the snap general election thread

bugslet

CKhalvashi wrote: »

We are in a difficult era of politics, and I think that a centrist Brexit is more likely to send me back to the Conservatives (as I voted in 2015) than keep me with the party I voted for at this election. I think if they try anything but, many of the liberal Conservative voters are likely to desert them and that they may not get the traditional support from those going into retirement stretching a generation.

In short, if they pursue a hard Brexit model now, especially with the public opinion quoted above, this will be the final nail in the coffin when an election inevitably will need to be called again during the negotiations.

Agree very much with that CK. My view has always been a soft Brexit is where we are going, the EU and whichever British government may clash horns, but when it comes down to the last few weeks, both will realise that harming the other side, will harm their own.

I wanted to spoil my vote for the first time ever, but the thought of McDonnell being let loose filled me with such horror, that I voted conservative defensively.

I think Ruth Davidson should stick with her plan of conquering Holyrood and stay away from Westminster; it's a poison chalice at the moment, she's better staying and consolidating her position for a few years.

hallmark

CKhalvashi wrote: »

So, you're now turning this into a class war because you're rich and others aren't?

Haha I'm rich am I? today keeps getting better & better :beer:

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

hallmark wrote: »

Posts like this genuinely suprise me. I would expect you to vote Tory for precisely the same reasons.

The Tories have to cut funding everywhere, including to the NHS & policing etc, because Labour run up a massive deficit. How do people fail to understand something so basic?

Here's an analogy: A girl goes out with a fec kless man for years & years, during which time he spends her money like water & leaves her in huge debt. They split up & she dates a new man who works out how much she can afford to spend in order to live within her means & pay off her debt, so that eventually she'll be able to achieve a better standard of living.

Your logic is to applaud the first guy & hate the second guy.

The choice is not "A labour Govt that spends money on public services versus a Tory Govt who doesn't".

The choice is "A Labour Govt that spends money we don't have on public services, eventually leading to a massive deficit which in turn necessitates far worse cuts to public spending than would ever have been necessary otherwise. Versus a Tory Govt that reduces spending to a manageable level & thus avoids the huge cuts that would otherwise be necessary eventually".

Next time you see suffering & misery, spend awhile reflecting on the fact that if Labour got in you'd see far more of it after they destroyed the economy (again).

Wow, well done you've read the daily mail, what a wonderful insight into the workings of British politics. Now lets say the previous Labour government did overspend, does that mean the poorest in society should be targeted and smeared. Or is there an alternative?

I'd suggest less deep cuts and slightly more tax. And thats what i vote for because i want a society based on fairness and equality.

There is a fine balance between austerity and taxation, You dont have to resort to extremes on either side.

hallmark

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Wow, well done you've read the daily mail, what a wonderful insight into the workings of British politics. Now lets say the previous Labour government did overspend, does that mean the poorest in society should be targeted and smeared. Or is there an alternative?

I'd suggest less deep cuts and slightly more tax. And thats what i vote for because i want a society based on fairness and equality.

There is a fine balance between austerity and taxation, You dont have to resort to extremes on either side.

You see, I give you the credit of a serious reply & your response is to use the Daily Mail insult. Interestingly, almost nobody who uses that insult even understands it's origins

So now I'll just go back to laughing in sheer joy that Corbyn is out & his hopeless agenda is just so much more landfill :j:j:j

CKhalvashi

hallmark wrote: »

Haha I'm rich am I? today keeps getting better & better :beer:

That's been impression you've explicitly given, is it not?

chucknorris

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, when the election was announced they had a 22% lead and everybody knew precisely what their Brexit position was.

So clearly it must have been something else.

IMO the conservatives dire election campaign was mainly down to:

- May's total lack of effort in doing anything to help the campaign.
- May's dithering over the care situation.
- Not challenging Labour over their campaign, e.g. who is going to pay for free tuition etc., they got a free ride. Ruth Davidson would have torn them a new *rse over that.
- May's arrogance of trying to force a hard Brexit on the public (completely ignoring the fact that 48% of the population voted Remain).
- May's dogmatic approach to politics, she needs to take on board her cabinet's opinions, she isn't Margret Thatcher (she doesn't know better than everyone else )

If she had had a wider range of advisers, that election would have never happened, and it shouldn't have. All she probably got from it was a thank you card from JC for his additional seats.

EDIT: and I am a true blue Tory

Bonniepurple

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Wow, well done you've read the daily mail, what a wonderful insight into the workings of British politics. Now lets say the previous Labour government did overspend, does that mean the poorest in society should be targeted and smeared. Or is there an alternative?

I'd suggest less deep cuts and slightly more tax. And thats what i vote for because i want a society based on fairness and equality.

There is a fine balance between austerity and taxation, You dont have to resort to extremes on either side.

This is why I couldn't vote for either main party. Promising money that we don't have and calling it capital investment to make it seem that it was okay to borrow what we didn't have is not good and not sustainable. Cutting money from the people with the least resources is not good and not sustainable.

If a new, centre-left party formed, (new, new Labour?!) then I suspect it would represent me far more than either the Conservatives or Labour do now.

hallmark

Haha add Shami "thanks for my peerage" Chakrabarti to the list of delusional people who think Corbyn won:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/815385/Labour-MP-Jeremy-Corbyn-left-wing-election

Even the QT audience boo her! haha how the Shami has fallen.

It's nearly drink time, I feel another night of wild celebration coming on :j:j:j

StevieJ

hallmark wrote: »

P

The choice is "A Labour Govt that spends money we don't have on public services, eventually leading to a massive deficit which in turn necessitates far worse cuts to public spending than would ever have been necessary otherwise. Versus a Tory Govt that reduces spending to a manageable level & thus avoids the huge cuts that would otherwise be necessary eventually".

.

Maybe we don't have it because we don't have high enough tax rates? The Scandinavian countries seem to have stuck a nice balance between respect for their people and raising funds through taxes.

bobbymotors

The cons got it wrong. Brexit was not the issue in this election, in most people's minds it was settled and done - if it wasn't then I contend that the LDs would have done much better than they did.

The manifesto was dreadful. The worst ever. I mean who cares about a free vote on fox hunting? Why alienate your core vote with the dementia tax? And May was a disaster too.

however....I beieve this to be a high point for labour and a low point for the Cons.

In the next GE, the Cons will not make the same mistakes. They will learn from what they did wrong (which was plenty btw...)
They will have a new leader with some charisma, Boris springs to mind: although he is as cunning as a fox, nothing sticks to him, and he is utterly ruthless.
They will have lynton crosby in total charge of their campaign, rather then just brought in last minute as he was this time: I wouldn't be surprised if it is already being planned.
Lab economic plans will be examined very critically and this I believe is where the next campaign issue will be.

And lastly, elections are won from the centre and always will be. The centre can move a bit left or a bit right, but the centre is where the votes are.

Corbyn wil never be PM. He is very good at energising the left, but the centre voters will not elect him to power. Had Labour had a centrist leader in the mould of Blair then because the Con offering of both leader and policies was so poor they (Lab) would be in power now with 400 seats.