the snap general election thread

A_Medium_Size_Jock

gfplux wrote: »

Living over that Channel I can tell you that all those things are correct.
However on another thread "where does all the money go" many posters saw no problems in Britain.

Things are not perfect but when it comes to public services and infrastructure Britain is behind.
However unemployment of the young is a huge problem and little is presently changing.
While political party's can rely on the Old voting and the young NOT Voting (in Britain as well) there is little incentive to focus on youth.

Oh what a surprise that you would agree.
You, the anti-British agitator.

Here however are some facts.
That is F A C T S .
Supported by evidence too - I try to keep this to a minimum in an attempt not to swamp a thread, but there's a heck of a lot out there.
Not your anecdotal, unsupported supposed evidence.

Trains - that is, Rail services - well we may not be perfect in the UK but neither is Europe, is it?
In fact your own Luxembourg service gfplux rates three (yes, read that again, three) places below the UK in terms of service according to The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), in a report titled ‘The 2015 European Railway Performance Index’.
The UK is cited as being eighth overall from 25 EU countries.
So as said, not perfect but by no means poor.
http://www.consultancy.uk/news/1958/uk-rail-system-8th-in-europe-service-quality-main-issue

Even booking tickets etc. can be far from perfect.
Read: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/raileurope.html



Enough police officers?
There I partly agree although it does come down to funding and how much we are prepared to spend, doesn't it?
The UK police forces remain amongst the most highly-respected in the world.
http://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-best-police-forces/

That aside, where are tales of police brutality as against migrants in Belgium? Against migrants in France - the recent sodomy case being just one example? Failing to prevent attacks against migrants in Austria?
A simple web search provides lots of evidence.



Higher education?
Yes we may charge ........ is that why our universities are so highly-rated, far more so than the rest of Europe?
As has been posted before.
In these rankings the UK holds the top three places in Europe, and six from the top 10.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-europe

Globally here, four UK universities in the world top ten but none from the EU; one is Swiss.
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2016



Again I want to make it clear that no, the UK is not perfect.
Can any of you say where is?
This constant decrying of the UK is however most frequently unfounded and only goes to show either a poor understanding or (as in the case of the quoted poster) a dislike (if not actual hatred) of anything British.


Now, can we return to the subject of the snap GE rather than bicker about perceived problems with the UK?

CKhalvashi

On the matter of "May can do what she wants". I agree that is a powerful worry but I have say it is a manufactured worry owing more to tribal imagination than fact . All Governments with a reasonably strong majority can bhlldoze things through Parliament. But I think it is important that our next Government is free to act, not embroiled in domestic squabbles at this time

To sum up, I think people should really vote for the Government which they think is best equipped to deal with the next 5 years. The Tories, if they win, will be judged not just on Brexit but also on their use of this trust in respecting the non-tory leanings of the people that vote for them at this difficult time.

Ok, so, from the Tories manifesto:

Yes to fracking.
No to renewable energy.
Yes to car crash Brexit.
No to internet freedom.
No to treating those that genuinely need our help with any compassion at all, in terms of those domestically and refugees.

Any idea why I completely disagree with you yet? There is absolutely no imagination at all in what is written in their manifesto, summarised very briefly above.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Any idea why I completely disagree with you yet?

Yes.
It is because you are another devout pro-EU antagonist determined therefore to find fault with anything and everything which does not conform to your pro-EU stance.
This is admittedly no different in many ways to those who are so devoutly pro-Brexit that the opposite applies.

I do not necessarily agree with all the Tory manifesto says.
I do however at least attempt a more balanced and I hope reasonable stance.
Perhaps you could try the same?

"Yes to fracking.
No to renewable energy."
Not quite the full story, is it?
Increasing our own supply of energy (regardless of source) reduces both cost and dependence upon others, does it not?

"Yes to car crash Brexit."
Oh please!
Pull your head out of wherever it is and look at the real world.
It really won't end all of a sudden, you know.
The vast majority of evidence so far does not correspond to a "car crash" scenario despite your belief to the contrary.

"No to internet freedom."
Really?
So how will this affect you or I, in real terms and as law-abiding citizens?

"No to treating those that genuinely need our help with any compassion at all, in terms of those domestically and refugees."
Show us where in the manifesto that carp is suggested?
Methinks firstly you refer to elderly provisions - you disagree with means testing because?
Presumably then you think that funding from public funds is a right, regardless of circumstances?
Secondly I suggest you re-read regarding foreign aid and refugees.
Or is "Wherever possible, offer asylum and refuge to people in parts of the world affected by conflict and oppression, rather than to those who have made it to Britain." somehow offensive to you?

I reiterate:
"I do not necessarily agree with all the Tory manifesto says.
I do however at least attempt a more balanced and I hope reasonable stance.
Perhaps you could try the same?"

Rinoa

ooooooooooooooooo

kabayiri

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

...
"Yes to fracking.
No to renewable energy."
Not quite the full story, is it?
Increasing our own supply of energy (regardless of source) reduces both cost and dependence upon others, does it not?
...

People are such hypocrites.

Their actions don't match their words often.

They will not agree to fracking here, but when it comes to buying fracked gas from the USA -- sure why not !

Ooh, coal is bad if mined here, hey but it's okay to buy ever increasing services from India which is busy opening new coal mines until 2020 at least.

Ooh, let's be green they say in the Islington dinner parties, conveniently forgetting we have spent a quarter of a century exporting manufacturing sourced pollution to the Far East.

My problem with fracking is that we are a bit late to the party now, and the world is awash with energy at the moment.

Mortgagefreeman

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

"No to internet freedom."
Really?
So how will this affect you or I, in real terms and as law-abiding citizens?

It won't, although I hope they bring in severe sentences for those who tell porkies on Internet Forums.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not as straightforward as that. Labour's manifesto could have been written 50 years ago. The result now will be the same as it was then. I'd never ever vote communist. As the consequences ultimately could be far worse than the initial pledges.

What parts of the Labour Manifesto are communist? I can understand you not liking Corbyn and being a Conservative (many who benefit from generous public sector pensions are) but calling Labour policies Communist seems rather extreme to me.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

What parts of the Labour Manifesto are communist? I can understand you not liking Corbyn and being a Conservative (many who benefit from generous public sector pensions are) but calling Labour policies Communist seems rather extreme to me.

My problem with Labour is twofold : over ambition and timing.

If you don't trust a party to be able to implement what they say on paper, then you don't really have a starting point, do you?

How many large scale projects have failed to deliver on their promises?

NHS IT system for one. The £50bn schools PFI program for another. I'd have a decent wager on Universal Credit being over budget when it is finally rolled out. £1bn was wasted on an aborted ID card system. The Air Craft carriers are well over budget. The air refuelling tanker project went from £1.5bn to £10.5bn in cost. The Olympics were originally supposed to cost £2.3bn.

This isn't an exhaustive list, and all these projects have been this century.

The ideas that Corbyn proposes could take years to roll out, and what if a future government reverses the decisions.

Isn't it all back to see-saw politics?

Filo25

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via @OpiniumResearch / 16 - 17 May)


Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-)
LAB: 34% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 7% (-)

(via @ORB_int / 17 - 18 May)

This election definitely looks to be closing up a bit, it'll be interesting to see if we get some polls later today with the fieldwork done fully after the Tory manifesto release.

Conrad

Clarification for Labour voters, regards nuclear war.

I keep hearing Labour voters saying if someone 'dropped' a nuclear bomb on us everything would be destroyed. They claim there's no point us having them as there would be nothing left of the UK anyway.

This is total ignorance.

America did 1022 nuclear detonations in the Nevada desert, 100 of these above ground. People watched the mushroom clouds from Las Vegas.

The nearest town was about 50 miles away and whilst higher long term cancer was found, the town was not destroyed in the way these Labour people imply would be the case from just one or a few bombs/missiles hitting the UK

There, Ive got it off me chest. Many Labour folk claim they are all about facts, but all too often I hear the same old myths and nonsense trotted out, and before anyone says it, no we do not need Americas codes to launch our weapons, thats another urban myth