic "come & have a chat" (like he used to with the IRA perhaps?) taunts & not been pilloried for a U-turn is utter nonsense.

IveSeenTheLight

Fella wrote: »

There is no way on earth that would have happened. The Mirror, the Guardian, the Huffpost etc, every single member of Momentum on social Media, Corbyn & all of his vile cabal of lackeys would have been calling her out for doing a U-Turn. If you think they'd have had the decency to not do so because of Amber Rudd's bereavement you're out of your mind. We're talking about the people who chose to make political capital out of the Manchester atrocity the on the very first possible day of campaigning. I.e. real scum.

May's strategy is poor, there's no disputing it. But to claim she could have responded to Corbyn's pathetic "come & have a chat" (like he used to with the IRA perhaps?) taunts & not been pilloried for a U-turn is utter nonsense.

If they persuade her on this point, May could continue to say that she was supporting her team and that's what a strong and stable leader does.
It would have been a coup for her, the more they attempt to say she u-turned on this subject, the more she could use her slogan AND be believed by the general public on this instance.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If they persuade her on this point, May could continue to say that she was supporting her team and that's what a strong and stable leader does.
It would have been a coup for her, the more they attempt to say she u-turned on this subject, the more she could use her slogan AND be believed by the general public on this instance.

Corbyn has survived this long in politics without having "something" about him. Unfortunately I do not trust him. Of all the main party leaders I would be most concerned about what he is not saying. The Labour immigration paper that was leaked being one example. There's much under discussion that isn't in the manifesto.