UK General Election 2017 Megathread

[lemons]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9r-SvoXgAAl4Ql.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-39628713

[dbgtz]

I was literally just about to post this
Unfortunately she can't actually call an election from what I can tell so...

If one does happen, please no Conservative domination!
This should've happened before Article 50 tbh. Its good though since it essentially lines us up with the French and German elections.

[lemons]

I was literally just about to post this
Unfortunately she can't actually call an election from what I can tell so...

If one does happen, please no Conservative domination!

Yes it has to go to parliament tomorrow and needs 2/3 approval I believe and Labour have already said they will not vote against it

I'm undecided between conservatives and lib dems

RIP JEREMY

[FlyingJesus]

It's a good plan, she's ahead in public opinion by a long way and there's no real opposition that anyone could seriously get behind - Corbyn is an absolute joke and Farron is... well, Farron. Lib Dems might be enjoying a bit of a surge due to how shit Labour are atm but he surely can't expect to actually do well here. I'm not May's biggest fan in the world but there's no-one else to do the job (since the entire platform for the others is "LET'S NOT DO BREXIT LOL") and this is a sound tactical move to boost her majority

[lemons]

I will be voting Lib Dem! They have nothing to lose

[FlyingJesus]

Well you're not wrong there

[Jam]

Makes sense (vs. Corbyn) and allows for yet more "well you asked for it" type comments when we slip further into chaos throughout the next two years.

But either way, nobody wins.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am voting Conservative & Unionist for the first time and my family also intends to return to the fold. In doing so, being working class voters, we'll hand the Tories a majority not seen since 1983 when Margaret Thatcher rode home on a thumping victory after the Falklands. We'll consign the European Union, Labour and the Cameroons in the Tory Party to the history books.

I look forward to Labour+Corbyn selling nuclear disarmament, the handing over the Falklands and tax rises to middle England on the doorsteps. On June 9th no doubt it'll all be the fault of Murdoch, the right-wing media and old people. ;)




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9r_UdSW0AE_VOO.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9r__ojWAAAFjfk.jpg

[lemons]

I think Lib Dems are going to see a big increase in votes but not seats (maybe they'll get half the amount they had before last election)

It will be a landslide for the Conservatives

Wish I went to London today instead of yesterday

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's how the demographic which turns out (65 and over) intends to vote and what it thinks of the PM.

853935199046033410


I think Lib Dems are going to see a big increase in votes but not seats (maybe they'll get half the amount they had before last election)

It will be a landslide for the Conservatives

I think the opposite. Little surge nationally in the polls to them but ultra Remain areas like Twickenham they can re-gain.


Wish I went to London today instead of yesterday

Same here. I was in Westminster only a few days ago.

[Kardan]

I am voting Conservative & Unionist for the first time and my family also intends to return to the fold. In doing so, being working class voters, we'll hand the Tories a majority not seen since 1983 when Margaret Thatcher rode home on a thumping victory after the Falklands. We'll consign the European Union, Labour and the Cameroons in the Tory Party to the history books.

I look forward to Labour+Corbyn selling nuclear disarmament, the handing over the Falklands and tax rises to middle England on the doorsteps. On June 9th no doubt it'll all be the fault of Murdoch, the right-wing media and old people. ;)




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9r_UdSW0AE_VOO.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9r__ojWAAAFjfk.jpg

Logged on to see if you would vote for the Conservatives considering they're the hard brexit party now... not disappointed :P

[dbgtz]

Does it not bother you that 20 or so Conservative MPs are under investigation for election fraud -:Undertaker:-;?

[Kardan]

Will be voting Lib Dem to continue my streak of 'Every election/referendum I vote in I lose'

[-:Undertaker:-]

Does it not bother you that 20 or so Conservative MPs are under investigation for election fraud @-:Undertaker:- (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233);?

Sure, I knew about these allegations long ago when Ukip staff in Thanet were saying the Tories were bussing in activists (which costs a lot) in a frantic campaign to stop him from being elected. It worked. Hopefully he re-stands and is elected to the Commons.

But i'm not voting on campaign spending limits, i'm voting on #1 Brexit (Out of SM and Customs Union), #2 Immigration (Brexit) & #3 Grammars. Thus far the indications are that the Tories will seek to do all three. If not, then I will have my revenge come 2022.

[MKR&*42]

Interesting, not surprised, probably the best time (tactically) to do such a thing.

I shall be voting with the manifesto most aligned with my viewpoints, so most likely Lib Dems again but who knows really.

[lemons]

Theresa may has said she will not be doing TV debates


854352122640576512

[MKR&*42]

Wtf TV debates are exciting why won't the boring cow do it. I mean she's gonna be against Corbyn.... have you seen him at PMQs he's terrible against her.

Love u Theresa.

[FlyingJesus]

Will be voting Lib Dem to continue my streak of 'Every election/referendum I vote in I lose'

If that's the streak you want to keep up then voting Lib Dem is cheating surely :P

I made a great election image this morning that I posted on the old facey b
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17952654_10155069284406745_4543716148486045256_n.j pg?oh=aec9ffe07af16585554d9851148ef764&oe=59869171

Everyone loves a half and half scarf

[dbgtz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPwT8Te-1bU

[-:Undertaker:-]

The House of Commons has passed the motion. Britain goes to the polls in five weeks.

854692929763512320

Anecdotal but also noticed by journalists, there looks to be a lot of first time Tory voters in a few weeks time. Virtually all of my friends are likely to vote for the Conservatives for the first ever time including one who voted Remain, family have returned, I am voting for them for the first time.

Interesting on NewsNight also in Labour areas of people who have voted Labour all their lives now turning to Conservatives. The big shift seems to be Ukip voters, even if only 50% of them switch then that there is an extra two million votes especially in northern/coastal seats. It all seems to be about Brexit and cementing the Leave vote.

Latest polling -

854366216370212865

854367826332790785

[FlyingJesus]

The plural of no always look so strange

[lemons]

I'm undecided whether to use my vote at uni or at home...

At uni labour currently have a majority of just 650 and seeing as a lot of students will have gone home by then I suspect they will lose a lot of labour votes :o and it's a leave area

Conservatives will win at home but it was a remain area like most of London

[-:Undertaker:-]

New YouGov out just now.

48% and they haven't even started on Corbyn yet. Pollsters tend to underestimate the Tory vote too. Remarkable.

Wouldn't it be funny if they got 52%... :P

854802665116717056

[-:Undertaker:-]

Already the usual ones on Facebook are sharing pro-Corbyn posts... same echo chamber is developing on social media just like the referendum where they're all telling each other how great he is, nobody else will say anything for fear of being branded a racist/Tory and then when election day comes they're all shocked that they lost. They're about to find out a second time just how conservative Britain, but especially England, really is in outlook and attitudes.

One guy commented on a pro-Corbyn share on my Facebook "I just don't understand how people don't see how brill his policies are" and it's like ummm well maybe you should talk to a wider range of people in your life other than just hard-left students.

[lemons]

855871512510963712

https://media.giphy.com/media/48UoqdKrAjhXG/giphy.gif

[-:Undertaker:-]

@lemons (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=104567); Wow.

One poll of course but 50% is absolutely incredible. The last time a party scored over 50% of the national vote was in 1931 when the Conservatives under Stanley Baldwin who captured 55% of the national vote. Literally it has been said for years now that neither party would likely break 40% again let alone 50%. Yet here we are. Virtually the entire electoral map is going to turn blue.

It just goes to show what a sea change Brexit has had - Ukip forcing the Tories to hold a referendum and the subsequent Leave vote could ironically be the best thing to happen to the Conservative and Unionist Party in terms of reviving it in Wales, northern England and Scotland. Opinium Polling is saying about 30% of the Ukip vote so far has transferred to the Tories - that figure is likely to grow as the election draws nearer if you ask me.

Interesting theory going around is that Ukip voters who were former Labour have been 'converted' by voting Ukip and are now considering Tory whereas they never would have gone Labour to Tory. It's being described as a 'Gateway drug' theory. Interesting and makes sense really. Labour are in serious trouble: we saw in Scotland what happens when Labour voters stop being blindly loyal.

[dbgtz]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/230/454/2a4.gif

At least on the plus side they will have a legitimate majority to form government under these numbers. I do doubt it will stick at 50% though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Latest YouGov just come out too -

855882415763591178

Including numbers which show a Tory revival in Scotland and SNP only 11% ahead.

855864054052782080

855883991324479488

[FlyingJesus]

Not that I want to undermine what the people want or anything but surely Westminster voting isn't by any means the be all and end all of vote partisanship and althought I don't doubt at all that Cons are gonna get an enormous majority it's daft to claim victory after a minor poll in just one region

RIP Labour though lol gonna be decades before anyone poses a real opposition now

[Mark]

Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party

[-:Undertaker:-]

A Welsh poll out now as equally historic and stunning.

856523884920700928

856524296004435968

Wales, the principality of coal mining and trade unions. Tory.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-MBJfkXYAA-fKL.jpg



Brexit (Wales voted Leave) is resulting is a seismic shift in politics. These aren't normal poll movements.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's two maps (2015 results vs projected results) of what Britain could look like electorally if these polls turn out true.

*Doesn't include Northern Irish seats*


2015 results

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-MFPKyXkAIogNp.jpg




2017 projections

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-MFQr0XsAEkXEM.jpg


Things can still get worse for Labour too as they did in 1983 when the party nearly collapsed...

856486476535803906

856535847348428805

[dbgtz]

Hopefully the Conservative Party is resembling the life cycle of a star - expansion and then implosion.

http://www.isbuc.co.uk/expenses/index.php
don't you just love democracy in action

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.isbuc.co.uk/expenses/index.php
don't you just love democracy in action

Whilst aware of the allegations of campaign overspending by the Conservatives which should be investigated, that website you linked to sounds very much like a bitter Remainer/covert campaign still trying to make out the government was illegitimate thus the referendum was illegitimate which is why I suspect you are so concerned about this issue above all others.

What makes me think that? Various unprompted, seemingly unrelated references to Ukip, the EU and the referendum.


The Background

In May 2014, attempting to steal a little UKIP limelight, David Cameron promised that if The Conservatives won the next General Election, if they had a majority, if he was still leader ...he'd try to reform the EU and then hold an EU referendum before the end of 2017. Very few took him seriously.

Later in 2014 one resignation and two defections to UKIP saw the Conservatives contesting three unexpected by-elections that had Cameron's leadership teetering on a ledge.

Right up to the day when the General Election votes rolled in, Cameron's EU promise was widely accepted as the impossible dream.

Perhaps it was.

The Reason

It's all about Legitimacy. The Conservatives won the 2015 General Election returning 331 MPs which gave them a 12 seat majority.

If just 6 winning MPs independently broke the law to win their seats this would reduce the number of Conservatives in Westminster to the magic 325 and they'd no longer have a majority.

However the very real possibility of a Party wide conspiracy, systematically cheating to win, has attracted the Electoral Commission's eye - resulting in them requesting the involvement of various Police Authorities and the Crown (CPS) Prosecution Service - and, if proven, signals the end of Westminster as we know it.

Just imagine if everything the Conservative Gov't has enacted since 2015 turns out to have no democratic legitimacy.

[dbgtz]

Whilst aware of the allegations of campaign overspending by the Conservatives which should be investigated, that website you linked to sounds very much like a bitter Remainer/covert campaign still trying to make out the government was illegitimate thus the referendum was illegitimate which is why I suspect you are so concerned about this issue above all others.

What makes me think that? Various unprompted, seemingly unrelated references to Ukip, the EU and the referendum.

Actually it's more the fact she's calling a referendum so she doesn't lose a majority, and nothing else. If these people re-win their seats then it seems like they'd be able to keep them, since they (presumably) didn't commit fraud to win the seat this time: https://news.channel4.com/livepages/2016/election-expenses/images/pdfs/Folkestone-Decision.pdf (point #10). It's not irrelevant either since you can attribute the overspending to making sure UKIP doesn't win the seat. Regardless if the creator is a "bitter remainer", it doesn't make the actual expenses part untrue. You seem to basically be fobbing it off because of this since it suits your gains.

But what makes you think I take this issue as big as any other? I just happened to come across the site and posted it on here.
Like this site which predicts school funding cuts from a Conservative government (damn kids should learn on their own!): http://schoolcuts.org.uk/#/
This one about UKIP which I think speaks for itself: http://news.sky.com/story/ukip-schoolgirls-should-have-mandatory-medical-fgm-check-every-year-10849237
One about Tim Farron on his religion and him being a bit weird with it but overall seems like he would keep it out of politics, relatively speaking.
One about George Osborne completely failing on his deficit targets. Long term economic plan.
Literally just came across this general analysis of the Conservatives https://libegalfrat.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/an-analysis-of-conservative-government-failure-2010-2017/ (haven't check it thoroughly but it seems well cited)
This lovely one about wage growth http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-wages-drop-10-tuc-greece-recession-financial-crisis-brexit-a7157681.html
This lovely (but slightly dated) article about working hours (which was in a post about the Corbyn bank holiday blah) https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/dec/08/europe-working-hours
And there's this Reddit post with lots of shit https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/66up36/list_of_stats_that_show_the_damage_the/

tl;dr I surprisingly pay attention to more than one issue.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not fobbing the issue off at all, merely trying to see what your motives are. But just to state, the EU Referendum Act would have passed with a smaller majority anyway with the DUP, Ukip and rebel Labour MPs. Regardless of whether it would have passed or not, it's taken place now and was given the largest democratic mandate in British history. It's done.

Like I said, voting on Brexit/Immigration and Grammar schools.

http://www.ezimba.com/work/170425C/ezimba17361335320600.png

On more general note, Corbyn supporters on my Facebook keep sharing this.... not sure how accurate it is but if true it just makes me like Theresa May more. Only ones I disagree with her there on are VAT increase and the Iraq war/investigations. :P

[dbgtz]

I'm not fobbing the issue off at all, merely trying to see what your motives are. But just to state, the EU Referendum Act would have passed with a smaller majority anyway with the DUP, Ukip and rebel Labour MPs. Regardless of whether it would have passed or not, it's taken place now and was given the largest democratic mandate in British history. It's done.

Like I said, voting on Brexit/Immigration and Grammar schools.

I don't give a flying fuck about the EU referendum at this point. These people (potentially) got themselves into parliament fraudulently and people such as yourself give absolutely no regard for this or the fact this early election, which was repeatedly stated that it wouldn't happen, is probably only a thing so they don't lose said majority.

And we had this same bloody conversation about the mandate 3 months ago today where you tried to spin away from the topic: https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=839854&p=8500935&highlight=mandate#post8500935
It does not have the biggest mandate in history. The original EEC referendum in 1975 had far greater total public support for the result. Do not spin this again into me saying it's still legitimate now. All I am saying is your claim that the result in the 2016 referendum is a joke to say the least.

Also what's the point in voting for grammar schools when funding is going down the can anyway, and similarly for immigration when David Davis suggests immigration won't go down https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/mar/27/david-davis-suggests-eu-immigration-wont-necessarily-go-down-after-brexit-video
We're a nation which depends on most migrants, yes even the peasant ones so gl.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't give a flying fuck about the EU referendum at this point. These people (potentially) got themselves into parliament fraudulently and people such as yourself give absolutely no regard for this or the fact this early election, which was repeatedly stated that it wouldn't happen, is probably only a thing so they don't lose said majority.

And we had this same bloody conversation about the mandate 3 months ago today where you tried to spin away from the topic: https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=839854&p=8500935&highlight=mandate#post8500935

I do care about it, as I have said over and over they should be investigated and criminal charges brought if need be. I was aware of reports of overspending before the 2015 General Election concluded, especially in Thanet. But did I moan? No, because at the end of the day we lost and our vote was squeezed. Other parties managed to win seats, we did not. I could easily blame the Conservatives but at the end of the day the national squeeze combined with inferior campaigning lost us it. Hey ho.


It does not have the biggest mandate in history. The original EEC referendum in 1975 had far greater total public support for the result. Do not spin this again into me saying it's still legitimate now. All I am saying is your claim that the result in the 2016 referendum is a joke to say the least.

Yes it does. More people voted for Leave than for anything else ever in the history of this Kingdom.


17.4m voted to Leave the EU in 2016.

17.3m voted to stay in the EEC in 1975.

One is relevant today and the other is not just as the Liberal Party results under Gladstone in the 1880s aren't relevant now.


Also what's the point in voting for grammar schools when funding is going down the can anyway, and similarly for immigration when David Davis suggests immigration won't go down https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/mar/27/david-davis-suggests-eu-immigration-wont-necessarily-go-down-after-brexit-video
We're a nation which depends on most migrants, yes even the peasant ones so gl.

No the nation doesn't depend on immigration, that's a lazy and unproven assertion. Greedy big corporations depend on it.

Oh, and Labour. For the votes of third worlders as the British working classes abandon them in droves.

[dbgtz]

I do care about it, as I have said over and over they should be investigated and criminal charges brought if need be. I was aware of reports of overspending before the 2015 General Election concluded, especially in Thanet. But did I moan? No, because at the end of the day we lost and our vote was squeezed. Other parties managed to win seats, we did not. I could easily blame the Conservatives but at the end of the day the national squeeze combined with inferior campaigning lost us it. Hey ho.


But the seat was lost by illegitimate means. I mean, I could talk about lies and all that during elections and so forth but it's difficult to make lying during elections illegal, but limiting money spent is easy and does make a difference to the result. The fact you just accepted this is ridiculous.



Yes it does. More people voted for Leave than for anything else ever in the history of this Kingdom.

One is relevant today and the other is not just as the Liberal Party results under Gladstone in the 1880s aren't relevant now.


Lol @ using raw numbers. I'm honestly just gobsmacked you did that.
You cannot use raw numbers when you're comparing now to 40 bloody years ago when we've had an increasing population since. Do you not realise how ridiculous that is??



No the nation doesn't depend on immigration, that's a lazy and unproven assertion. Greedy big corporations depend on it.

When I say nation I really just meant government and GDP (Osborne was a big fan of using GDP as a way to say "we're doing well guys" from what I recall).


Oh, and Labour. For the votes of third worlders as the British working classes abandon them in droves.

Probably true

[-:Undertaker:-]

But the seat was lost by illegitimate means. I mean, I could talk about lies and all that during elections and so forth but it's difficult to make lying during elections illegal, but limiting money spent is easy and does make a difference to the result. The fact you just accepted this is ridiculous.

I don't believe we lost because of overspending by the Conservatives. Fact is, there was a swing to the Conservatives on the day and even Ukip-inclined voters were telling Farage to his face that they wanted to vote for him but just couldn't risk letting Labour into power held up by the SNP. We were squeezed and our campaigning was inferior, our fault.

It's like the referendum. The Government spent taxpayers money on that pro-EU leaflet before the purdah kicked into action, now had we lost yes it was a dirty trick (made worse that they were using Whitehall to do their bidding) but ultimately if you lose an election or campaign it is usually your own fault. Losers in elections will always be tempted to blame something for their loss, rather than themselves. I believe in learning from campaigning - that's how you get somewhere, ie Marine Le Pen who has transformed the fortunes of the Front National since she took over from her loudmouth father.


Lol @ using raw numbers. I'm honestly just gobsmacked you did that.
You cannot use raw numbers when you're comparing now to 40 bloody years ago when we've had an increasing population since. Do you not realise how ridiculous that is??

Not really, more people vote for it than anything else in our history. That's just a fact.

Answer this - are you still seeking to block the result of the referendum?


When I say nation I really just meant government and GDP (Osborne was a big fan of using GDP as a way to say "we're doing well guys" from what I recall).

Unlike the disgraced Mr Osborne I believe there's more to a nation than GDP numbers and profit margins.


Probably true.

Indeed, which is why Labour are collapsing. Jeremy Corbyn isn't the cause.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Conservatives are still rising in the polls. Two new polls out just this morning...

857183193950281729

857166537416986625

The Ukip vote could be squeezed even more as we approach election day, add that to when the attacks on Corbyn start to *really* kick in as well as the fact Ukip are apparently standing down in some eurosceptic seats this election... the figure could yet be even higher.

On these numbers Labour are facing a collapse to under 150 seats. It could be even worse depending on vote distribution.


Theresa May also has the best “most capable” leadership score ever, recorded better than Blair or Thatcher.

“Some 61% chose Mrs May, with 23 per cent picking Mr Corbyn.

“Three-times election winner Baroness Thatcher never came close – her best score was 48% which she first hit in May 1983 on the eve of a landslide triumph against Michael Foot.

“Labour’s most successful election winner Tony Blair touched 52% in May 2001, just before he crushed William Hague in the general election.”

Another record breaking poll.

[dbgtz]

just going to put this here
https://audioboom.com/posts/5862107-mugwump

[FlyingJesus]

Labour supporters are fuuuuuuuuuuuuuurious that someone insulted their Glorious Leader. Some even took time out of tweeting about how every Tory is Hitler to throw some stones around inside their greenhouses

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour supporters are fuuuuuuuuuuuuuurious that someone insulted their Glorious Leader. Some even took time out of tweeting about how every Tory is Hitler to throw some stones around inside their greenhouses

I saw somebody we know on Instagram post a picture of themselves in a 'Theresa is a Terrorist' t-shirt which is really going to win over small-c conservative middle England which is where elections are won and lost. :P Hugely ironic t-shirt to wear though...



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03469/MP-Jeremy-Corbyn-w_3469446b.jpg

[dbgtz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixwq3KJwy54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqvR00lU_8s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_AW6gX3viI

Interesting to see how they all talk.

[lemons]

858619151874707457

[FlyingJesus]

There are complex reasons why people can't afford food

[-:Undertaker:-]

Interesting to see how they all talk.

...complete rubbish? :P

[dbgtz]

...complete rubbish? :P

Well more looking at how they talk i.e. May is stumbling over her words a lot where Corbyn and Farron, well not so much. Curious why that is exactly tbh, would be easy to put it on her talking out her arse but could be a pressure thing who knows :O
Maybe someone will say she looks tired soon and will lose the election.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well more looking at how they talk i.e. May is stumbling over her words a lot where Corbyn and Farron, well not so much. Curious why that is exactly tbh, would be easy to put it on her talking out her arse but could be a pressure thing who knows :O
Maybe someone will say she looks tired soon and will lose the election.

I think they're all poor speakers - watched the first exchange with Corbyn and he's rattling on about a nuclear free world when he's been asked a simple question as to what instructions he'd give to the Trident submarine Generals in the event of a nuclear exchange. Then there's May with the boring and predictable 'strong and stable' catchphrase and running a very closed campaign with visits to empty factories and finally Mr Make-You-Vote-Till-You-Get-It-Right Farron being asked ridiculous questions as to what his views on gay sex are which are as relevant to the country as to whether he uses creosote on his garden fencing or not.

A very dull and pathetic campaign so far. Compare and contrast this to the French Presidential campaign where Le Pen - and Macron to give him his dues - are out there in non-controlled settings engaging with voters. Wouldn't it be nice to see that here.

[FlyingJesus]

I hope he doesn't use creosotes they're very dangerous if they get into the water system

[-:Undertaker:-]

I hope he doesn't use creosotes they're very dangerous if they get into the water system

I use a concoction of creosote + dirty engine oil. :D

[lawrawrrr]

Where I live is such a Tory stronghold there is almost no point voting anyone else! I'll still be voting with my heart though!!

Not really a fan of party politics but voting with the candidate I believe in my area. I do hate when politics is like my area where there's a dead set winner :(

[dbgtz]

I think they're all poor speakers - watched the first exchange with Corbyn and he's rattling on about a nuclear free world when he's been asked a simple question as to what instructions he'd give to the Trident submarine Generals in the event of a nuclear exchange. Then there's May with the boring and predictable 'strong and stable' catchphrase and running a very closed campaign with visits to empty factories and finally Mr Make-You-Vote-Till-You-Get-It-Right Farron being asked ridiculous questions as to what his views on gay sex are which are as relevant to the country as to whether he uses creosote on his garden fencing or not.

A very dull and pathetic campaign so far. Compare and contrast this to the French Presidential campaign where Le Pen - and Macron to give him his dues - are out there in non-controlled settings engaging with voters. Wouldn't it be nice to see that here.

I get they all dodged a few questions, but I'm honestly just talking about how they spoke not what they spoke about. May was stumbling over her words like crazy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI-9em-1XjE
lmao

[-:Undertaker:-]

@dbgtz (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=28789);

More bothered about what someone is saying as opposed to what they sound like tbh.

@lawrawrrr (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=61966);

Feel for me. I'm in the strongest Labour seat in the entire country, 80%+ it may aswell be North Korea. :P

[lawrawrrr]

@dbgtz (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=28789);

More bothered about what someone is saying as opposed to what they sound like tbh.

@lawrawrrr (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=61966);

Feel for me. I'm in the strongest Labour seat in the entire country, 80%+ it may aswell be North Korea. :P
I'm apparently over 60% but it's always, always had Tory MPs (Heath came from an old part of the constituency)! The previous MP used to live down the road from us but never really did much:(

[FlyingJesus]

Am gonna move up the road to Bolney and vote for Baron Von Thunderclap of the MRLP

[dbgtz]

@dbgtz (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=28789);

More bothered about what someone is saying as opposed to what they sound like tbh.


I'm just curious why she's stumbling so much tbh I don't think she normally does from what I recall
but if she normally does, got to wonder how well she will cope with negotiating with foreign diplomats :O

[lemons]

Diane Abbot's interview on LBC is painful to listen too - so embarrassing!

https://order-order.com/2017/05/02/diane-abbott-police-numbers-car-crash/

[dbgtz]

That was an atrocious interview holy shit

[lemons]

so is this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6ps3n8LFe4

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's the Labour Shadow Chancellor yesterday speaking at a rally flanked with Communist and Ba'athist flags.

The opposite equivalent would be of Chancellor Philip Hammond speaking at a rally flanked by Nazi and Falange flags.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-0zB5HUMAELfLQ.jpg



so is this

I love how the Liberal Democrats are now trying to argue there shouldn't have been a referendum.

Back in around 2009 when the EU's Treaty of Lisbon was being signed without consulting the public, despite promises of a referendum from the two major parties, the Liberal Democrats opposed it with the policy that instead of a referendum on that treaty, there should instead be an In/Out referendum on our EU membership as a whole. If anything they were the second major party (after Ukip) to endorse a straight-forward In/Out referendum. I agreed with Nick but it turns out he didn't even really agree with himself.

Here's the leaflet they posted to us all at the 2009 European Elections.


http://ukipdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lib_Dem_Clegg_Leaflet_inout.jpg

[dbgtz]

tbh Clegg makes a fair point about tuition fees but it's funny to see him get frustrated over it.
also after the shit show that was the AV referendum, I too would change my mind on referendums (actually, I did after I researched more about it a few years back now).
also arguably the reasons for the referendum was wrong, but I cba to get into that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

tbh Clegg makes a fair point about tuition fees but it's funny to see him get frustrated over it.
also after the shit show that was the AV referendum, I too would change my mind on referendums (actually, I did after I researched more about it a few years back now).
also arguably the reasons for the referendum was wrong, but I cba to get into that.

The referendum was completely right to hold given we'd been promised numerous referendums on further European integration by all the major parties and were then denied it. If a referendum taking us in was right, then a referendum to take us out was right.

One could even argue that had we been given a say on further European integration at each stage (the Treaties of Maaschtrict and Lisbon being the prime examples) or even had the main parties taken into account our views of no more integration then the issue wouldn't have boiled over and Britain would never have been taken so far down a path it never wanted to go.

Instead, our pro-EU political class thought they could basically tell us to drop dead as we had nowhere else to go at the ballot box: then along came Ukip with the 2009 and 2014 European Elections and subsequent MP defections and it broke the camel's back.

[dbgtz]

Maybe so, but it was ultimately down to Cameron trying to do a bit of a John Major.

[dbgtz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUsWd2OrEkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3zjLfSlaPg

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Prime Minister met with Her Majesty The Queen today to dissolve the 56th British Parliament.

859770232293871616

[dbgtz]

Got to love that stable leadership
dissolving Parliament long before necessary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhesL_SVoHA

also more potential Conservative happenings
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-1KzOCXUAASL6s.jpg

[-:Undertaker:-]

The PM today launched fierce attack back on the EU after the disasterous meeting in Number 10 the other evening.

859806760600829952

859782661778399232

859780480220237824

859783474198216704

859788847403741184

859782293090693135

My guess is this will play well to the public. There's nothing more that will rally the country together more than a war of words - and a hand bagging - with the European Union and the European Commission. Turns election choice into national interest choice.

It's already having an effect. Look at this former Labour voter (who voted Leave) lay into Tim Farron and say he's now voting Tory.

859706749678489600


Got to love that stable leadership
dissolving Parliament long before necessary

Given you've drawn attention to potential charges being brought against30 Conservative MPs with a government majority under that, surely a General Election was necessary given that slim majority? That's not to mention Brexit opposition from peers in the House of Lords.

[dbgtz]

My guess is this will play well to the public. There's nothing more that will rally the country together more than a war of words - and a hand bagging - with the European Union and the European Commission. Turns election choice into national interest choice.

It's already having an effect. Look at this former Labour voter (who voted Leave) lay into Tim Farron and say he's now voting Tory.

859706749678489600


Yet fails to give a cohesive reason why he is doing so.



Given you've drawn attention to potential charges being brought against30 Conservative MPs with a government majority under that, surely a General Election was necessary given that slim majority? That's not to mention Brexit opposition from peers in the House of Lords.

Necessary for who exactly? You call by-elections and take the result as is. Ignoring the fact you made this point to someone who disagrees with FPTP and huge majorities to begin with, the Conservatives would have had a majority regardless and ultimately had no good reason to call this. It essentially shat on the FTPA too, so that's as good as dead.
Oh no, opposition! Not that the election changes anything immediately with the Lords anyway, all I had seen them do was try to secure the rights of EU nationals in the UK which they conceded. So not sure what this opposition is exactly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

859782382030774274

War of words continuing....

859817572031766529


Yet fails to give a cohesive reason why he is doing so.

Brexit, obviously.


Necessary for who exactly? You call by-elections and take the result as is. Ignoring the fact you made this point to someone who disagrees with FPTP and huge majorities to begin with, the Conservatives would have had a majority regardless and ultimately had no good reason to call this. It essentially shat on the FTPA too, so that's as good as dead.

I'm glad FTPA is dead. It was constitutional vandalism.

Hopefully the Conservative manifesto commits to repealing the Act completely.


Oh no, opposition! Not that the election changes anything immediately with the Lords anyway, all I had seen them do was try to secure the rights of EU nationals in the UK which they conceded. So not sure what this opposition is exactly.

The election changes things with the Lords in that they cannot turn around and say leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't in the manifesto. Or frustrate the Great Repeal Bill which will be transferring large chunks of EU law into British law. The convention is that the Lords won't block manifesto commitments, so putting them into the manifesto will ensure the upper house can't frustrate any final deal as a sneaky way of trying to keep us in.

On EU nationals, HM Government has offered to negotiate this and settle the matter as early as last autumn but the European Union and the German government turned this offer down. Why should we unilaterally offer permanent settlement when they are refusing to do the same for our own British expats over in European nations? If they want to play tit or tat then bring it on.

Maybe Lord Lawson is right that they're beyond reasoning. Let's just wave goodbye and default to WTO tariffs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T307eIp6h6M

[dbgtz]

859782382030774274

War of words continuing....

859817572031766529



Brexit, obviously.


OK, then he fails to give a good reason he voted leave.



I'm glad FTPA is dead. It was constitutional vandalism.


On what grounds..?



The election changes things with the Lords in that they cannot turn around and say leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't in the manifesto. Or frustrate the Great Repeal Bill which will be transferring large chunks of EU law into British law. The convention is that the Lords won't block manifesto commitments, so putting them into the manifesto will ensure the upper house can't frustrate any final deal as a sneaky way of trying to keep us in.


They haven't been blocking anything anyway, so I don't see what your point is.

Going to be interesting to see if the Conservative manifesto actually mentions leaving the single market.



On EU nationals, HM Government has offered to negotiate this and settle the matter as early as last autumn but the European Union and the German government turned this offer down. Why should we unilaterally offer permanent settlement when they are refusing to do the same for our own British expats over in European nations? If they want to play tit or tat then bring it on.

Maybe Lord Lawson is right that they're beyond reasoning. Let's just wave goodbye and default to WTO tariffs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T307eIp6h6M

Two reasons: one is that it is a gesture of good will, not just to EU governments but to the individuals themselves. It is essentially "good pr". Two is that it actually helps keep the more intellectual individuals in the country. Whether you believe it or not, a lot of EU academics are going to leave and plenty will never come in the first place, all down to Brexit.

[FlyingJesus]

Going to be interesting to see if the Conservative manifesto actually mentions leaving the single market.

Gonna be interesting to see if any of the manifestos say anything other than "WE ARE NOT THE OTHER GUY"

[-:Undertaker:-]

OK, then he fails to give a good reason he voted leave.

It doesn't matter what reason he voted Leave for, the vote is over. The question is implementing the outcome of the referendum and who is best to do so. That's either Theresa May, Boris Johnson and David Davis or Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. Labour areas which voted Leave - like that man - are interested in that. Brexit is transcending traditional party allegiances.


On what grounds..?

It was put in place by Cameron's Ministry during the Coalition to prevent a motion of no confidence from bringing the government down via unhappy Conservative and Liberal Democrat backbenchers. It was a constitutional change that was made in the interest of a single government, not because it was a good idea in itself. With the FTPA it brought the risk that you could have a weak and divided government left in office despite over just half - but under two thirds - of Parliament wanting to call an election. It was absurd. The beauty of the Westminster system has always been it's flexibility (an 'unwritten' constitution that operates on convention).

Furthermore it tampered with the constitution in that it is up to the Monarch to call an election on the advice of her Prime Minister, it was not for Parliament to set in stone the dates of the next election. That power transfer from the Sovereign to Parliament was a constitutional change and I rather dislike our pretty amateur politicians messing with it. It's my constitution too, not a plaything of Cameron and Clegg.


They haven't been blocking anything anyway, so I don't see what your point is.

The Lords attempted to stick amendments on the Article 50 Bill. The risk is that in a few years time with the government weaker, those pro-EU Lords will pounce and will attempt to warp the settlement via the Great Repeal Bill. This cannot be allowed to happen.


Going to be interesting to see if the Conservative manifesto actually mentions leaving the single market.

The Lancaster House speech that the Prime Minister gave a couple of months ago confirmed this as has the white paper.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-and-new-partnership-with-the-european-union-white-paper

Ending Freedom of Movement and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice both rule out Single Market membership and new trade agreements with non-EU countries (hence the new International Trade Department) means out of the Customs Union. Why do you think I am voting Conservative? It's clear I am getting what I have wanted all along.


Two reasons: one is that it is a gesture of good will, not just to EU governments but to the individuals themselves. It is essentially "good pr". Two is that it actually helps keep the more intellectual individuals in the country. Whether you believe it or not, a lot of EU academics are going to leave and plenty will never come in the first place, all down to Brexit.

The gesture of goodwill came from us when we offered to settle this issue back in the autumn. Like I said, we were rebutted by the European Commission and the German government. It shows how wedded you are to Brussels when you're trying to pin failure to sort this issue out on this country rather than the European Union which is the side unwilling to address the issue for political leverage reasons.

Ask yourself how it would look if, having guaranteed unilaterally the rights of EU nationals here without anything given in return, during the negotiations the EU then responded to us by making it difficult or extracting concessions out of us in other areas in order to secure the settlement rights of British ex-pats on the continent. It would be a bad negotiating tactic and more importantly a betrayal of British subjects living in mainland Europe.

We'll guarantee EU nationals rights when they guarantee the rights of British subjects. We're willing, are they?

[dbgtz]

I'll reply to that another time Undertaker. I didn't even intend to come on today but this is worth posting:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbDLNqfKB3Y


If talks do not go the UK's way "we risk the secure and well-paid jobs we want for our children and our children’s children," the Prime Minister conceded in a speech outside Downing Street.


Ms May said: "Making Brexit a success is central to our national interest. And it is central to your own security and prosperity.

"Because while there is enormous opportunity for Britain as we leave the European Union, if we do not get this right, the consequences will be serious.

"And they will be felt by ordinary, working people across the country. This Brexit negotiation is central to everything.

"If we don’t get the negotiation right, your economic security and prosperity will be put at risk and the opportunities you seek for your families will simply not happen.

"If we do not stand up and get this negotiation right we risk the secure and well-paid jobs we want for our children and our children’s children too.

"If we don’t get the negotiation right, if we let the bureaucrats of Brussels run over us, we will lose the chance to build a fairer society with real opportunity for all."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-uk-economy-security-risk-british-people-leave-eu-children-a7716751.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

Up again.

861570515391197187

I was happy the French election was over thinking I could take a break from it all then just realised we're having an election lol. :P

[dbgtz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M91g4OlGEY

[dbgtz]

861940026845700097
861915464976527360
861941815515262976
861941190710751232

[FlyingJesus]

She might as well just answer questions from anyone tbh, no-one's interested in what the politicians actually have to say it's just a slanging match of HAHA SOCIALIST OLD MAN GO AWAY vs YOU'RE A LITERAL MURDERER... SOMEHOW with maybe 2% of all writing anywhere being about actual policies

[-:Undertaker:-]

CPS announces no charges today... except in the South Thanet case which remains open.

862245858364071936

Fed up of Labour telling us X weeks to save the NHS. Every election since 2010 I keep seeing this yet the NHS is still here.

[dbgtz]

From what I have read, the lack of charges is more down to it being hard to prove rather than it not having occurred.

Also:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/03/08/12/hospital.jpg
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[-:Undertaker:-]

NHS is going to have to make cuts isn't it just like the rest of the public sector in this country. I said back in 2010 that it was stupid of the Coalition government to 'ring fence' the NHS budget when the budget is already bloated as it it. Make savings.

We're unable to have a proper conversation in this country about healthcare though because a lot of people are under the illusion that we're the only country on earth with reasonably good hospitals, Doctors, nurses and medical care in general.

[FlyingJesus]

I don't get the thing about destroying the NHS when the only sensible option to keep it going is to allow actual doctors to control it (while overseen ofc so it doesn't fully become a business) which is exactly what the "privatisation" plans of the Conservatives is. If those who are screaming about saving get their way it'll carry on being some random minister and his office being in charge with no medical knowledge and no reason to really care

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd start charging a capped £5 for GP appointments.

In addition evidence of being a British subject to be provided. If not, you get charged full rates for everything.

And all translation services to be charged full whack too. The National Health Service, not the International Health Service.

[dbgtz]

I'd start charging a capped £5 for GP appointments.

Not a great idea for those who have to choose between a GP appointment & eating. Interestingly it would raise £1.7 billion apparently.


In addition evidence of being a British subject to be provided. If not, you get charged full rates for everything.

And all translation services to be charged full whack too. The National Health Service, not the International Health Service.

Ignoring the Welsh, Scottish and Irish for a moment, these two suggestions are rather contradictory. You want to charge foreigners for it (fair enough), but essentially remove their access to the service all together. You need translators to help the nurses and doctors if nothing else. And how would this apply to A&E?

Health tourism is also tiny so worth considering if it will cost more to implement.
https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/

[lawrawrrr]

I'd support paying for appointments if you're a time waster or have a history of useless appointments or prescriptions were free maybe...

But if you're going to the docs for something regularly, that's gonna be so expensive for something you can't help having so maybe not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah I fling out enough in scrip costs as it is, don't need to be charged for the pleasure of saying "hi still alive" every few weeks :P privatisation should be for the purpose of making the system work better with less red tape and non-professional input, not for fleecing people who need help

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not a great idea for those who have to choose between a GP appointment & eating. Interestingly it would raise £1.7 billion apparently.

Very few people are in that situation of choosing between £5 and eating.


Ignoring the Welsh, Scottish and Irish for a moment

What do you mean ignoring the Welsh, Scottish and Irish? I said British subjects.


these two suggestions are rather contradictory. You want to charge foreigners for it (fair enough), but essentially remove their access to the service all together.

The access is removed if they cannot afford to pay. No treatment if they cannot pay. What's so hard?


You need translators to help the nurses and doctors if nothing else. And how would this apply to A&E?

They'd be charged via their insurance after receiving A&E treatment. Is this difficult to work out?

Make UK visas require compulsory health insurance. No health insurance then no visa granted.


Health tourism is also tiny so worth considering if it will cost more to implement.

No it won't cost more to implement, we're simply asking for people to pay for a service they're not entitled to.

[dbgtz]

urgh I just noticed the Conservatives are red and Labour are blue how annoying


Very few people are in that situation of choosing between £5 and eating.


Homelessness is rising and something like fewer than 1/3 of people have £100 in savings, so it could easily get to that situation for a lot of people.



What do you mean ignoring the Welsh, Scottish and Irish? I said British subjects.


Not all of them speak English.



The access is removed if they cannot afford to pay. No treatment if they cannot pay. What's so hard?


I get that, but you're removing translators who helps with access in the first place.



They'd be charged via their insurance after receiving A&E treatment. Is this difficult to work out?

Make UK visas require compulsory health insurance. No health insurance then no visa granted.


Reasonable solution.



No it won't cost more to implement, we're simply asking for people to pay for a service they're not entitled to.

Sure, but you're going to need either people and/or a system for it to actually be implemented. It's not going to be without some investment.

[FlyingJesus]

I think he means that the cost of translators should also be paid by the non-national, not sure I agree with that since it's such a simple service and provides jobs along with making everyone else's jobs much easier

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour have leaked their manifesto.

Cba posting the full article but includes nationalisation of industries, abolishing tuition fees etc. All of the students on social media lapping Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto re-heated up, but won't play well in Middle England.


Homelessness is rising and something like fewer than 1/3 of people have £100 in savings, so it could easily get to that situation for a lot of people.

Because a lot of people refuse to save money in this country. I know a family on benefits who haven't got a bean to rub together but buy the child chippy all the time and a £600 coat. In my deprived area, children are walking around in gear just for school (bags, shoes, phones) worth hundreds and hundreds of pounds.

The same electorate who will complain about the evil Tories being mean with benefit curbs.


Not all of them speak English.

Pretty sure they do but if you want to be pedantic then we'll exempt Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish and Irish.


I get that, but you're removing translators who helps with access in the first place.

Indeed. I don't want them to have access if it's costing us an arm and a leg.

Pay for treatment and pay for translation services. The full bill.


Sure, but you're going to need either people and/or a system for it to actually be implemented. It's not going to be without some investment.

Of course, but worth it. I don't believe everything should be decided on money anyway, it's a question of it being morally right and just to restrict healthcare to those not entitled to it and spend instead on British subjects healthcare.


I think he means that the cost of translators should also be paid by the non-national, not sure I agree with that since it's such a simple service and provides jobs along with making everyone else's jobs much easier

Translation services are expensive and creating multiple pen pushing jobs in the NHS is exactly why there's budget problems despite the huge increases of cash it gets every few years. Managers and consultants galore!

[FlyingJesus]

creating multiple pen pushing jobs in the NHS

Like by introducing a pay-to-go scheme and policing identification whenever you want to see a doctor

[-:Undertaker:-]

Like by introducing a pay-to-go scheme and policing identification whenever you want to see a doctor

Holding a passport or ID up to a GP shouldn't require too much paperwork.

[FlyingJesus]

It would need to be done at the appointment level in order to not waste the doctor's time - otherwise they might as well just go through with the appointment anyway. Considering that can be done in person, on the phone, or online in many cases that's just not something you can do on faith

[-:Undertaker:-]

It would need to be done at the appointment level in order to not waste the doctor's time - otherwise they might as well just go through with the appointment anyway. Considering that can be done in person, on the phone, or online in many cases that's just not something you can do on faith

A member of my family has seen it done at the reception desk.

Thankfully some staff do enforce existing rules but ought to roll out checks widespread given amount of gimmegrants in country.

[FlyingJesus]

Congrats, I too have seen appointments made at a reception desk :o :o :o :o :o that's why I included it in my list of ways to do it

[-:Undertaker:-]

Congrats, I too have seen appointments made at a reception desk :o :o :o :o :o that's why I included it in my list of ways to do it

oh i'm not talking about appointments i'm talking about providing proof of ID/residence. you must've got confused lol x

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah but the point is that can't be done online or by phone which is how an enormous number of people conduct their business, so in your world we'd severely limit access to doctors, especially to those who are least mobile and therefore potentially need it the most

[dbgtz]

Because a lot of people refuse to save money in this country. I know a family on benefits who haven't got a bean to rub together but buy the child chippy all the time and a £600 coat. In my deprived area, children are walking around in gear just for school (bags, shoes, phones) worth hundreds and hundreds of pounds.

The same electorate who will complain about the evil Tories being mean with benefit curbs.


Cool. Unfortunately for you, anecdotal evidence means dog shit.



Indeed. I don't want them to have access if it's costing us an arm and a leg.

Pay for treatment and pay for translation services. The full bill.


OK, but then why not just include the translation service in the medical bill? Unless I've misread what you've been saying.



Of course, but worth it. I don't believe everything should be decided on money anyway, it's a question of it being morally right and just to restrict healthcare to those not entitled to it and spend instead on British subjects healthcare.


And I believe it's morally wrong to spend more money than is necessary.
Do we really need to go over how bogus the moral argument is again?

Replying to your other points here as I cba to quote them but you use the Passport as a form of ID but that doesn't prove residence. A British citizen living in France could pop over for operations quite easily despite never paying into the system.
There are something like 340 million GP appointments a year (in 2013 or 2014), and that's obviously not including any other kind of medical appointments, so it's quite a bit of paperwork.

[dbgtz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPXtN1QW9uY

[FlyingJesus]

Saw that earlier, was quite good until they started pretending that Green is actually a party worth looking at

[MKR&*42]

The greens always have such good adverts, I genuinely commend them for it. The one with playground politicians was absolutely hilarious.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Greens always try to appeal to the yoof.

Too bad for them the yoof don't turn out. :D



The number of candidates each party is standing out of 650 House of Commons seats across the Kingdom -

863088602326208512

Huge drop in Ukip candidates (624 in 2015), including withdrawal from my own constituency.

This can only favour the Tories as those still identifying as voting Ukip may go to their polling booth to cast their ballot and find the party is not standing. Given the already mass collapse over to the Tories it's highly likely these voters will then place their crosses next to the Conservatives: meaning you could hypothetically add half of the remaining Ukip poll percentage to the Tories.

861962487113109510

[lemons]

loool tht green advert is great


but said nothing about their policies

[FlyingJesus]

Who cares about policies when we can just call each other names?

Also Lib Dems in their usual cack-handed way have given Conservatives another boost by announcing that they want to legalise weed, which will steal a few young'ns from Labour

[-:Undertaker:-]

863491786672680960

For all the talk of a Liberal Democrat revival via hardcore Remain voters... hasn't materialised.

The merging of Ukip and the Tory Party is nearly complete.

863688902229577728

[lawrawrrr]

I BELIEVE NO POLLS ANY MORE but 49% is an insane majority there

[dbgtz]

Nurses striking over pay
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nurses-vote-overwhelmingly-to-strike-for-first-time-ever-over-1-pay-rises-a7735451.html

Got to love this stability amirite

[-:Undertaker:-]

I BELIEVE NO POLLS ANY MORE but 49% is an insane majority there

With FPTP, the number of seats they'll pick up may be even more than a huge swing like that would usually bring in. Example being that it is likely the swing to the blues is much larger in the Brexit-voting Midlands and northern England than say London - there's more seats in those areas than London so a stronger swing in those areas will knock over more Labour seats than a uniform national swing would. FPTP can yield some strange results when it comes to geographical differences, see the replacement of Labour with SNP in 2015.

I have no evidence for this but I think polls could be overestimating Labour. I just don't buy that given the aftermath of Brexit, the leadership of Corbyn and ongoing decline of the Left that the Labour vote has stayed at the 30% mark they scored in 2015.

[FlyingJesus]

49% is a majority

Well

[-:Undertaker:-]

The anti-fox hunting lot are doing my head in. Day after day there's a post about how the Tories are evil for wanting to legalise it again as though that even matters as the hunts have continued regardless. Townies going on about something they haven't a clue about - fox numbers have to be controlled because of the damage and mutilation they do not just to property but to livestock.

Just as deer numbers in this country are controlled because of the lack of natural predators which would mean overbreeding leading to damage and mass starvation of deer every autumn/winter. Not a pretty sight. Can we please stop believing we're living in some outback where we can stand back and let nature do its work? The British countryside has been managed for hundreds of years by the people living there: it's nothing like what it was originally like over a thousand years ago.

I replied to one on FB posting pictures of dead foxes with pictures of dead lambs (via foxes). Removal in 3.. 2.. 1..

[FlyingJesus]

It's a really weird goal for them to have stated though, not something hugely important (because how many hunters vote Labour) and has alienated a large number of people who were otherwise geared up to vote blue. Makes almost as little sense as Corbyn's manifesto

[dbgtz]

Maybe you should actually read the legislation. It does not outright ban the hunting of foxes, rather it bans hunting with the use of dogs (with exceptions). It also extends beyond foxes.


A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/1

Maybe you should read up on that you so passionately defend.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Maybe you should actually read the legislation. It does not outright ban the hunting of foxes, rather it bans hunting with the use of dogs (with exceptions). It also extends beyond foxes.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/1

Maybe you should read up on that you so passionately defend.

When we talk of the Fox Hunting ban circa 2005 we know that is referring to hounds, yeah.

Maybe you should read up on what context means?

[dbgtz]

When we talk of the Fox Hunting ban circa 2005 we know that is referring to hounds, yeah.

Maybe you should read up on what context means?



The Conservatives will renew a pledge to hold a free vote on overturning 2004 ban

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fox-hunting-bring-back-ban-repeal-conservative-tories-general-election-rural-vote-a7726506.html

What other context do I need?

Maybe we should just put it to a referendum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-fox-hunting-bring-back-ban-repeal-conservative-tories-general-election-rural-vote-a7726506.html

What other context do I need?

Maybe we should just put it to a referendum.

I'll go for a referendum on fox hunting in return for a referendum on restoring the death penalty, sure.

[hungryfront]

I'll go for a referendum on fox hunting in return for a referendum on restoring the death penalty, sure.
Death penalty is a terrible idea UNLESS you absolutely 100% know the person's done it and they've admitted it. Otherwise a bunch of innocent people would be killed. Since 1973, 155 people have been released from death row because of proving they're innocent, let alone those who were already dead and those who didn't get the death sentence.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Death penalty is a terrible idea UNLESS you absolutely 100% know the person's done it and they've admitted it. Otherwise a bunch of innocent people would be killed. Since 1973, 155 people have been released from death row because of proving they're innocent, let alone those who were already dead and those who didn't get the death sentence.

That's a very silly argument against the death penalty. It's like saying don't go to war or launch airstrikes against terror camps because statistically there could be innocent people killed. With any system there exists the scope for error. That said, in the modern day with DNA, video and appeals we can often now know for certain - and we certainly did with Brady and Hindley. Both of them should have been hanged as should murderers such as Ian Huntley, Michael Adebolajo, Michael Adebowale and Mark Bridger.

And if Her Majesty's Government ever needs someone to pull the trapdoor i'll do it for free.

[hungryfront]

That's a very silly argument against the death penalty. It's like saying don't go to war or launch airstrikes against terror camps because statistically there could be innocent people killed. With any system there exists the scope for error. That said, in the modern day with DNA, video and appeals we can often now know for certain - and we certainly did with Brady and Hindley. Both of them should have been hanged as should murderers such as Ian Huntley, Michael Adebolajo, Michael Adebowale and Mark Bridger.

And if Her Majesty's Government ever needs someone to pull the trapdoor i'll do it for free.
It isn't a "silly" argument. If it is according to you, I sincerely hope you have to experience it first hand, then maybe you'll realise it's an awful idea. If I am innocent I'm not going to be sentenced for a crime I did not commit and then die.

Also, I know how much you conservatives hate statistics so I did some maths (it's not that hard, you know), and it's above 10% of people sentenced since 1976 in the US that have been released due to innocence proven in the United States. That's it being PROVEN whilst they're ALIVE.

Not all of them will have been proven and some will have been proven after they're dead, so it's well over 10% innocence of people sentenced.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It isn't a "silly" argument. If it is according to you, I sincerely hope you have to experience it first hand, then maybe you'll realise it's an awful idea. If I am innocent I'm not going to be sentenced for a crime I did not commit and then die.

Well you haven't answered my comparison/moral dilemma regarding war and innocents so I assume you are not a pacifist in which case your moral objection regarding the possible executions of innocents doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

But you *hope* I experience it? In that case I say I sincerely hope you do *not* have to experience what the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley have suffered through years of torments from this evil demon. No family should have to go through that *after* a murder which is bad enough in itself, and no nation should go through it either. He along with her should have been hanged back in the early 1970s. But you think he should have lived?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/13/capital-punishment-50-years-favoured/

I think restoring the death penalty would win over 60% of the vote. For the campaign, we'd simply have to screen the pictures of Brady, Hindley and the rest of them over the country with the words 'JUSTICE' printed underneath. It's about time we had some.


Also, I know how much you conservatives hate statistics so I did some maths (it's not that hard, you know), and it's above 10% of people sentenced since 1976 in the US that have been released due to innocence proven in the United States. That's it being PROVEN whilst they're ALIVE.

I'm not talking about the United States' justice system. I'm talking about the British Injustice system.

I want Brady et el hanged by the neck until dead and I would do it myself. No doubt in my mind on this topic just as there's no doubt in my mind that I would launch airstrikes against enemy targets even with the knowledge that innocent people may well die.

[hungryfront]

Well you haven't answered my comparison/moral dilemma regarding war and innocents so I assume you are not a pacifist in which case your moral objection regarding the possible executions of innocents doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

But you *hope* I experience it? In that case I say I sincerely hope you do *not* have to experience what the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley have suffered through years of torments from this evil demon. No family should have to go through that *after* a murder which is bad enough in itself, and no nation should go through it either. He along with her should have been hanged back in the early 1970s. But you think he should have lived?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/13/capital-punishment-50-years-favoured/

I think restoring the death penalty would win over 60% of the vote. For the campaign, we'd simply have to screen the pictures of Brady, Hindley and the rest of them over the country with the words 'JUSTICE' printed underneath. It's about time we had some.



I'm not talking about the United States' justice system. I'm talking about the British Injustice system.

I want Brady et el hanged by the neck until dead and I would do it myself. No doubt in my mind on this topic just as there's no doubt in my mind that I would launch airstrikes against enemy targets even with the knowledge that innocent people may well die.
Ooh look, another angry conservative avoiding statistics again, and plucking things I said out the air.

Also, let me explain what a pacifist is to you. As a 14 year old, I seem to know better than you.

A pacifist will not fight anybody.

A decent human being will fight but not kill random innocent people.

Hope this helps.

Also, it will be the same bomb killing terrorists and innocents, so it's not even comparable to this situation. It won't be the same trial killing innocents and murderers, so innocents shouldn't be sentenced to death if that's not killing murderers too in the SAME sentence.

One bomb kills 90% terrorists and 10% innocents, we can't change that. These figures are approximate, I'm not going to pretend they're real like a conservative would.

One sentence kills either 100% innocents or 100% murderers. Big difference sweetie.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Also, let me explain what a pacifist is to you. As a 14 year old, I seem to know better than you.

If you say so.


A pacifist will not fight anybody.

A decent human being will fight but not kill random innocent people.

Hope this helps.

Wow I never knew that.


Also, it will be the same bomb killing terrorists and innocents, so it's not even comparable to this situation. It won't be the same trial killing innocents and murderers, so innocents shouldn't be sentenced to death if that's not killing murderers too in the SAME sentence.

One bomb kills 90% terrorists and 10% innocents, we can't change that. These figures are approximate, I'm not going to pretend they're real like a conservative would.

One sentence kills either 100% innocents or 100% murderers. Big difference sweetie.

I'm sorry but you're trying to divide it up to make some sense and it just isn't working. Taking airstrikes as a whole and the death penalty as a whole, let us say for arguments sake that the rate of innocent death is both is 10%. For arguments sake.

Now with airstrikes you're seemingly fine with them, but against giving the go ahead for the death penalty. This seems rather strange from a moral point of view to me in that you're supporting taking the action which results in innocent deaths *without* any checks and balances yet are against supporting the action which may result in innocent deaths but which has numerous checks and balances on it in regards to being charged, DNA evidence, video evidence, a trial by jury, sentencing by a Judge and multiple appeals following sentencing. Not being a pacifist I would be willing to give the go ahead to both, but I am *far* more comfortable giving the go-ahead to the death penalty which has checks and balances on than airstrikes.

Let's face it - the reason you object to the death penalty isn't the issue of innocents being killed at all. It's just a smoke-screen most people who oppose the death penalty use. Only a pacifist can take such a position in which case a pacifist shouldn't be involved in the running of State. So what's your *real* objection to the death penalty I wonder?

[hungryfront]

If you say so.



Wow I never knew that.



I'm sorry but you're trying to divide it up to make some sense and it just isn't working. Taking airstrikes as a whole and the death penalty as a whole, let us say for arguments sake that the rate of innocent death is both is 10%. For arguments sake.

Now with airstrikes you're seemingly fine with them, but against giving the go ahead for the death penalty. This seems rather strange from a moral point of view to me in that you're supporting taking the action which results in innocent deaths *without* any checks and balances yet are against supporting the action which may result in innocent deaths but which has numerous checks and balances on it in regards to being charged, DNA evidence, video evidence, a trial by jury, sentencing by a Judge and multiple appeals following sentencing. Not being a pacifist I would be willing to give the go ahead to both, but I am *far* more comfortable giving the go-ahead to the death penalty which has checks and balances on than airstrikes.

Let's face it - the reason you object to the death penalty isn't the issue of innocents being killed at all. It's just a smoke-screen most people who oppose the death penalty use. Only a pacifist can take such a position in which case a pacifist shouldn't be involved in the running of State. So what's your *real* objection to the death penalty I wonder?
My real objection is with a single bomb, you're guaranteed to kill some murderers. With a single sentence, you're not. What's so difficult to understand?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

My real objection is with a single bomb, you're guaranteed to kill some murderers. With a single sentence, you're not. What's so difficult to understand?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

We're talking about a system, not a single airstrike (no jury, judge, appeals) or single murder conviction (jury, judge, appeals). Your morality on this is upside down. On one hand you're conceding it likely you'll kill innocents with that airstrike and being willing to still do it, but on the other with a *convicted* murderer who has been put through months of trial, a jury and then multiple appeals you're then saying it isn't guaranteed. If somebody is convicted by the courts of murder then it pretty much is a given that they are guilty of that murder.

An airstrike is made in the full knowledge that innocents will more than likely be killed. But that's fine with you. I'm obviously a monster but I have far more trouble pushing the button on people I know are innocent than somebody I know - a la Ian Brady - is guilty and who the prosecutors have had to *prove* his guilt than the other way around of Brady having to prove his innocence.

I am far more content with the State killing people when it has checks and balances (death penalty) then when it does not (war).

[FlyingJesus]

You're both making morally ambiguous statements - one of you is happy to have innocent people among the detritus of war damage (somewhat reminiscent of an eggs/omelette quote) while the other is happy to have innocent people put to death as long as the govt *thinks* they're guilty

[hungryfront]

We're talking about a system, not a single airstrike (no jury, judge, appeals) or single murder conviction (jury, judge, appeals). Your morality on this is upside down. On one hand you're conceding it likely you'll kill innocents with that airstrike and being willing to still do it, but on the other with a *convicted* murderer who has been put through months of trial, a jury and then multiple appeals you're then saying it isn't guaranteed. If somebody is convicted by the courts of murder then it pretty much is a given that they are guilty of that murder.

An airstrike is made in the full knowledge that innocents will more than likely be killed. But that's fine with you. I'm obviously a monster but I have far more trouble pushing the button on people I know are innocent than somebody I know - a la Ian Brady - is guilty and who the prosecutors have had to *prove* his guilt than the other way around of Brady having to prove his innocence.

I am far more content with the State killing people when it has checks and balances (death penalty) then when it does not (war).
I'm not talking about a whole system, don't twist my words.

And let me remind you, there are alternatives to the death sentence, there's not always alternatives to war.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[dbgtz]

That's a very silly argument against the death penalty. It's like saying don't go to war or launch airstrikes against terror camps because statistically there could be innocent people killed. With any system there exists the scope for error. That said, in the modern day with DNA, video and appeals we can often now know for certain - and we certainly did with Brady and Hindley. Both of them should have been hanged as should murderers such as Ian Huntley, Michael Adebolajo, Michael Adebowale and Mark Bridger.

And if Her Majesty's Government ever needs someone to pull the trapdoor i'll do it for free.

God forbid you kill a foetus that isn't even aware of its own existence, but sure go bomb all the innocents you want. Bit of a double standard?
And in fact, yes, you shouldn't go to war (on the offensive) because innocent people will be killed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Polls suggesting the Labour Party moving up but this is not at the expense of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

865158040017829888

Possible on those numbers that the Liberal Democrats will have to fight to defend their remaining 9 seats...

864953775466741760

A few years ago we were talking about the disintegration of the two-party system.

Now the Tories and Labour are taking support *away* from Ukip, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid and the SNP.

864915766868680706



Suggestion to lemons; (thread creator) and Charlie; despect; (moderators).

Re-name the thread to UK General Election 2017 and stickie it?

[Charlie]

If lemons; and everyone else is okay with it (don't want a slap on the wrist :P), I'll happily do so.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Tory manifesto came out today and for me, this is the key part and what is deciding my vote miles ahead of anything else.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAG0aeSUQAE4KX8.jpg

Exactly what I wanted. I wasn't 100% committed to the blues until I saw this.

Already outlined in the Lancaster House speech and Government white paper, but explicit here in the manifesto.

[hungryfront]

The Tory manifesto came out today and for me, this is the key part and what is deciding my vote miles ahead of anything else.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAG0aeSUQAE4KX8.jpg

Exactly what I wanted. I wasn't 100% committed to the blues until I saw this.

Already outlined in the Lancaster House speech and Government white paper, but explicit here in the manifesto.
What's wrong with the single market? Not attacking you or anything genuinely curious.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

What's wrong with the single market? Not attacking you or anything genuinely curious.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

If you're in the Single Market then it means many of your regulations and product standards are derived from and exist in European Union Law. Increasingly the Single Market is being expanded to cover more and more sectors (a Single Digital Market and Financial Market were proposed by the EU and Cameron) so would mean even though out of the EU, more powers would be going to it as it seeks to merge the economies of Europe into one singular economy. In addition being in the Single Market requires you to accept Freedom of Movement (mass immigration) which is out of the question as well as accepting the supremacy of the European Court of Justice over British Law. I voted for independence, not vassalage.

The Customs Union on the other hand if we remained within it would mean being bound by EU tariffs to non-Customs Union countries. It leaves you unable to sign your own trade deals, instead the European Commission does it for you. We'd essentially remain bound to what is a very insular and protectionist trade bloc if we left the EU but remained within it's Customs Union - one of the biggest benefits of Brexit in the longer term is rekindling our relationships with the Commonwealth and trading once again with the world. Leaving the Customs Union will also mean taking our place again on the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Essentially Britain's relationship to the EU once we've left will be like Canada: a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

[dbgtz]

£5 says we end up remaining in the single market to some degree.

I also just want to say, to counter what Undertaker just said and lay out a positive to being in a larger common market which is cheaper goods. Also, he makes it sound like the European Commission has this divine control when in reality any member state can veto an agreement.
He also makes it sound like we can't trade outside the EU which is misleading.
One final point is that he describes the union as protectionism as if it's inherently a bad thing, which it isn't.

[-:Undertaker:-]

£5 says we end up remaining in the single market to some degree.

Both the Government white paper and European Union have ruled this out explicitly.


I also just want to say, to counter what Undertaker just said and lay out a positive to being in a larger common market which is cheaper goods.

The opposite. Due to being in the Single Market we're unable to make regulations to fit the needs of our economy and trade - having to obey rules made to fit 28 very different countries and economies. In addition, all of our economy has to abide by Single Market regulations when most of our trade and produce/service consumption takes place internally.


Also, he makes it sound like the European Commission has this divine control when in reality any member state can veto an agreement.

A veto which would no longer exist given we're leaving the EU.


He also makes it sound like we can't trade outside the EU which is misleading.

We can trade outside of the EU/Single Market sure, but on the EU's terms of trade and not our own.


One final point is that he describes the union as protectionism as if it's inherently a bad thing, which it isn't.

It can *sometimes* be a good thing. The problem was, we're being made to pay more for goods in order to protect other countries industries. French farmers protecting themselves from cheaper agricultural goods from Africa for example.

Our concern should not be the welfare of heavily unionised French farmers, but how much Britons are paying for their food.

[lemons]

If lemons; and everyone else is okay with it (don't want a slap on the wrist :P), I'll happily do so.

yes

[dbgtz]

Both the Government white paper and European Union have ruled this out explicitly.


Yes because governments always stick to their manifestos...
I mean, even looking at the text it's wishy washy.



The opposite. Due to being in the Single Market we're unable to make regulations to fit the needs of our economy and trade - having to obey rules made to fit 28 very different countries and economies. In addition, all of our economy has to abide by Single Market regulations when most of our trade and produce/service consumption takes place internally.


I mean, I'm certain what you said is complete bollocks but I cba to look it up right now. However, you've again used the word "obey" as if we we're slaves, but we (as a country) do get a say and again, can veto or opt out of decisions.
Also what regulation is it you'd like to see gone that's making the goods so expensive? Because, as far as I can see, most of this red tape people seem to complain about comes down to workers security, consumer rights and safety.

I just want to add, I literally bought something from the USA the other week and had to pay ~£14 in fees (customs + handling) so I fail to see how the single market has made anything more expensive.



A veto which would no longer exist given we're leaving the EU.


How is this even a counterpoint to my statement lmao



We can trade outside of the EU/Single Market sure, but on the EU's terms of trade and not our own.


We are part of the EU = is on our terms since we (the government) had agreed to it.



It can *sometimes* be a good thing. The problem was, we're being made to pay more for goods in order to protect other countries industries. French farmers protecting themselves from cheaper agricultural goods from Africa for example.

Our concern should not be the welfare of heavily unionised French farmers, but how much Britons are paying for their food.

From what I recall, the EU stopped flooding of cheap Chinese steel which protected our industry. It is our government who has been selling us out to foreign investment, and poorly. Just look at the UK vs French energy sector and take a look at who's doing better.

Also why did you jump from French farmers to the British public in general? Why not British farmers who are arguably fucked now if the government doesn't provide subsidies, which would lead to an increase in food prices. It is also far cheaper to import from France and most European countries than any Commonwealth country when looking at transport fees and any other non-tariff fee and considering we import a significant chunk of our food. Following in from that, 54% of our food is home grown, 27% is from the EU and 19% from the rest of the world. (https://www.theatlas.com/charts/r1pz5C5B) Yet you think leaving the EU is going to make our food... cheaper?

[lemons]

the itv 'leaders' debate tonight is so pointless with neither may or corbyn being there

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes because governments always stick to their manifestos...
I mean, even looking at the text it's wishy washy.

It seems pretty clear cut to me, out of the SM+CM. From somebody who was seeking to destroy the Conservative Party to bring all of this about, joining that splinter party and then winning: I am very content with the direction.

From the Lancaster House speech to the white paper produced by the government, to the appointment of David Davis as Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union and Liam Fox as Secretary of State for International Trade (a brand new department) it all adds up and only points to what is stated in the manifesto. Of course being politicians they could screw us over, in which case we'll have call back Nigel Farage to finish off the job.


I mean, I'm certain what you said is complete bollocks but I cba to look it up right now. However, you've again used the word "obey" as if we we're slaves, but we (as a country) do get a say and again, can veto or opt out of decisions.

I think that's just you putting a spin on it. Obey in law means exactly that, obey the law. If you are in the Single Market then you are subject to the European Court of Justice and therefore have to obey the rulings of that court.


Also what regulation is it you'd like to see gone that's making the goods so expensive? Because, as far as I can see, most of this red tape people seem to complain about comes down to workers security, consumer rights and safety.

Indeed some of that is red tape.


I just want to add, I literally bought something from the USA the other week and had to pay ~£14 in fees (customs + handling) so I fail to see how the single market has made anything more expensive.

And when we're out of the Customs Union you'll likely have to pay tariff charges too. However this purely depends on the European Union and whether or not it is willing to keep itself open with low tariffs (the British approach) or cut its nose off to spite its face and continue with French style continental economics of high tariffs and a closed economy.

If they do impose tariffs to the full extent then it'll just make it more sensible for us to buy elsewhere. Oh well!


How is this even a counterpoint to my statement lmao

You're telling me that member states have a veto. That is kind of true (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deal-national-parliaments-ecj-eu-uk-negotiate-a7739371.html) but the point is that if we remained in the Single Market but left the EU (as we are doing) then we would not have a veto as we're not members of the EU.


We are part of the EU = is on our terms since we (the government) had agreed to it.

It's regards to us signing off the package yes we're giving agreement to it, but the package hasn't been negotiated on our terms as the EU negotiates on behalf of 28 member states. So the final trade deal even if we give the go-ahead obviously isn't tailored to British interests and our terms given we were one of only 28.

If we negotiated alone, which is what we will be doing in two years time when we've left, then trade deals will be tailored to our own needs and interests rather than having to consider the interests of 27 other countries.


From what I recall, the EU stopped flooding of cheap Chinese steel which protected our industry. It is our government who has been selling us out to foreign investment, and poorly. Just look at the UK vs French energy sector and take a look at who's doing better.

Indeed and you can vote the British government out if you do not like their economic policy. You cannot vote the European Union out. If Britons desire more protectionism then let them decide that at each election, similarly if they wish to seek free market FTAs and have more open trade then the same. This is all about what we want for ourselves and not having to go by what others want.


Also why did you jump from French farmers to the British public in general?

Because when French farmers demand high tariffs on non-EU agricultural goods who pays? We the public do.


Why not British farmers who are arguably fucked now if the government doesn't provide subsidies, which would lead to an increase in food prices. It is also far cheaper to import from France and most European countries than any Commonwealth country when looking at transport fees and any other non-tariff fee and considering we import a significant chunk of our food.

That is total nonsense. Many people remember the days way before we joined the EEC when we bought New Zealand lamb and dairy very cheap despite it being on the other side of the world and before huge container ships and advanced airline travel which have made the process even faster and cheaper. I swear sometimes your side believes we're living in the 1500's where trading anything further than northern Africa is a big ask.


Following in from that, 54% of our food is home grown, 27% is from the EU and 19% from the rest of the world. (https://www.theatlas.com/charts/r1pz5C5B) Yet you think leaving the EU is going to make our food... cheaper?

Yes. Because those are the current figures whereby we've had to abide by EU tariffs.

In years to come that 19% figure will grow massively benefitting both Britain with cheaper food imports and African nations who will have more customers. It is a win-win situation apart from unionised French farmers who are going to lose 70m customers from their protectionist racket (the EU Customs Union).


http://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/files/2009/06/britemp11.jpg


That's how we used to trade. And how we will do once again. There's a world outside of Europe y'know.

[dbgtz]

It seems pretty clear cut to me, out of the SM+CM. From somebody who was seeking to destroy the Conservative Party to bring all of this about, joining that splinter party and then winning: I am very content with the direction.

From the Lancaster House speech to the white paper produced by the government, to the appointment of David Davis as Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union and Liam Fox as Secretary of State for International Trade (a brand new department) it all adds up and only points to what is stated in the manifesto. Of course being politicians they could screw us over, in which case we'll have call back Nigel Farage to finish off the job.


Soon find out



I think that's just you putting a spin on it. Obey in law means exactly that, obey the law. If you are in the Single Market then you are subject to the European Court of Justice and therefore have to obey the rulings of that court.


ok



Indeed some of that is red tape.


Name one



And when we're out of the Customs Union you'll likely have to pay tariff charges too. However this purely depends on the European Union and whether or not it is willing to keep itself open with low tariffs (the British approach) or cut its nose off to spite its face and continue with French style continental economics of high tariffs and a closed economy.

If they do impose tariffs to the full extent then it'll just make it more sensible for us to buy elsewhere. Oh well!


Yes I realise that, so by leaving you've just made everything more expensive and you've just agreed the single market makes it cheaper.



You're telling me that member states have a veto. That is kind of true (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deal-national-parliaments-ecj-eu-uk-negotiate-a7739371.html) but the point is that if we remained in the Single Market but left the EU (as we are doing) then we would not have a veto as we're not members of the EU.


Right, but my original point was down to what power an EU member state has to counter your point that we just have to blindly follow whatever rules there are.



It's regards to us signing off the package yes we're giving agreement to it, but the package hasn't been negotiated on our terms as the EU negotiates on behalf of 28 member states. So the final trade deal even if we give the go-ahead obviously isn't tailored to British interests and our terms given we were one of only 28.

If we negotiated alone, which is what we will be doing in two years time when we've left, then trade deals will be tailored to our own needs and interests rather than having to consider the interests of 27 other countries.


If the government didn't believe the agreement was in the interests of the country then they don't have to agree to it. What's so hard to understand? You seem to just hate the idea of compromise.



Indeed and you can vote the British government out if you do not like their economic policy. You cannot vote the European Union out. If Britons desire more protectionism then let them decide that at each election, similarly if they wish to seek free market FTAs and have more open trade then the same. This is all about what we want for ourselves and not having to go by what others want.


Stupid comparison there since you can indeed vote your EU parliament members out.
Yes it seems you do hate the idea of compromise too.



Because when French farmers demand high tariffs on non-EU agricultural goods who pays? We the public do.


Think you missed my question entirely but it's not important



That is total nonsense. Many people remember the days way before we joined the EEC when we bought New Zealand lamb and dairy very cheap despite it being on the other side of the world and before huge container ships and advanced airline travel which have made the process even faster and cheaper. I swear sometimes your side believes we're living in the 1500's where trading anything further than northern Africa is a big ask.


No? It's just pretty obvious it's going to be cheaper to transport something 50 km compared to 500 km.



Yes. Because those are the current figures whereby we've had to abide by EU tariffs.

In years to come that 19% figure will grow massively benefitting both Britain with cheaper food imports and African nations who will have more customers. It is a win-win situation apart from unionised French farmers who are going to lose 70m customers from their protectionist racket (the EU Customs Union).


http://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/files/2009/06/britemp11.jpg


That's how we used to trade. And how we will do once again. There's a world outside of Europe y'know.

Do you literally believe all of these nations will just bend over for us? That's the impression I'm getting from all of this. You seem to have an attachment to this group of countries as if you view it as some kind of hunky-dory family when in reality, business is business and as far as I can see, in order to get this business my rights as an individual are going to get fucked. At least under a Conservative government, not sure about Labour in its current state. That's just how I view it, anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Name one

Here's an EU regulation banning olive oil in dishes at restaurants.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2013/may/22/dishes-olive-oil-banned-restaurants-eu


Yes I realise that, so by leaving you've just made everything more expensive and you've just agreed the single market makes it cheaper.

Um no? Because you'd then be buying more products from elsewhere making a saving. If strawberries from the EU are costing £2.50 a packet and strawberries from the Gambia are costing £1.00 a packet, you don't continue buying strawberries from the EU you buy the African ones. The only areas where tariffs may raise prices will be expensive or quality goods such as Italian cycling gear and German cars like BMW. But those are luxuries anyway so a £10 tariff charge on a one-off Castelli cycling jersey worth £70 won't really make much difference on a cost of living basis.


Right, but my original point was down to what power an EU member state has to counter your point that we just have to blindly follow whatever rules there are.

Yes so you accept that given we are leaving, it therefore makes no sense to remain in the Single Market given we'd be subject to EU rulings but have no veto on the outcomes? Even less power than we had before leaving.


If the government didn't believe the agreement was in the interests of the country then they don't have to agree to it. What's so hard to understand? You seem to just hate the idea of compromise.

What if the government is putting political interests in furthering EU integration before our own economic and national interests? As I believe it was. We simply signed up to those deals to curry favour with the European project. Why take a half-arsed deal that overall you think is "ok" when you can make your own deals which you're fully satisfied with?

In short, why accept second best for the country?


Stupid comparison there since you can indeed vote your EU parliament members out.

The EU Parliament is a powerless talking shop. The power is with the Commission and the European Courts. In addition even if Britain did say elect 73 MEPs to oppose a trade deal or certain regulations, given there are 751 MEPs it counts for zilch. We could still be outvoted on what we regarded as our national interest. That's wrong and undemocratic.


Yes it seems you do hate the idea of compromise too.

I don't see why we should opt for second best to cater to the French or Slovakians, correct.


No? It's just pretty obvious it's going to be cheaper to transport something 50 km compared to 500 km.

A cost which is offset when you take into account production costs. For example it can be more economically beneficial to import a t-shirt from a Bombay factory (with transport costs and tariffs) than to buy a t-shirt made in this country.

So like I said, it isn't the 1500's and you need to stop thinking in terms of distance. Trade is past that.


Do you literally believe all of these nations will just bend over for us? That's the impression I'm getting from all of this. You seem to have an attachment to this group of countries as if you view it as some kind of hunky-dory family when in reality, business is business and as far as I can see

Business is business correct, which is why many country have already begun trade talks with us. But history is history, and given our extensive imperial links with Commonwealth countries (shared language, shared culture, shared law, shared business practices) it is not surprising that the likes of New Zealand have offered us use of their trade negotiators as a kind gesture. We're closer to New Zealand, Australia and Canada than we'll ever be to France and Germany.

We just don't view ourselves as European other than geographically. We're British: Island & Global mentality, not Continental.


in order to get this business my rights as an individual are going to get fucked. At least under a Conservative government, not sure about Labour in its current state. That's just how I view it, anyway.

Tell me what 'rights' (a popular word for benefits) you are going to lose?

[dbgtz]

Here's an EU regulation banning olive oil in dishes at restaurants.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2013/may/22/dishes-olive-oil-banned-restaurants-eu


I personally don't see what's unreasonable about that.
Didn't even happen according to this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201/EU-drops-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html and the only thing I actually found on it was to do with olive oil sold in shops.



Um no? Because you'd then be buying more products from elsewhere making a saving. If strawberries from the EU are costing £2.50 a packet and strawberries from the Gambia are costing £1.00 a packet, you don't continue buying strawberries from the EU you buy the African ones. The only areas where tariffs may raise prices will be expensive or quality goods such as Italian cycling gear and German cars like BMW. But those are luxuries anyway so a £10 tariff charge on a one-off Castelli cycling jersey worth £70 won't really make much difference on a cost of living basis.


But you've just made those numbers up so your argument is pretty pointless.



Yes so you accept that given we are leaving, it therefore makes no sense to remain in the Single Market given we'd be subject to EU rulings but have no veto on the outcomes? Even less power than we had before leaving.


I've never outright accepted we are leaving. As far as I'm concerned, anything can change in the next 2 years.
An interesting point was raised on the ITV debates though, and that is those who backed leave often advocated the "nordic model" of remaining in the single market including yourself I believe, so why are you so against that now?



What if the government is putting political interests in furthering EU integration before our own economic and national interests? As I believe it was. We simply signed up to those deals to curry favour with the European project. Why take a half-arsed deal that overall you think is "ok" when you can make your own deals which you're fully satisfied with?

In short, why accept second best for the country?


Except none of us are making these deals, and presumably the people in power are well aware of what they're doing and more than capable of knowing what they can and can't do. It's really easy to think you can get everything you want, when the reality is you can't and you need to stop believing you can.



The EU Parliament is a powerless talking shop. The power is with the Commission and the European Courts. In addition even if Britain did say elect 73 MEPs to oppose a trade deal or certain regulations, given there are 751 MEPs it counts for zilch. We could still be outvoted on what we regarded as our national interest. That's wrong and undemocratic.


I only vote for 1 mp. Counts for zilch! UNDEMOCRATIC AH! Stupid argument.
It's funny though because my relative vote "value" is higher for my MEP than MP lmao



I don't see why we should opt for second best to cater to the French or Slovakians, correct.


That's not what a compromise is.



A cost which is offset when you take into account production costs. For example it can be more economically beneficial to import a t-shirt from a Bombay factory (with transport costs and tariffs) than to buy a t-shirt made in this country.

So like I said, it isn't the 1500's and you need to stop thinking in terms of distance. Trade is past that.


It's also not the 1920s so stop mentioning the empire. Again, another stupid thing to say.
Trade is not past distance in the slightest. Lots of money and man power goes in to making cargo transport as cheap and efficient as possible.



Business is business correct, which is why many country have already begun trade talks with us. But history is history, and given our extensive imperial links with Commonwealth countries (shared language, shared culture, shared law, shared business practices) it is not surprising that the likes of New Zealand have offered us use of their trade negotiators as a kind gesture. We're closer to New Zealand, Australia and Canada than we'll ever be to France and Germany.

We just don't view ourselves as European other than geographically. We're British: Island & Global mentality, not Continental.


Nobody has begun talks with us.
You say shared language, but billions of people in the world speaks English at this point. I mean, a large part of Canada speaks French so good going there. Let's not forget the huge Asian immigration in Australia too. I'd personally argue we're far more similar to France from a historical point of view. 2 rather small European countries who basically fought to dominate the world and are basically on an even level.
You also have to recognise a lot of people in Commonwealth countries really do not like the UK, or perhaps more accurate is the British Empire which extends somewhat to the UK. It's not all roses. The only reason NZ, Aus and Canada isn't really the same is because they're basically all descendants.



Tell me what 'rights' (a popular word for benefits) you are going to lose?

I should say when I say rights, I mean that in a "that's what they call them" sense. I don't believe anybody has the right to anything. Perhaps the better word is luxury. I think a lot of safety in food is going to go out the window and, at least if this government remains, I can see a lot of workers "rights" go down the pot as far as job security is concerned. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's all going to be gutted immediately, but small things will be grinded at, so to speak. My biggest concern in all of this is that science will suffer. Also, while this isn't really related to the EU and more a current Conservative government, I think they will absolutely ruin schools and hospitals as they currently are.

I'm going to be fair actually and say it's more a lack of trust in a Conservative government to retain the status quo (or improve).

[dbgtz]

Conservative broken pledges fully sourced:
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/PDFs/One%20Tory%20manifesto%20two%20years%20of%20failur e%2050%20broken%20promises.pdf

found it interesting, especially at the fact it's sourced.

Also Sky News apparently barred from the Conservatives campaign.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sky-news-dispute-with-the-tories-2017-5

[-:Undertaker:-]

I personally don't see what's unreasonable about that.
Didn't even happen according to this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201/EU-drops-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html and the only thing I actually found on it was to do with olive oil sold in shops.

The point isn't whether you agree with European regulations or not, the point is that this country should have the ability to change and live under the regulations it chooses by a government it chooses. Not to have regulations 'locked in' via a supranational government based in a foreign capital. If you want a regulation or want to abolish a regulation, then argue for it at election time - but don't go over the electorate's head via the European Commission and Courts and impose it.


But you've just made those numbers up so your argument is pretty pointless.

Of course. It's a hypothetical. We haven't left yet...


I've never outright accepted we are leaving. As far as I'm concerned, anything can change in the next 2 years.

It really is time for you to accept it. It's happening. What exactly can change in two years to invalidate the result?


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_2fr3ZXkAA4ZPc.jpg



An interesting point was raised on the ITV debates though, and that is those who backed leave often advocated the "nordic model" of remaining in the single market including yourself I believe, so why are you so against that now?

I did argue this option to you all I remember well. Why? Because if you'll recall we were discussing the European Union's political ambitions of becoming a federal sovereign state, and I made the point to you all supporting Remain that, if you were really against a federal Europe and more powers going to Brussels then the obvious option and true option for your side would've been to advocate leaving the EU and joining EFTA along the lines of Norway and Switzerland.

Instead, you ignore me and tried pretending - as did the official campaign - that David Cameron had somehow halted the process of ever closer union and transformed the EU without any treaty change. You had your chance, and blew it.


Except none of us are making these deals, and presumably the people in power are well aware of what they're doing and more than capable of knowing what they can and can't do. It's really easy to think you can get everything you want, when the reality is you can't and you need to stop believing you can.

If the people in power are capable of knowing what they can and cannot do and are all powerful and all knowing beings compared to us mere mortals then surely you must support this government taking us out of the EU and the SM and CU. I mean, they're in power and must know what they're doing? Or does expert advice only count when it's pro-EU?


I only vote for 1 mp. Counts for zilch! UNDEMOCRATIC AH! Stupid argument.

It's funny though because my relative vote "value" is higher for my MEP than MP lmao

You vote for an MP in an election in your country which has a demos. There exists a British people with a common culture and common political culture and therefore there can be a democracy. The EU has no such thing. For example, if Liverpool Riverside outvotes Islington North in a parliamentary vote, there isn't controversy about the result because in a demos we accept that although we have differences there's a commonality between us.

In the EU there exists no demos so it is simply viewed as one country overruling another country.


That's not what a compromise is.

Correct, it was pure cowardice and lack of confidence that this country cannot make its own trade deals.


It's also not the 1920s so stop mentioning the empire. Again, another stupid thing to say.

Trade is not past distance in the slightest. Lots of money and man power goes in to making cargo transport as cheap and efficient as possible.

Distance is irrelevant with trade and with every passing year becomes more so. Most of the clothes on your back and mine are from the other side of the world made in a factory in Peking. It's a wonderful thing. Embrace it.


Nobody has begun talks with us.

Yes they have.

https://order-order.com/2016/07/29/brexit-breaking-free-global-markets/

The Government only recently hosted the first ever Commonwealth Trade Summit in London, a clear sign that our old Empire is rallying round and we're renewing those bonds. A lot of opportunity finally being realised.

http://www.cweic.org/event/commonwealth-trade-ministers-meeting/


You say shared language, but billions of people in the world speaks English at this point. I mean, a large part of Canada speaks French so good going there. Let's not forget the huge Asian immigration in Australia too. I'd personally argue we're far more similar to France from a historical point of view. 2 rather small European countries who basically fought to dominate the world and are basically on an even level.

I say shared language because we do share a language. Britain has left a strong legacy across huge swathes of the world not just with language but how we conduct our law, our outlook on trading and business, our institutions and so on.

And Britain and France aren't small. Not sure how you come to conclusion we're more similar to France than the Commonwealth realm countries when we don't share a language, have been at war many times against one another, different religion, big national rivalry, very different outlooks on economics and have totally different political systems and cultures.


You also have to recognise a lot of people in Commonwealth countries really do not like the UK, or perhaps more accurate is the British Empire which extends somewhat to the UK. It's not all roses. The only reason NZ, Aus and Canada isn't really the same is because they're basically all descendants.

If the British Empire is so unpopular in the former colonies as other empires then I doubt very much that they would choose to remain in an organisation which is basically the continuation of the former Empire, The Commonwealth.


I should say when I say rights, I mean that in a "that's what they call them" sense. I don't believe anybody has the right to anything. Perhaps the better word is luxury. I think a lot of safety in food is going to go out the window and, at least if this government remains, I can see a lot of workers "rights" go down the pot as far as job security is concerned. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's all going to be gutted immediately, but small things will be grinded at, so to speak. My biggest concern in all of this is that science will suffer. Also, while this isn't really related to the EU and more a current Conservative government, I think they will absolutely ruin schools and hospitals as they currently are.

I'm going to be fair actually and say it's more a lack of trust in a Conservative government to retain the status quo (or improve).

If you dislike a government elected here then your aim should be to argue for that governments removal via the ballot box at election time. That's what I do. I don't expect a supranational organisation which I did not elect and cannot remove to impose policies I like and lock them in as to prevent my political opponents achieving their aims.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrzfgUv3ZKk

I would rather live in a Corbyn-ran independent Britain for 100 years than a Conservative-ran European Union for 20 years. This is about sovereignty and democracy and the right of Britons to choose their own destiny. It's my birthright.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Good quote by Benn I just found then alluding to what I was saying about democratic legitimacy.


In 1991, Benn reiterated his opposition to the European Commission and highlighted an alleged democratic deficit in the institution, saying: "Some people genuinely believe that we shall never get social justice from the British Government, but we shall get it from Jacques Delors. They believe that a good king is better than a bad Parliament. I have never taken that view."

Amen to that.

[dbgtz]

The point isn't whether you agree with European regulations or not, the point is that this country should have the ability to change and live under the regulations it chooses by a government it chooses. Not to have regulations 'locked in' via a supranational government based in a foreign capital. If you want a regulation or want to abolish a regulation, then argue for it at election time - but don't go over the electorate's head via the European Commission and Courts and impose it.


But that still doesn't dismiss you linked me to a regulation that was seems to have never been implemented lmao. And again, we still have a say in the matter. None of this was ever forced upon us.

On top of all of this, decent regulations are harder to implement in a smaller market.



Of course. It's a hypothetical. We haven't left yet...


Except you could get some actual figures on costs if you wanted, rather than pull them out of thin air.



It really is time for you to accept it. It's happening. What exactly can change in two years to invalidate the result?


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_2fr3ZXkAA4ZPc.jpg


Would you have sat back and accept it if you lost? No.
An obvious but unlikely example that could change things is a massive case of fraud that nullifies the result.



I did argue this option to you all I remember well. Why? Because if you'll recall we were discussing the European Union's political ambitions of becoming a federal sovereign state, and I made the point to you all supporting Remain that, if you were really against a federal Europe and more powers going to Brussels then the obvious option and true option for your side would've been to advocate leaving the EU and joining EFTA along the lines of Norway and Switzerland.

Instead, you ignore me and tried pretending - as did the official campaign - that David Cameron had somehow halted the process of ever closer union and transformed the EU without any treaty change. You had your chance, and blew it.


Except we weren't really involved that heavily in the integration going ahead. You talked about a Nordic model without essentially realising we had our own decent little agreement. Essentially paying the same as what we would do in some kind of EFTA deal, but with a voice. No Euro, no Schengen, no EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and a rather casual acceptance of "area of freedom, security and justice", whatever that fully means.



If the people in power are capable of knowing what they can and cannot do and are all powerful and all knowing beings compared to us mere mortals then surely you must support this government taking us out of the EU and the SM and CU. I mean, they're in power and must know what they're doing? Or does expert advice only count when it's pro-EU?


If you read what I actually said, I never said they were doing the right thing, rather they just know what they can and can't do as far as policy is concerned. This whole general election is essentially down to this as far as I can tell. Theresa May knows she won't be able to push through her version of Brexit, whatever that may be, under her current majority. They know they won't be able to say no to Brexit without killing a huge chunk of support they have and essentially splitting the party up.
Let's not kid ourselves here either, a lot of the higher end Conservative MPs who even pushed for Brexit (Boris and Gove basically) never expected to win.

I never even implied any of them were experts.



You vote for an MP in an election in your country which has a demos. There exists a British people with a common culture and common political culture and therefore there can be a democracy. The EU has no such thing. For example, if Liverpool Riverside outvotes Islington North in a parliamentary vote, there isn't controversy about the result because in a demos we accept that although we have differences there's a commonality between us.

In the EU there exists no demos so it is simply viewed as one country overruling another country.


I won't bother talking too much about FPTP again, but a FPTP system with more than 2 choices is hardly democratic.

Let's talk about this so called common culture, which is a simply untrue as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to go too deep into this, but simply look at internal "conflict" and look at your own views of people outside your world and tell me how much you really have in common with them.
Hell we don't even have a common political culture given the dodgy devolution that has gone down. Then look at places like the City of London, too. This is inside your head.



Correct, it was pure cowardice and lack of confidence that this country cannot make its own trade deals.


I don't understand how this relates to what I said.



Distance is irrelevant with trade and with every passing year becomes more so. Most of the clothes on your back and mine are from the other side of the world made in a factory in Peking. It's a wonderful thing. Embrace it.


Distance is not irrelevant, stop talking out your arse. You do not work in the supply chain and have done no supply chain work.



Yes they have.

https://order-order.com/2016/07/29/brexit-breaking-free-global-markets/

The Government only recently hosted the first ever Commonwealth Trade Summit in London, a clear sign that our old Empire is rallying round and we're renewing those bonds. A lot of opportunity finally being realised.

http://www.cweic.org/event/commonwealth-trade-ministers-meeting/


The bias on that first site is unreal. Either way, listing a bunch of countries isn't exactly proof of anything. There's no words from officials or any sources at all. I could just make a website and type anything, doesn't make it true.
The latter link also doesn't prove anything about trade deals either.



I say shared language because we do share a language. Britain has left a strong legacy across huge swathes of the world not just with language but how we conduct our law, our outlook on trading and business, our institutions and so on.

And Britain and France aren't small. Not sure how you come to conclusion we're more similar to France than the Commonwealth realm countries when we don't share a language, have been at war many times against one another, different religion, big national rivalry, very different outlooks on economics and have totally different political systems and cultures.


Geographically small & historically similar. Haven't been to war with France since 1815. Religion should be canned anyway. Rivalry, and competition, isn't inherently a bad thing unless you have given up on your free market ideals? Anyway this could just keep circling so I cba to type anymore since it's a fairly irrelevant point.



If the British Empire is so unpopular in the former colonies as other empires then I doubt very much that they would choose to remain in an organisation which is basically the continuation of the former Empire, The Commonwealth.


Unpopular by the people, not governments.



If you dislike a government elected here then your aim should be to argue for that governments removal via the ballot box at election time. That's what I do. I don't expect a supranational organisation which I did not elect and cannot remove to impose policies I like and lock them in as to prevent my political opponents achieving their aims.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrzfgUv3ZKk

I would rather live in a Corbyn-ran independent Britain for 100 years than a Conservative-ran European Union for 20 years. This is about sovereignty and democracy and the right of Britons to choose their own destiny. It's my birthright.

Except people like you advocate a system that makes it hard to vote out governments. Your idea of democracy is laughable at best.
But you can remove them. In the form of MEPs, but also our EU commissioner is, well was, put forward by the government of the time.

I did not elect this government, so maybe I should just leave!!

[hungryfront]

Also even in those "statistics", 50% of people still support remain and 45% support leave. The names are misleading.

I just wish we stayed so we could change to the Euro and open all our borders. See how the right like "hard" remain and the "will of the people".

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[lemons]

Also even in those "statistics", 50% of people still support remain and 45% support leave. The names are misleading.

I just wish we stayed so we could change to the Euro and open all our borders. See how the right like "hard" remain and the "will of the people".

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
ummm even with those who voted remain the euro and open borders are not popular at all!

the will of the people was last years referendum not a yougov poll

[FlyingJesus]

Guardian put out an article pretending to compare manifestos (although it's literally just "Conservatives are LIARS and Labour will do everything they promised no doubt") and ooooops they've made the claim that Conservatives are planning to spend less on the NHS despite the actual figure being 8bn per year not per term, putting their total at 10bn above what Labour pledges. But hey who needs facts especially when you don't even open comments on the page

Also apparently Lib Dems want to hold a 2nd referendum... AFTER they've made the Brexit deal? I know they're a joke but what the hell

[dbgtz]

Guardian put out an article pretending to compare manifestos (although it's literally just "Conservatives are LIARS and Labour will do everything they promised no doubt") and ooooops they've made the claim that Conservatives are planning to spend less on the NHS despite the actual figure being 8bn per year not per term, putting their total at 10bn above what Labour pledges. But hey who needs facts especially when you don't even open comments on the page

Also apparently Lib Dems want to hold a 2nd referendum... AFTER they've made the Brexit deal? I know they're a joke but what the hell

Where did you get 8 billion a year? It literally says:

First, we will increase NHS spending by a minimum of £8 billion in real terms over the next five years, delivering an increase in real funding per head of the population for every year of the parliament

That's not the same as an increase of £8 billion every year for the next 5 years, rather it will be £8 billion more in 5 years time. It would, by their own wording, be a gradual increase which is probably more ~£24 billion in total if it's a linear increase to £8 billion, £6 billion less than Labour.

You might find this interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/6bxhts/2017_manifesto_costings/
Only compares Labour and Conservatives which is a bit boring, but informative nonetheless.

also -:Undertaker:-; in response to

It really is time for you to accept it. It's happening. What exactly can change in two years to invalidate the result?

this just popped up: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-talks-illegal-uk-expats-british-abroad-not-vote-french-lawyer-julien-fouchet-european-a7745216.html

I doubt it will come to anything but still interesting to read.

[FlyingJesus]

Even if that were how it pans out, the Guardian is still suggesting that 8bn is the total vs 30bn, which is entirely disingenuous. For it to be 24bn total extra and still hit the 8bn target that suggests only 4bn extra each year before that, which wouldn't make any sense and is all speculation in any case like most of this thread and this election as a whole. In the same vein you could suggest that Labour would only raise it by 10p each year until the 5th year and then hold an election to get out of paying the rest, it's all guesswork.

Seeing a lot of people from both sides being completely hypocritical around social media and the news... Young Labour voters spout off about hating old people and wanting the rich to get given less money then act appalled when the Conservatives pledge to not give huge benefits to old rich people who don't need it, and on the flipside got Conservatives making fun of the the claims for stopping tax avoidance and then putting the exact same thing in their own manifesto. Whole thing is a mess and is essentially a slanging match that's going to boil down to how much you like the leaders, no matter how much they both deny that being the case

[-:Undertaker:-]

I won't reply to it all - unless you really want me to - because it's clear there's a gulf of disagreement.


Would you have sat back and accept it if you lost? No. An obvious but unlikely example that could change things is a massive case of fraud that nullifies the result.

Yes, I would have. I wouldn't of had a choice: I cannot demand a referendum for all these years, actively campaign in it an then declare the result void because I didn't get my way. I'm not a Liberal Democrat.

I was asked this before the referendum when everyone was sneering at me, including friends voting Remain asking me what i'll do when we lost, and stated that *if* we lost - because I always believed it was possible for us to win - then the chance of another referendum would be over a decade away and would be on the next EU Treaty on more integration. In short, the next chance to move against the EU would be when it decided to move towards formal federalism.

I always said we would leave in my lifetime, I just didn't know whether I would see it at age 23 or age 70.


Also even in those "statistics", 50% of people still support remain and 45% support leave. The names are misleading.

I just wish we stayed so we could change to the Euro and open all our borders. See how the right like "hard" remain and the "will of the people".


Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

In true Europhile spirit, you'd blindly ignore the opinions of the public on more European integration.

This is how we got here and ultimately why we voted Leave on June 23rd 2016.

[dbgtz]

Even if that were how it pans out, the Guardian is still suggesting that 8bn is the total vs 30bn, which is entirely disingenuous. For it to be 24bn total extra and still hit the 8bn target that suggests only 4bn extra each year before that, which wouldn't make any sense and is all speculation in any case like most of this thread and this election as a whole. In the same vein you could suggest that Labour would only raise it by 10p each year until the 5th year and then hold an election to get out of paying the rest, it's all guesswork.

Seeing a lot of people from both sides being completely hypocritical around social media and the news... Young Labour voters spout off about hating old people and wanting the rich to get given less money then act appalled when the Conservatives pledge to not give huge benefits to old rich people who don't need it, and on the flipside got Conservatives making fun of the the claims for stopping tax avoidance and then putting the exact same thing in their own manifesto. Whole thing is a mess and is essentially a slanging match that's going to boil down to how much you like the leaders, no matter how much they both deny that being the case

I don't get why an average of 4 billion a year is hard to understand really. They are pledging that, in real terms, it will be £8 billion more to the budget in 5 years. They're obviously not going to put it up by £8 billion in a year, or they would have said that. A linear increase is the most sensible way to look at it.
The difference between the Conservatives and Labours wording on the matter is that Labour has pledged a fixed sum over the term. Even if Labour did only put it up 10p a year except for the last year, you're still going to get (if they stick to their word) the full £30 billion whereas Conservatives could be anywhere between just over £8 billion or, as you previously assumed, £40 billion for the entire 5 years (neither of which would realistically happen).

I think it's also worth noting that, for whatever reason, the Conservatives worded the NHS with that £8 billion by the end of the Parliament but were happy to give a fixed sum for defence.

Either way, I see neither party actually sticking to it.

[FlyingJesus]

A linear increase would mean like 2bn the first year which people would not be happy about and wouldn't do the party image any good at all, same way a fixed term amount could in theory mean cutting all spending for 4 years and then adding it all right at the end, it would just be daft for them to do it that way :P but I agree that neither would prob end up sticking to what they've said, although obv whoever loses the election will be able to claim that they would have done it

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour gaining in latest polls out today. Around 34% to 35% now. Again, not really denting Tory support.

866031653315129348

Worrying though. Although I am voting for them, the Conservative campaign has been very... flat. They're losing control of the narrative and had better hope it doesn't become one of using Corbyn as a huge protest vote. They had also best be careful that they don't attack Corbyn too personally that it is obvious - because like in the referendum and European Elections 2014, if it is just an obvious piling in on one person then it doesn't look good and people react badly to it.

Get back to core messages and keep repeating. Brexit. Immigration. Tax cuts. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

[dbgtz]

Strong and stable, strong and stable, strong and stable.

Some speculate the shitty campaigning is somewhat down to the idea people won't vote if the Conservatives are too far ahead. Also they've been attacking Corbyn for quite a while, and quite hypocritically too. Can't find the exact quote, but Theresa Mao said something like "politics isn't about games" or something then proceeded to just sling some shit.

[FlyingJesus]

Most of the personal stuff I've seen said has been aimed at May, Corbyn just gets called a communist but she gets witch, devil, murderer, all sorts. I don't like either of them but found it hilarious to see people on fb genuinely complaining that HIGNFY didn't insult May enough and dared to say something mean about Corbyn at one point. But yeah been shit campaigns all round, one based entirely on a three word phrase that's so over repeated it's become a joke and the other pretty much based on psychic predictions and not understanding how privatisation works

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's very annoying political activists/people interested in politics hounding everyone to register to vote. It's okay to not vote. A lot of people aren't interested in politics and others might just not like the options on the ballot paper. That's fine.

I reserve my right not to vote and to not be hounded for it by people who are only ever interested 3 weeks before an election.

[hungryfront]

It's very annoying political activists/people interested in politics hounding everyone to register to vote. It's okay to not vote. A lot of people aren't interested in politics and others might just not like the options on the ballot paper. That's fine.

I reserve my right not to vote and to not be hounded for it by people who are only ever interested 3 weeks before an election.
Even if you're not interested in politics, it's still affects you. Those people that don't vote are the ones that complain about who won, or support them - if you don't vote, don't take credit.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

People who don't vote are still allowed opinions on how things pan out. I'm split at the moment between voting blue or just spoiling the ballot because although I think Labour will destroy everything in the name of being nice I don't actively support a lot of what the Conservatives want to do either and the others let's face it are just joke parties at this point

[hungryfront]

People who don't vote are still allowed opinions on how things pan out. I'm split at the moment between voting blue or just spoiling the ballot because although I think Labour will destroy everything in the name of being nice I don't actively support a lot of what the Conservatives want to do either and the others let's face it are just joke parties at this point
Yeah you're still allowed an opinion, it just annoys me when people don't vote then complain who was voted in.

If you'd like to look at the state of the country with the conservatives, feel free. In one year of conservatives in power, two terrorist attacks have happened. They're not going to be able to stop terrorism so don't fall for it.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

1) Not voting is just as valid as voting an opposition party in terms of being allowed to complain about the winner. In either case you didn't want them in

2) Blaming the Conservatives for the existence of terrorism is fucking stupid, not to mention wholly insensitive and nothing to do with anything that I said. 7/7 happened under Labour, but I don't try to score cheap points by claiming that Blair told them to do it because I'm not a dick

[dbgtz]

Should really spoil your ballot instead of absolutely nothing.

[hungryfront]

1) Not voting is just as valid as voting an opposition party in terms of being allowed to complain about the winner. In either case you didn't want them in

2) Blaming the Conservatives for the existence of terrorism is **** stupid, not to mention wholly insensitive and nothing to do with anything that I said. 7/7 happened under Labour, but I don't try to score cheap points by claiming that Blair told them to do it because I'm not a dick
I'm just doing what conservatives do. Blame things on a party instead of actual people.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

There you go again making baseless accusations and pretending it's a good thing to do

[hungryfront]

There you go again making baseless accusations and pretending it's a good thing to do
I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine as a whole. It doesn't feel nice to be stereotyped, does it?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

My medicine? Please do tell me where I've been doing any of this. You're really showing your age here, and basically what you're doing is just Dan in reverse

[lemons]

867848021182173185

wow! may now has just a 5 point lead in the polls and maybe I'm wrong but I'm sure ed miliband was never at 38

867851727575408640

this is a welsh poll from a few days ago

866670257968214016

[dbgtz]

Excellent. Fingers crossed for a hung parliament.

[FlyingJesus]

Hung parliament would be awful, it'd almost certainly see Lib Dems grab some power again

[dbgtz]

I'd rather see a coalition with the Lib Dems than any outright majority. Though, it would almost certainly have to be at least 3 parties.

[MKR&*42]

This reminds me of something I saw on Reddit the other day, along the lines of:

They said it was impossible for the tories to lose. Well Theresa May is going out of her way to show that nothing is impossible.

I mean it genuinely astounds me that Labour have actually gained in light of the Manchester attacks.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Uh oh. That poll is very worrying, the thought that Diane Abbott is only 5% away from becoming Foreign & Commonwealth Secretary and a virtual communist who supports the IRA and Argentina becoming Prime Minister.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAs3p9YXsAA0YrQ.jpg


I'd rather see a coalition with the Lib Dems than any outright majority. Though, it would almost certainly have to be at least 3 parties.

Yes, because a three-way coalition with the SNP who want to dissolve the country will be great for the country. Not.

The only benefit of a Hung Parliament would be that it isn't a Labour majority and that we'd be back at the polls again before 2018.

[FlyingJesus]

Scary that 41% of those polled would support imprisoning people for saying words. Only 2,052 people polled which makes it completely useless as usual but even so

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am *seriously* worried. Her numbers are tanking and it's not like we're a day away. We're still two weeks away.

867875607044141056

[lemons]

CCHQ will still be confident of an election win but the majority really is not going to take off from where it is at the moment, they were aiming for a landslide and I reckon they will gain no more than 15 or so seats!

Tbh the Jeremy surge hasn't been surprising to me, the manifesto is impressive and won me over so I'll be voting Labour! (which I wasn't even considering at the beginning of this thread)

[hungryfront]

Theresa has gone back on promises, so what's beyond me is why people are still supporting her (even though she was unelected by the public in the first place). Jeremy Corbyn is a man who just wants to help the public, not the rich. He went to the Manchester Vigil without filming it to get attention, just to pay respect. The conservatives have had 7 years, services like the police and NHS are seriously underfunded, so what makes you think they can fix it?

Also, if you're voting them for change, they've had 7 years to do that and haven't. They won't do it now, either.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

868001170656296960


Jeremy Corbyn is a man who just wants to help the public, not the rich.

And the IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas, Argentina, Spain and the EU.

[hungryfront]

868001170656296960



And the IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas, Argentina, Spain and the EU.
Ooh no, someone sticking to remaining, how awful. At least he doesn't change his mind 50 times.

Prove the rest, otherwise they're invalid. Also, Maria Gatland was an actual IRA member.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

hungryfront;

A simple Google search with 'Corbyn' next to anyone of those words will bring you it all. He's awful.

[hungryfront]

hungryfront;

A simple Google search with 'Corbyn' next to anyone of those words will bring you it all. He's awful.
The first thing that came up was he regrets calling MEMBERS of Hamaz and Hezbollah friends, so good one.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

To be fair it's far easier to find these "broken promises" with a party that's actually been in power recently :P Corbyn hasn't broken any because he's never had the power to, but the majority of those who do remember living and working under a Labour government are voting Conservative

[-:Undertaker:-]

868177186397802496

Corbyn shares event stages with people that are the equivalent to the Manchester bomber. Disgusting.

You were saying your Google search turned up nothing?

[hungryfront]

To be fair it's far easier to find these "broken promises" with a party that's actually been in power recently [emoji14] Corbyn hasn't broken any because he's never had the power to, but the majority of those who do remember living and working under a Labour government are voting Conservative
But that's not Jeremy Corbyn breaking the promises, it's Gordon Brown or whoever. It is actually Theresa May breaking promises, on the other hand.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

That's my point - Corbyn has never had the power to break any promises, so it's easy for him not to :P

[dbgtz]

Uh oh. That poll is very worrying, the thought that Diane Abbott is only 5% away from becoming Foreign & Commonwealth Secretary and a virtual communist who supports the IRA and Argentina becoming Prime Minister.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAs3p9YXsAA0YrQ.jpg


http://cdn-03.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article35272854.ece/390f1/AUTOCROP/w620/Theresa-May-006.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-hs2-cost-wrong-20bn-radio-interview-highspeed-railway-4-today-programme-election-2017-a7742006.html



Yes, because a three-way coalition with the SNP who want to dissolve the country will be great for the country. Not.

The only benefit of a Hung Parliament would be that it isn't a Labour majority and that we'd be back at the polls again before 2018.

Let's be honest, there's 0 chance of SNP being in government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-hs2-cost-wrong-20bn-radio-interview-highspeed-railway-4-today-programme-election-2017-a7742006.html

Like I said, you need to read up on Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is appalling to our standards yes, but what stands ready to take over should the royal family ever fall is a million times worse. Saudi Arabia as a country is a coalition/pact.

So no, PM May standing in an official capacity with the legitimate government of a foreign state with whom we depend on in the Middle East isn't same as Jeremy Corbyn as a far-left backbench MP associating with enemies of Britain.


Let's be honest, there's 0 chance of SNP being in government.

Where are all these MPs going to come from then for your favoured 3-way coalition?

The SNP is the third largest party with 56 seats. A Hung Parliament may mean you have no choice.

[MKR&*42]

Eugh I don't know how to post the twitter things on here properly so here's the link: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/868505634332913664

CON: 45% (-1)
LAB: 35% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-)

(via @OpiniumResearch / 23 - 25 May)

So the fact that labour are gaining is pretty much apparent now based on this poll and two other recent ones.

There are 5/6 more polls out tonight which'll give a clearer idea (well that's a greatly over-optimistic view of polling tbqh admdittedly) of roughly how much the conservative lead actually is, considering the three most recent have said 5%, 8%, 10% and 12% christ it's no wonder people are so sceptical of polling.

Still loving the lib dem surge :-)

Oh here's another from today: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/868512679702429697

CON: 46% (-2)
LAB: 34% (+4)
LDEM: 8% (-2)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 2% (-1)

(via @ComRes / 24 - 26 May)

[FlyingJesus]

The last GE, Indyref, and the Brexit vote were both wildly off what polls suggested. Why anyone still believes in them is beyond me - you absolutely cannot determine the opinions of 65 million individuals by asking 0.003% of the people what they reckon

[MKR&*42]

Didn't the Brexit polls have it down to 50/50 towards the vote - I'm sure I recall it being incredibly close? But they did think Remain would win which was evidently quite wrong.

[lemons]

remember how shook everyone was at the 10pm exit poll in the 2015 election looool ppl thought it was gunna be hung parliament not a tory majority

[-:Undertaker:-]

Polling is broadly accurate: correct (within MoE) in 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, Scottish referendum, EU referendum. If polling was as useless as its detractors claim, that we can't tell opinions of 70m on sample 1,000: then the polling industry wouldn't exist, political parties wouldn't base their strategies around them, academics and studies wouldn't cite them, huge amounts of money wouldn't be placed on them and we'd all be wondering whether Tim Farron was heading for Number 10 in two weeks time.

[dbgtz]

Like I said, you need to read up on Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is appalling to our standards yes, but what stands ready to take over should the royal family ever fall is a million times worse. Saudi Arabia as a country is a coalition/pact.

So no, PM May standing in an official capacity with the legitimate government of a foreign state with whom we depend on in the Middle East isn't same as Jeremy Corbyn as a far-left backbench MP associating with enemies of Britain.


How are the people funding ISIS not enemies of Britain :O



Where are all these MPs going to come from then for your favoured 3-way coalition?

The SNP is the third largest party with 56 seats. A Hung Parliament may mean you have no choice.

I think you'll find what I actually said was that if there were to be a coalition then it would probably have to be at least 3 parties.

[lemons]

868560077413900288

A new poll :) JC 6 points behind

On the other hand, this other poll has JC down 2 points!

868564083171315712

[FlyingJesus]

lol polls still exist despite being WILDLY wrong (margin of error? polls suggested Hillary had an 85% chance of winning, predictions for the 2015 GE were about by about 60 seats before the actual voting, and the lead for "No" in the Scottish referendum was predicted 6% lower and therefore too close to call) because of how financially lucrative they are. No-one at yougov is suddenly gonna go "oh yeah we're wrong all the time about everything, time to call it a day" are they, they're going to claim that they're close enough and come up with a load of nonsense to get the political chaps to keep paying for it all. Mathematically it's even less useful than asking two members of the forum a question and suggesting that everyone agrees with whatever they say.

As you said, it's an industry, and people who run industries (especially ones that get a bootload of government money for doing very little) don't just quit gracefully when they become old and obsolete

[-:Undertaker:-]

Polls are showing Labour improving, but exactly what is driving the Labour rise we're not sure. My feeling is that Labour could be surging in their own seats with loyalists and students motivated, but not elsewhere. And it's the swing seats that matter.

Important to remember though that...

868565729167257600

868566525246144513

868520881810747392

Another out just now from ICM.

Interesting to note the death penalty support figures, I have said for a while it'd win a referendum to restore it. If the Conservatives were truly right-wing, they'd add this restoration to their manifesto. Controversial but hugely popular across the country. A winner.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA3gyttXgAAWyqT.jpg


lol polls still exist despite being WILDLY wrong (margin of error? polls suggested Hillary had an 85% chance of winning, predictions for the 2015 GE were about by about 60 seats before the actual voting, and the lead for "No" in the Scottish referendum was predicted 6% lower and therefore too close to call) because of how financially lucrative they are. No-one at yougov is suddenly gonna go "oh yeah we're wrong all the time about everything, time to call it a day" are they, they're going to claim that they're close enough and come up with a load of nonsense to get the political chaps to keep paying for it all. Mathematically it's even less useful than asking two members of the forum a question and suggesting that everyone agrees with whatever they say.

As you said, it's an industry, and people who run industries (especially ones that get a bootload of government money for doing very little) don't just quit gracefully when they become old and obsolete

No polls said that Clinton had a 85% chance of winning, thus proving you have no idea of polling. You're confusing actual polling with newspaper and/or bookies odds which are completely different things. Polling isn't 100% right obviously, and things like unpredictable turnout can skew, but they're a fairly decent method of measuring public opinion.

Every policy and slogan put out by political parties is tested via focus groups and polls. It works.


I think you'll find what I actually said was that if there were to be a coalition then it would probably have to be at least 3 parties.
Given you seemingly want a coalition to happen, do you think it would be good for the country to have Nicola Sturgeon, a woman who wants to break up the country, as Kingmaker? Hand her the ability to bring down HM Government?

Thank God for FPTP.

[hungryfront]

Theresa May keeps going back on her promises. Jeremy Corbyn is a genuine man. Why do people trust her and not him?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Theresa May keeps going back on her promises. Jeremy Corbyn is a genuine man. Why do people trust her and not him?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

The reason being that the British people aren't all too keen on marxism. Most of us like our monarchy, support the right of Gibraltar, the Falklands and Northern Ireland to stay British, abhor Hamas and the IRA and want nuclear weapons to keep our country safe and powerful. He's genuine in that he is quite clear he wants to abolish the monarchy, hand over Ulster and the colonies and associate with terrorist groups. And make us powerless and reliant on the USA by scrapping Trident.

He's genuine alright, which is why older people - who aren't taken in easily - will turn out in droves to stop him.

[FlyingJesus]

No polls said that Clinton had a 85% chance of winning, thus proving you have no idea of polling. You're confusing actual polling with newspaper and/or bookies odds which are completely different things.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
"The estimates on this page are based on pre-election polls."
No obviously polls and estimates are not the same thing, but if you can't use polls to make estimates then they're even more useless than I'm claiming them to be


Every policy and slogan put out by political parties is tested via focus groups and polls. It works.

Ok cool story but that has bollock all to do with election intention polling. I didn't say that no poll in any situation is ever a good thing, I said that these polls are pointless and (in recent years) massively wrong


Jeremy Corbyn is a genuine man

Based on what? He's never been in power before so hasn't been able to make or break promises :P

[hungryfront]

Based on what? He's never been in power before so hasn't been able to make or break promises :P

He's got the lowest financial claims (forgot what they're called, when you get your employer to pay for your resources) of any MP that's taken them this year, and his policies aren't in the interests of himself. He won't benefit from free tuition or taxing the top 5%, he's doing it to help the nation.

Theresa May would benefit from her policies, however:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-philip-may-amazon-starbucks-google-capital-group-philip-morris-a7133231.html

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Article says she's clamping down on tax avoidance (which everyone says but can never do) so can't see the policies that are making her money there. None of them make up policies to help themselves get rich lol they do it to get in power, expenses are an oddity that should be looked into more but it's the fault of the system that they get so high, been a very calculated plan from Corbyn making sure his is low just so he can make a point of it and do his "man of the people" thing

[hungryfront]

Article says she's clamping down on tax avoidance (which everyone says but can never do) so can't see the policies that are making her money there. None of them make up policies to help themselves get rich lol they do it to get in power, expenses are an oddity that should be looked into more but it's the fault of the system that they get so high, been a very calculated plan from Corbyn making sure his is low just so he can make a point of it and do his "man of the people" thing
If she says she's clamping down on it, why hasn't she already?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Because it's impossible tbh. No-one can do it but they all claim it every election and have done since forever :P the only way to stop tax avoidance is to severely restrict what people are allowed to buy or own (for personal) or charge enormous rates for foreign transfers (for business), the former of which is an infringement on liberties and the latter a nightmare for the economy

[MKR&*42]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/28/amber-rudd-to-stand-in-for-theresa-may-in-televised-leaders-debate

What is May doing, is she trying to make herself seem weak by hiding from literally everyone and everything. The other party leaders on the debate are going to make so many jibs at the fact she won't have turned up and it will not look good for her at all.

Amber Rudd also has the personality of a slug so it baffles me they chose her.

And for the love of God if Corbyn doesn't go they best not send Abbott or that is labour well and truly finished.

[FlyingJesus]

To be fair if I was invited to a room with Farron, Wood, Nuttall, and Lucas I would make all the excuses I could to not go. Realistically at this point she has very little to gain through a televised debate and potentially something to lose since the minor parties can all make whatever claims they want safe in the knowledge that they'll never be in power to enact such plans

[-:Undertaker:-]

Corbyn's expenses are so low because he's MP for Islington North - a short tube ride from Westminster. A little different from a Highlands, Londonderry or Hull MP who is travelling back and forth and often needing somewhere to stay over in central London.

Even if his expenses are £0 it still doesn't mitigate the country's expenses if he became PM.

[dbgtz]

Only read the 1 post above, but I don't recall anyone being outraged at travel expenses. It's more the duck houses, needless second homes which exist for the wrong reasons or the £39 spent on breakfast.

EDIT: OK read the reply -:Undertaker:-;, conveniently only replying to the bit about the SNP, nice one!
The thing is, even if the SNP got into a coalition (they won't), they will not outright be like "lol independent now". It will be a referendum to the Scottish people and for someone so keen on direct democracy, then you should support it. Sure, it may seem too soon since the previous one, but that is purely an opinion. It's arguable they even have the mandate to do so.

[-:Undertaker:-]

EDIT: OK read the reply @-:Undertaker:- (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233);, conveniently only replying to the bit about the SNP, nice one!
The thing is, even if the SNP got into a coalition (they won't), they will not outright be like "lol independent now". It will be a referendum to the Scottish people and for someone so keen on direct democracy, then you should support it. Sure, it may seem too soon since the previous one, but that is purely an opinion. It's arguable they even have the mandate to do so.

I haven't said I am keen on direct democracy?

[MKR&*42]

If anyone's interested:

The latest line-up for extra election programmes:

Sun 28 May, 18:00: Andrew Neil interview with Nicola Sturgeon (BBC1)
Mon 29 May, 19:30: Andrew Neil interview with Paul Nuttall (BBC1)
Mon 29 May, 20:30: Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn (Sky News and Channel 4)
Wed 31 May, 1930: BBC debate with key figures from seven parties (BBC1)
Thu 1 June 19:00: Andrew Neil interview with Tim Farron (BBC1)
Fri 2 June, 20:30: Question Time with Theresa May (BBC1)
Sun 4 June, 18:00: Question Time with Nicola Sturgeon and Tim Farron (BBC1)
Sun 4 June, 22:35: Election Questions with Paul Nuttall and Jonathan Bartley (BBC1 England, 22:05 in Wales)
Sun 4 June, 23:35: Election Questions with Leanne Wood (BBC1 England, 22:35 in Wales)
Tue 6 June, 2030: BBC Newsbeat youth debate (Radio 1 and News Channel, later on BBC1)
Thu 8 June, 2155: Rolling coverage for results on BBC1 and News Channel through the evening and across Friday
Fri 9 June, 2100: Additional Question Time

[lemons]

This video from the Conservatives attacking Jeremy Corbyn has gone viral

https://www.facebook.com/conservatives/videos/10155027173824279/

[MKR&*42]

I think that video has only put them (the conservatives) in a bad light tbh. I've seen a lot of tory voters who aren't happy with the video because it's so distasteful.

I genuinely think it was a very bad move for them but hey this entire election seems to be the Continuing Conservative Car Crash.

[lemons]

I think that video has only put them (the conservatives) in a bad light tbh. I've seen a lot of tory voters who aren't happy with the video because it's so distasteful.

I genuinely think it was a very bad move for them but hey this entire election seems to be the Continuing Conservative Car Crash.

yes but it's the sort of thing that will influence your average voter

i heard it was put together by peeps from obama team and torys 2015

[MKR&*42]

Polls actually show that a lot of people simply do not care about Jeremy Corbyn's IRA/Terrorist palava, because it's all the media has complained about for 2 years so people have pretty much adjusted to it. It is a dead issue and a sign of desperation from the party who have absolutely nothing left to offer :P

Young people, most of all, do not care - and this is exactly who the video is hitting.


From ICM Unlimited
24% of voters think Corbyn's "close links" with IRA leaders make him a "statesman ahead of his time willing to take risks to achieve peace."
29% think they make him a "dangerous threat to Britain's national security"
27% think they make him "neither"
20% "Don't know"

55% of over 75s think Corbyn's links with the IRA make him a dangerous threat to national security; 49% of over 65s; only 20% of 18-24s

[FlyingJesus]

Basically kids are easily sucked into the cult of personality and won't be swayed no matter what once they've made a choice :P that's the reason he's only tries to appeal to the young and why he wants to lower the voting age to 16 - idealist youngsters don't care about reality as long as someone "seems" like a nice person

[-:Undertaker:-]

One of the few benefits of having a socialist government come in under Corbyn is that it would teach the country once again, as it did during the disasterous 1970s, of just why socialism does not work. The Winter of Discontent: communist Unions holding the government to ransom, the dead being left unburied, blackouts across the country, the 3-day week, our inner cities virtually collapsing and the country being humiliatingly bailed out by the IMF. Not to mention local councils being taken over by literal Marxist lunatics: London councils were flying the Red Flag instead of the Union Jack over town halls, and Liverpool was at the centre of the Militant group (like Corbyn's Momentum) that was hijacking the Labour Party.

My city only started recovering in 2008 onwards after the Liberal Democrats (to give them their due) put together the Liverpool One project along with the Tory aristocrat, the Duke of Westminster. The marxists in Militant put us back by 40 years.


http://www.grosvenor.com/getattachment/7a87cf4e-f777-4e9d-b5cd-79d065f4a0b4/Liverpool-One/?width=1024

[lemons]

Anti-May song currently at No2 on itunes chart - ppl hoping BBC would be 'forced' to play during their chart show but I'm pretty sure they only do songs 20-1 and only a few from 40-21! also when maggie thatcher died ding dong the witch is dead was no2 and they didn't play it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-liar-liar-song-tenth-place-captain-ska-big-top-40-download-chart-a7761091.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8

[MKR&*42]

Paxman taking on May and Corbyn at 8:30 tonight (channel 4 or sky news), can't wait :P

[wixard]

those harping on about jeremy corbyns IRA links are completely arrogant. the majority of the british public have no idea about the irish troubles, or ireland in general tbh. every military force in n.i during that time were terrorists. stop pretending you give a shit about northern ireland

[lemons]

jezza was a bit shakey during his bit but he did well! paxman was a ***** but im sure he will be to theresa too

[MKR&*42]

Paxman was an absolute state in that interview, I've never seen him come across so bad and based on audience response Corbyn came across a lot better.

Theresa's doing quite well with the audience Q&A tbh so she might pull it off as well which would be an accomplishment for her.

[FlyingJesus]

I don't like Paxman in general, he's constantly trying to make people trip up rather than actually get any proper answers and doesn't listen to the person he's interviewing because he has his script that he wants to get through

[-:Undertaker:-]

those harping on about jeremy corbyns IRA links are completely arrogant. the majority of the british public have no idea about the irish troubles, or ireland in general tbh. every military force in n.i during that time were terrorists. stop pretending you give a shit about northern ireland

Oh I do apologise, I forgot that only you are entitled to an opinion about the Troubles and only you care. Right.

And no, not every military force in Northern Ireland was a terrorist group so do not attempt to slur the British armed forces which keep you safe while you live and work in *our* country with comparing them to evil scumbags who plant bombs to kill civilians.

The IRA and UVF were terrorist groups, not Her Majesty's Armed Forces who were keeping order and protecting the *vast majority* of people in Northern Ireland who do not share Gerry Adam's and Martin McGuinness' lunatic dream of the Republic annexing the north. Typical of so many Irish nationalists, a huge chip on their shoulder in regards to the British but decides to live here.

[MKR&*42]

I do agree in part about Paxman actually :P I think Andrew Neil would have been a better choice here really, and May got nowhere near the grilling that Corbyn did.

Though May performed IMO much, much weaker against him compared to Corbyn besides the last 5 minutes.

Loved that 1 man standing ovation ;)

Bring on Wednesday's debate and I look forward to seeing who Labour will send...really leaving it till the last minute here.

[lemons]

Jeremy won that 100%!

[-:Undertaker:-]

I haven't been watching any debates nor do I plan to really, the increasing Presidentialisation of our politics is nauseating. Turns me off completely. I only wanted David Cameron to face debates given he was all for them and raised the idea against Gordon Brown when he thought he could win but ran away like a big pussy from any debate with Nigel Farage. :P

If from this point on we agree to drop all these debates but have *real* town-hall style meetings across country then yes please!

[Martin]

I'm guessing the man that did the standing ovation was a family member or something, or May paid him beforehand ;)

I don't think either really achieved anything ground-breaking in the interviews. I found the interviewer guy really annoying too at times how he interrupted them.

[hungryfront]

I haven't been watching any debates nor do I plan to really, the increasing Presidentialisation of our politics is nauseating. Turns me off completely. I only wanted David Cameron to face debates given he was all for them and raised the idea against Gordon Brown when he thought he could win but ran away like a big pussy from any debate with Nigel Farage. [emoji14]

If from this point on we agree to drop all these debates but have *real* town-hall style meetings across country then yes please!
Debates are important because they're not scripted. Speeches politicians do are written by somebody else, not by the actual politician.

Jeremy Corbyn answered questions much better than Theresa, who just avoided the questions.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

869310335894925313


Debates are important because they're not scripted. Speeches politicians do are written by somebody else, not by the actual politician.

Not really, provided the politician knows what to reel off they usually get away with it.

Decades ago - Harold Wilson was the last to do so - prospective Prime Ministers used to have huge public meetings in all the British cities whether they had a chance there or not: they would tour Liverpool, Manchester, London, Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Newcastle - all the major cities and would face the public in a non-controlled environment. Now it is all in studios/makeshift studios. It's sterile.


Jeremy Corbyn answered questions much better than Theresa, who just avoided the questions.

I haven't watched the debate like I said, but you must've been watching another debate tonight to everyone else then as I just saw a clip on Sky News of Jeremy Corbyn avoiding a question on whether he would give the go-ahead for an airstrike on terrorists.

[FlyingJesus]

Neither of them were that great (or that bad) but the person who 1000% came off as looking worst tonight was Paxman. Absolute clown acting like Jeremy Kyle and repeating questions that had already been answered. Last few days I've been tempted to just draw a massive penis on the ballot paper but now I'm worried that'll count as a vote for Paxman

[hungryfront]

I haven't watched the debate like I said, but you must've been watching another debate tonight to everyone else then as I just saw a clip on Sky News of Jeremy Corbyn avoiding a question on whether he would give the go-ahead for an airstrike on terrorists.
He voiced his opinion and said he would give the letters to nuclear commanders (therefore would use them). Nice try, next strong and stable point?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

He voiced his opinion and said he would give the letters to nuclear commanders (therefore would use them). Nice try, next strong and stable point?

I wasn't talking about the nuclear letters, so nice curveball you've thrown there. I just saw him on television point blank avoid the question on whether he would authorise airstrikes on terrorists. So much for plain speaking Jeremy, along with the fact whenever his past support for the IRA comes up he witters on about wanting peace - that's all very well and good but since when did somebody who wanted peace back a terrorist group that blew up and killed innocent people?

869281563426471936

He can't even answer what *you* brought up - whether he would be prepared to authorise nuclear missile launches.

[hungryfront]

I wasn't talking about the nuclear letters, so nice curveball you've thrown there. I just saw him on television point blank avoid the question on whether he would authorise airstrikes on terrorists. So much for plain speaking Jeremy, along with the fact whenever his past support for the IRA comes up he witters on about wanting peace - that's all very well and good but since when did somebody who wanted peace back a terrorist group that blew up and killed innocent people?

869281563426471936

He can't even answer what *you* brought up - whether he would be prepared to authorise nuclear missile launches.
Dude he signed a document in 1994 against the IRA.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dude he signed a document in 1994 against the IRA.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Exactly my point, Mr Honest is in reality Mr Two Face.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpXHGBxXgAAVXw_.jpg

[hungryfront]

Exactly my point, Mr Honest is in reality Mr Two Face.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpXHGBxXgAAVXw_.jpg
Oh look, the past. Irrelevant.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh look, the past. Irrelevant.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Irrelevant!? This guy hasn't changed any of his opinions and dodges questions on every single issue. Whether it's what he really believes on the IRA, whether he would launch nuclear weapons and whether he would authorise airstrikes on terrorists.

Let's face it. He still believes what he's believed all of his life but knows it goes down like a lead balloon with public. His cult like student following seem to take "I want peace" from Jeremy as a suitable answer to every foreign policy and security question he's given. But for those with critical thinking faculties, we deserve better answers than that. I want to know as Prime Minister if he condemns the IRA, will use airstrikes on terrorist camps and whether he'll launch nuclear missiles in our defence.

If he gives an answer I don't like then fine, but at least give us a bleeding answer and not a Miss World speech.

869283733685366790

None of this is a personal attack either as he's been as *clear as day* for decades on these issues. His record speaks for itself and I think anyone who isn't to the right of Karl Marx and to the left of Vladimir Lenin would agree it's an appalling record.

[hungryfront]

Irrelevant!? This guy hasn't changed any of his opinions and dodges questions on every single issue. Whether it's what he really believes on the IRA, whether he would launch nuclear weapons and whether he would authorise airstrikes on terrorists.

Let's face it. He still believes what he's believed all of his life but knows it goes down like a lead balloon with public. His cult like student following seem to take "I want peace" from Jeremy as a suitable answer to every foreign policy and security question he's given. But for those with critical thinking faculties, we deserve better answers than that. I want to know as Prime Minister if he condemns the IRA, will use airstrikes on terrorist camps and whether he'll launch nuclear missiles in our defence.

If he gives an answer I don't like then fine, but at least give us a bleeding answer and not a Miss World speech.

869283733685366790

None of this is a personal attack either as he's been as *clear as day* for decades on these issues. His record speaks for itself and I think anyone who isn't to the right of Karl Marx and to the left of Vladimir Lenin would agree it's an appalling record.
You complain he's going to take us back to the 70s, yet bring up his views from years ago. We should not be focusing on a politicians past which is seemingly your only point against Jeremy Corbyn, but focusing on the party and the politician going forward and their policies, which is where Theresa May is flawed. You say Jeremy Corbyn is against the army, which is fantastically untrue and exaggerated, he's just against bombing people but is putting democracy above his own views. Theresa May has continued to cut funding for this nation's future, when without a future, we don't really have a "strong and stable" nation. It'll collapse in a few years under her.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Theresa May has continued to cut funding for this nation's future

But that's in the past ;)
Corbyn again shamelessly appealing to the kids today announcing 4 more bank holidays if you vote for him, woooo corporate bribery

[hungryfront]

But that's in the past ;)
Corbyn again shamelessly appealing to the kids today announcing 4 more bank holidays if you vote for him, woooo corporate bribery
Not 10, 20 years ago, but days ago and currently happening. My local A&E is closing down thanks to her, meaning my nearest will be 25 minutes away by car instead of 5.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

You have a Labour council

[hungryfront]

You have a Labour council
No, we don't. Our MP is conservative.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

That's not the same thing as the council, the council are the ones who actually run the place and they're Labour since 2011

[hungryfront]

That's not the same thing as the council, the council are the ones who actually run the place and they're Labour since 2011
The council still only gets so much money and can only do so much with that money - they have to stop spending somewhere, and Theresa wants that to be the NHS.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[ashishverma955]

Exactly!! Agreed.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Let's hope the historical trend isn't bucked.

869518752639070208


You complain he's going to take us back to the 70s, yet bring up his views from years ago. We should not be focusing on a politicians past which is seemingly your only point against Jeremy Corbyn, but focusing on the party and the politician going forward and their policies, which is where Theresa May is flawed.

Hang on a second, virtually everyone of his supporters have always said we should focus on his past and his record given he's held the same views for all these years. And it's perfectly true, he has. So let's hold him to them.

He's unashamedly republican, pacifist, would hand over Ulster, the Falklands and Gibraltar. That's PM material?


You say Jeremy Corbyn is against the army, which is fantastically untrue and exaggerated, he's just against bombing people but is putting democracy above his own views.

EVERYBODY is, in an ideal fantasy world, against bombing people from The Queen to Theresa May to me. Who honestly is eager to drop bombs? But the world is more complicated than that, and certainly is when you're the head of the British government and having to take decisions with your cabinet on national security. The naive worldview of a Sixth Former who wants peace for the people's of Earth is all well and good, but no good for a prospective Prime Minister to hold.

He's on *record* as saying he wants to cut back the already-struggling Armed Forces.


Theresa May has continued to cut funding for this nation's future, when without a future, we don't really have a "strong and stable" nation. It'll collapse in a few years under her.

The cuts needed after five years of a spend thrift Corbyn government would make any cuts now seem small change.


The council still only gets so much money and can only do so much with that money - they have to stop spending somewhere, and Theresa wants that to be the NHS.

This insane worshipping of the NHS has got to stop, including from the Conservatives who are also at it. You'd think the way we go on about it that we were the only country on the planet with hospitals, doctors and nurses. Newsflash: we're not.

The NHS budget for 17/18 is £124bn. You honestly think there's no savings to be found in that gigantic budget?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oop seems the FT got that graph wrong, here's updated with correct figures.

869523962392457216

[hungryfront]

Let's hope the historical trend isn't bucked.
The NHS budget for 17/18 is £124bn. You honestly think there's no savings to be found in that gigantic budget?

That's £1771.43 per person roughly, and don't forget that has to cover staff, buildings, the actual procedure, ambulances, utilities, food, and more.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[MKR&*42]

I go genuinely wonder how much the youth turnout will be this year, will be interesting to see.

It'd be nice to see voter turnout for all groups increase again

[-:Undertaker:-]

Andrew Hawkins, the Chaiman of ComRes pollsters, has nailed his firms predictions to the post showing that this election is as much a contest between the pollsters as the political parties. Worth a read, the last ComRes had Conservatives on 46% and Labour 34%.

869529074816999424

Here's an extract from his article regarding age, turnout and his conclusion.


Turnout

First, turnout. If you ask different demographic groups how likely they are to vote, the answers you get translate into behaviour in different but predictable ways. In other words, when one person says that they are a ten-out-of-ten, rock-solid certainty to vote, that does not necessarily mean the same as when another person of a different age or income group says it. The voter turnout model we developed in the wake of the 2015 General Election, when we were close (but not close enough) to the final result, adjusts for that known, observable discrepancy. We are in a minority among pollsters for doing so.

This has a direct impact on our published voting intention results. While our turnout model takes account of factors other than age, broadly speaking the Conservatives have a commanding lead among those aged over 45, while Labour is ahead among younger groups. At present, more than 60% of 18-24s say they are ‘absolutely certain’ to vote, yet only 44% did so in 2015. So you can see how easy it might be to exaggerate Labour’s vote share by overstating the propensity of young people to vote – if younger people behave in the same way they did in 2015 and indeed in previous elections. But the last time more than 60% of 18-24s voted was in 1992 – and more than 40% of them in that election voted Conservative.

Conclusion

What does all this mean for the current campaign? Very simply, if voters behave in the way they broadly did in 2015, then the Conservatives remain on track for a 100-plus majority. This seems, on present assumptions, the most likely outcome. Older people appear more motivated than younger people to vote, most of UKIP’s 2015 vote is going to the Conservatives (and that Party is not even standing in around half of all constituencies), May beats Corbyn on most ‘best for’ measures, and Labour’s core vote lacks motivation.

869304236781252608

[lemons]

Hung Parliament folks!

869659701151244289

[MKR&*42]

That can't be correct, what?!

[hungryfront]

https://twitter.com/christorwho/status/869313767007539200

Just dropping that in here.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk