the snap general election thread

wintersunshine

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not really much different from calling someone who successfully helped broker a peace that's saved who knows how many lives over the past 2 decades a "terrorist sympathiser".

I agree that both examples are beneath contempt, not to mention counter productive, but what's sauce for the goose.....

JC supported Irish unity - he supported the armed struggle. He had nothing to do with the peace process. The exact opposite.

Read a book.

wintersunshine

Moby wrote: »

Most of them wouldn't support him because they saw him as a joke who couldn't win. Many have now changed their minds....including me.

He didn't win. You were right. 5 more years of the Tories. And if he stands again. Another 5 years of the Tories.

Don't change your mind. The guy's a loser.

sevenhills

wintersunshine wrote: »

JC supported Irish unity - he supported the armed struggle. He had nothing to do with the peace process. The exact opposite.

Read a book.

If you are going to support either side, Irish unity is common sense, similar to what is there no, a Ireland without a border.

kinger101

Moby wrote: »

I've known you for ages on these threads and we differ politically but I do respect you. I really don't see him in the way he is presented. The press have done a hatchet job on him for years. It's not the reality though. I always saw him as a nice guy, a campaigner but not a leader and I thought he was destroying the Labour Party, not through being malicious but by doing a Michael Foot. I've changed my mind and acknowledge I was wrong about him.

While he did better than expected, and should be congratulated for getting the young out in higher numbers, the elephant in the room is that he lost against a really poor conservative leader who ran a poor campaign. I suspect the next leader of the Conservative party may do a much better job in querying how things will be paid for.

Corbyn and his followers claim to be socialist. They aren't. A socialist would argue we need to improve public services and suggest that they are paid for out of taxation. The amount of extra revenue Corbyn would generate for taxing the top 5% a little more is trivial.

This is the effective income tax rate for an average earner in different EU countries (includes social security, personal allowances etc).

Estonia 18.3 %
Ireland 19.2 %
UK 23.3 %
Czech Republic 23.6 %
Greece 25.4 %
Norway 27.9 %
France 29.1 %
Iceland 29.2 %
Netherlands 30.4 %
Finland 30.8 %
Luxembourg 31.0 %
Italy 31.1 %
Austria 31.9 %
Hungary 33.5 %
Denmark 36.2 %
Germany 39.7 %
Belgium 40.7 %

The truth is that if we want public services and a social security system equivalent to that of our continental cousins, everyone has to pay for them. The Labour party are not suggesting this.

CKhalvashi

hallmark wrote: »

claims of a cover-up about the real death toll went viral on social media on Friday.

Tension among residents was ramped up by suggestions that the Government had gagged the media in an attempt to manage public anger about the inferno.

The claims - all of them completely false - were spread by far-left supporters of Jeremy Corbyn including pop stars and socialist blogs.

They could now be examined by MPs as part of an ongoing parliamentary inquiry into “fake news”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/corbyn-supporters-spread-fake-news-grenfell-house-death-toll/

More proof of Corbyn & his supporters doing everything they can to stoke up the situation. What lovely people they are.

And some did neither of these. This is nothing to do with political affiliation, more to do with specific people involved.

Show me proof that Corbyn has said this, because I don't believe you.

kabayiri wrote: »

One of the reasons for privatization was to absolve the government of the responsibility of long term investment and planning for utilities.

The companies now have to raise the capital themselves.

I can understand why the government would do this. They might foresee major investment needs ahead, and unfortunately Joe Public doesn't value £50bn spent on upgrading things like a load of subterranean wires and pylons (the grid). They demand that government money is spent on social housing and NHS and more obvious signs.

The Russian government owns 50% + 1 share of some of the larger public companies that are now in public ownership.

Those companies raise their own capital and operate independently of the government. They also invest in other companies (some of which are now under their full ownership) as a way of expansion.

Some of these are also by no means monopolies.

We could have had both, we didn't. That's why I believe the Conservative way of doing things doesn't work.

I'd have used RBS and Lloyds partly as investment vehicles if I was chancellor. I believe that this was Partly in Labour's plan even if not specifically stated. I'd have also used both as part of the 'Northern Powerhouse' scheme, as well as with other major investment schemes, using their own capitalisation to fund it privately as well as the EU grants that were given.

At a rough guess on figures, expanding it as such could have given an additional £10bn a year in profit, plus longer term capital returns, based on what I'd personally have implemented.

I accept Labour didn't do this either, but did they really have the time to do so?

Joe_Horner

chucknorris wrote: »

But I have never called Corbyn a terrorist! Feel free to link to post, where you think I have. I would never do that! Although if the gloves are off, I may start doing it.

Sorry, I didn't intend to suggest that you had.

I did also agree that such comments (about Corbyn AND May) are out of order. I detest May and all that she stands for but there's more than enough real stuff to loathe about her and her government without resorting to making stuff up.

My point was that there have been a lot of posts on here, from several members, saying just that and many of the national so-called press have repeatedly splashed similar accusations over the front pages for several months. In fact, someone on here has even replied to my post with more of the same.

Once the Right has created that environment and poisoned the atmosphere of the debate it's not surprising that some can't resist the urge to dish it back. Doesn't make it right on either side but it's bound to happen.

Tromking

wintersunshine wrote: »

You get a pay rise from Corbyn - then he puts up your taxes to pay for your pay rise - then your mortgage goes up because Corbyn is spending too much money.

Seriously, you're not going to be better off under Corbyn. What he gives with one hand, he'll take with the other.

After being royally shafted for the last 7 years, I'd take the risk of a Corbyn administration for 5 years.

Joe_Horner

wintersunshine wrote: »

JC supported Irish unity - he supported the armed struggle. He had nothing to do with the peace process The exact opposite.

Read a book.

I've read plenty , thanks - of all types, not just the Daily Mail.

Unlike many expressing such strong outrage, I also wore green and served out there.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Anything which contributed to ending that is to be applauded and he undoubtedly contributed by keeping the possibility of dialogue open. We now have a government that's so intent on clinging to power that they're putting the progress made in jeopardy. That's just the latest thing to loathe them for.

GreatApe

"It follows claims by Labour Councillor Robert Atkinson the council was “bribing the electorate with its own money” after it “systematically and deliberately created underspends”.

What a !!!!ing stupid view and comment

GreatApe

Tromking wrote: »

After being royally shafted for the last 7 years, I'd take the risk of a Corbyn administration for 5 years.

How have they royally shafted you?