the snap general election thread

Fella

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Of all the main party leaders I would be most concerned about what he is not saying.

Quite correct too. He is an extremist.

There is a major misconception that the extreme left is somehow less dangerous or evil than the extreme right. It's not true. Corbyn is a fanatic up against a bunch of middling ability (& middling politics) opponents.

In his short period in office he's demonstrated utter contempt for his own party (has there ever been a mainstream UK party leader who has simply ignored a vote of no confidence by most of his own party?).

He's also demonstrated that he does not care one iota for the impact his leadership has on the party faithful (he stood by & watched historically awful by-election results & hundreds of Labour councillors get wiped out due to his leadership).

That's how he treat's HIS OWN PEOPLE. In all seriousness, anybody doubting what this character would be capable of if he got some real power, really needs to wake up & smell the coffee. Recognise what you're dealing with. A fanatic that looks a bit like a beardy headmaster is still a fanatic. You won't like him if he wins.

BobQ

Despite all of that, Corbyn is still clawing his way back into the reckoning.

What does that say about May? Alright I get you do not like Corbyn (I am not that keen either), but she is still failing to win the argument.

BobQ

David Davis is on QT smirking his way through as Clegg puts statistics to him which Davis fails to even deny. Smirking, what a way to treat the electorate.

Filo25

BobQ wrote: »

Despite all of that, Corbyn is still clawing his way back into the reckoning.

What does that say about May? Alright I get you do not like Corbyn (I am not that keen either), but she is still failing to win the argument.

As far as I can see she's barely trying to make an argument.

I'm no Corbyn fan either and thought he would get destroyed when the electoral battle started in earnest, but he's actually having a considerably better campaign than May is.

GreatApe

kabayiri wrote: »

If you're a biscuit packer or chippy in Rotherham, and you think someone/some people have come along and stolen your job, or undercut your rates, then do you really care where the competitor came from?

It could be Romania, Poland, or Chesterfield. It makes no difference.

You're still hacked off, and wanting to blame someone.

To comfort you, educated liberals from the rich Londinium then ring in to radio shows and write articles to tell you how these job-pinchers are harder working and conscientious and miracle workers.

Just to rub your nose in it, you understand

But we live in a country which only has about 1% long term unemployment. Anyone who tries finds a job fairly quickly. We also have a minimum wage which means the lower wage jobs can't be undercut further.

The biggest threat to the low skilled workforce is and has been for a long time machines replacing their jobs or simply better work management.

For instance I used to work at a steel plant which had 30,000 workers. By the time I left it had fallen to below 3,000 workers while production had almost tippled. These people didn't lose their jobs to migrants they lost their jobs to machines and better business practices.

If anything migrants push up the local workforce wages and opportunities. Import a million low skilled migrants with partial English and they have to take the lower end jobs. However their demand is roughly the same as the locals. They need doctors and teachers and solicitors and accountants and so on. This means more locals can go up the skill and pay scales.

Sometimes I read arguments about importing low skill migrants as being bad and importing high skilled migrants as good. I think the opposite is true. If we import high skilled migrants the locals get pushed down the skill and pay scales. Of we import low skilled migrants the locals go up the skill and pay scales.

We should accept almost an unlimited number of young migrants and turn away the old migrants. That should be the most important metric right next to English language skill level. Decent English 25 year old from anywhere in the world welcome. 50 year old from the EU no thanks. Should also be some level of medical points no good importing people with costly medical conditions or even addiction etc.

mrginge

Why bother creating a new account just to post the same old nonsense ?

Chrysalis

This is a battle of the generations.

Baby boomers.

Dont consider poverty in the UK an issue
Dont consider the UK to have a housing crisis.
Think brexit is the most important issue.
Their pensions come first.

Younger generation.

Spiralling university costs are issues.
Housing is a problem.
Would rather brexit didnt happen.
Care more about social issues and public services.

ukcarper

Chrysalis wrote: »

This is a battle of the generations.

Baby boomers.

Dont consider poverty in the UK an issue
Dont consider the UK to have a housing crisis.
Think brexit is the most important issue.
Their pensions come first.

Younger generation.

Spiralling university costs are issues.
Housing is a problem.
Would rather brexit didnt happen.
Care more about social issues and public services.

Absolute rubbish

fatbeetle

Chrysalis wrote: »

This is a battle of the generations.

Baby boomers.

Dont consider poverty in the UK an issue
Dont consider the UK to have a housing crisis.
Think brexit is the most important issue.
Their pensions come first.

Well now, Jeremy Corbyn, seeing as he's a baby boomer, must be a big hypocrite if he thinks all that. As must Tom Watson, Angela Eagle, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry , Nia Griffith and the rest of the labour cabinet, as they are all Boomers too.

You must be some kind of special you.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

I guess this mix of:-

a) some promises based on guesses however backed by "facts" but lack of actual delivery plans
VS
b) statement of value-based intent with or without made up numbers

... has always been the case in electioneering - but never more so.

I guess there are two questions that ride underneath a reality which rarely plays out per the well made plans of mice and ...

Will a) spend anyway even if the monies that need to be raised are not available or are underestimated?

Will b) pursue their aims regardless of cost or possible shifts in the sands of good sense?