the snap general election thread

CKhalvashi

posh*spice wrote: »

Why would you do that?

You could just organise your own help?

Personal responsibility....

Not everyone has the money to do that.

Austerity.

gfplux

Rinoa wrote: »

ooooooooooooooooo

And will probably stay in bed on Election Day, if they have even registered to vote.

But you have to laugh.

gfplux

posh*spice wrote: »

From UK Polling Report - two polls this morning show a big drop in Tory support - down to 9 and 12 percent.

A coalition of chaos becoming a possibility?

How on earth did the Tories manage to throw a landslide away?

May keeps opening her mouth.

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

how will they look at those in rich countries that hindered and blocked those in poor countries from migrating to find and create a better life for themselves?

Probably not as harshly as they will look at a group of rich countries who developed an ageicultural policy that benefits 0.5% of their population not only at the expense of the remaining 99.5% but also with a side effect of severely damaging the farming industry of many very poor countries through tariffs and dumping of surpluses.

No wonder so many wish to migrate for a better life when selfish policies like the CAP have brought chaos and misery to their own countries.

Conrad

GreatApe wrote: »

As someone already pointed out Conrad was looking at the Americans testing small nukes in their back yard to learn and improve designs.

Conrad is crazy, do you recall the 2015 china chemical blast? That was estimated at just 20 tons of TNT.



That china blast killed almost 200 people and maimed 800 more.

A nuclear weapon can be 5 million x more powerful than that accidental blast in china.

I did not argue that mass damage would be taken in the event we we we struck, but I keep hearing lefty hystericals asserting 'even one bomb' would cause so much damage that there'd be nothing left to fight for hence there's no point us having our own weapons.

I thought it interesting to point out Americas 100 above ground nuclear detonations not far from Las Vegas and that guess what, life was not wiped out by these blasts which yes we're small but these lefty hystericals imply any nuclear strike on us of even one bomb would wipe Britain out which is nonsense.

Rinoa

You have to laugh.

All the usual suspects who generally complain old people had free university education, the best houses, the most money and gold plated final salary schemes, are now slamming the nasty tories for redressing the balance a shade.

And then there's Labour, whose general idea is to take money from rich folk and give it to poor folk. But when the conservatives do it, Corbyn says it's 'morally wrong'.

kabayiri

CKhalvashi wrote: »

...
Fracking relies on a loophole in the law, however it can affect drinking water, degrade infrastructure and cause serious damage to the environment.
...

These are matters controllable with good implementation and good oversight.

The energy rewards of fracking IMO outweigh the risks.

There is risk in everything. Why do we risk receiving large amounts of liquified gas from the likes of Qatar, a place in one of the most unstable regions in the world?

Personally, I'd rather rely on domestic gas for base load, above a nuclear program propped up with French/Chinese resources.

Arklight

There is going to be blind panic in Tory HQ today over the polling figures.

I can imagine Theresa May now.

"If I am awful to everyone about everything they stop wanting to vote for me. Does not compute. Does not compute. Go and do the bins. Exterminate. Pensioners!"

Fella

I doubt there'll be quite as much panic as you think. Labour still easy to back at 20/1 if you think they'll win.

kabayiri

Fella wrote: »

I doubt there'll be quite as much panic as you think. Labour still easy to back at 20/1 if you think they'll win.

The swing to Labour could easily be reversed.

I suspect we underestimate the shy Tory effect out there.