the snap general election thread

Cakeguts

padington wrote: »

Good ? Are you joking, she tried to take away free hot lunches from the nations children. Nothing strategic, clever, kind or good about that. She is a fool and a bad one at that. Calling election after article 50, what an idiot! Taunting EU leaders before the election, what was she doing? Using EU residents and brits abroad as bargaining chips for years whilst they worry away.

She is a very nasty and horrible and a very stupid person.

Cameron called it when he said she wasn't even nice to him when he was Prime Minister. Horrible, horrible person.

... and her horrible legacy will live on in Europe in the taste of the mouths of those we need to get a good deal from.

Many criminals have done less harm than she has.

She represents none of the good traits of the best of British and it's a testamont of the lack of talent in the Tory party these days that she ever got to where she did.

She can't even face Jeremy !!!!!!!g Corbyn on a TV debate, what a waste of space.

Oh good so what was the result of your survey of school children who actually eat free hot meals? Did you also survey the children whose parents give them money to go round to the local chippy at lunch time to buy really unhealthy food that they prefer?

You can't debate with a Marxist there is no point they don't do debates they just do "I am right and in step and the rest of the world is wrong and out of step." It was the right decision. This is another reason why he can never be Prime Mminister because he "can never be wrong." You can't have a democratic government where the front bench and Prime Minister won't debate but just dictate.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

I think that remark was written without thinking about who have been leaders of all the party's since the war.

No it wasn't. My remark stands.

Cakeguts

I don't care what any Corbynista says about this. Someone who has had a lifetime of nice cushy public service type jobs and now has an income of around £137,000 per year has no concept of poor people. Poor people are the ones who don't have anywhere to live or people who have to continue to live with elderly parents because they are single, ill and unable to work. Poor people are not the ones with children. If you have children you get priority housing. If you are single you don't.

Corbyn has not done anything to show that he is going to help the poor. The poor do not go to Glastonbury. The middle class go to Glastonbury. The poor do not have spare cash to fund travelling round the country. Corbyn is not interested in the poor.

Thrugelmir

padington wrote: »

Good ? Are you joking, she tried to take away free hot lunches from the nations children. Nothing strategic, clever, kind or good about that. She is a fool and a bad one at that. Calling election after article 50, what an idiot! Taunting EU leaders before the election, what was she doing? Using EU residents and brits abroad as bargaining chips for years whilst they worry away.

She is a very nasty and horrible and a very stupid person.

Cameron called it when he said she wasn't even nice to him when he was Prime Minister. Horrible, horrible person.

... and her horrible legacy will live on in Europe in the taste of the mouths of those we need to get a good deal from.

Many criminals have done less harm than she has.

She represents none of the good traits of the best of British and it's a testamont of the lack of talent in the Tory party these days that she ever got to where she did.

She can't even face Jeremy !!!!!!!g Corbyn on a TV debate, what a waste of space.

As I said on an earlier post. X Factor politics. Politicians would be in the wrong job if they weren't criticised. Could you do a better job?

Ballard

Cakeguts wrote: »

I don't care what any Corbynista says about this. Someone who has had a lifetime of nice cushy public service type jobs and now has an income of around £137,000 per year has no concept of poor people. Poor people are the ones who don't have anywhere to live or people who have to continue to live with elderly parents because they are single, ill and unable to work. Poor people are not the ones with children. If you have children you get priority housing. If you are single you don't.

Corbyn has not done anything to show that he is going to help the poor. The poor do not go to Glastonbury. The middle class go to Glastonbury. The poor do not have spare cash to fund travelling round the country. Corbyn is not interested in the poor.

It seems that you're saying that it's impossible for anyone with a few quid to care about poor people. Absolute drivel.

Fella

Ballard wrote: »

It seems that you're saying that it's impossible for anyone with a few quid to care about poor people. Absolute drivel.

No I don't think he's saying that. He's saying Corbyn does not represent the poor, does not have policies that would help the poor, and (outside of using them to try to get into power) does not care about the poor.

All of which I would heartily agree with. Corbyn's policies would be a disaster for the poor far more than the rich. The rich would cope fine. The poor would be living in a country that would soon be unable to remotely pay it's way & you'd see massive unemployment, inflation & tax rises, along with hideously underfunded public services. The last 7 years of so-called austerity would seem like a land of milk & honey in comparison.

As for Glastonbury being a middle-class affair, that's a simple fact. Even Bruce Dickinson (who knows a bit about festivals) said it's "Now it’s the most bourgeois thing on the planet."

It sold out in minutes at £238 a pop. Do you think it was the poor jamming the phone lines to snap those up?

Ballard

What Cakeguts said was that no one who earns £137k per annum can know what it's like to be poor and the assumption was that being as Corbyn earns that sum he can't possibly help.

What going to Glastonbury has anything to do with it I have no idea. I completely agree that it's a very middle class event but I've seen nothing suggesting otherwise. I didn't see or read about the speech that he made so perhaps he did say something along those lines and I missed it.

GreatApe

Truly poor people have mental problems or addiction or server family issues or all of the above, neither party can do much to help them

Fella

Ballard wrote: »

What Cakeguts said was that no one who earns £137k per annum can know what it's like to be poor

Yes but that's a fairly reasonable statement. It's not the same as saying it's impossible for those people to care about the poor.

In the case of Corbyn though I think the irony is that he is being championed as the man of the people but actually his policies would hurt them.

Leaving aside the financial armageddon aspect, just a simple look at some of his policies shows this. Scrapping tuition fees for example is a direct switch of the funding of tuition from the mainly middle-class teenagers who actually benefit from it to the average working taxpayer even if they left school when they were 16.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Truly poor people have mental problems or addiction or server family issues or all of the above, neither party can do much to help them

certainly true. i myself suffer for depression and can very well see how mental disorders can easily result in poverty and to stay in poverty. its an issue that is still not taken as seriously as physical disorders. i rather have a curable cancer then depression.