General Election June 8th

[Bill]

I'd rather United won the treble than see Theresa May win this election. She is a truly appalling human being. As are many of her supporters.

Great contribution.
Clueless so turns to abuse.

Standard.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

I'd rather United won the treble than see Theresa May win this election. She is a truly appalling human being. As are many of her supporters.

So you'd rather see a supposed 660M appalling human being's deliriously happy instead.

"WTF" doesn't do it justice.

 

[MaineDAWG2008]

This country is in a mess. Cuts doesn't help.

Solution. High taxes but use the money to improve services and schooling. Juts look at the Dutch system. They laugh at us seeing the state we are in. Time to put an to cuts and rid of Tories. Corbyn the man to make this country a better one for the low and middle class families. Rid of student fees and public railway ownership. Sweet sound to the ears.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

That trident would be renewed, but still believes no sane world leader would ever push the button knowing the devestation

This is a wishy washy attempt to deflect from Corbyn's long established pacifist, anti military, CND stance.
He has consistently refused to state, and still does, that he wouldn't utilise our nuclear deterrent, which means, it's blindingly
obvious he never would, therefore rendering Trident useless.
No CND member would.

 

[mcfc1632]

So that means you fully support

Election pledge - get elected - treat electorate with contempt and ignore that pledge - simples

Now I can fully appreciate that there are a range of lies:

Lets invent a scale from 0 – 100% and place some examples on that scale:

So, Libdem’s on Tuition fees – fuck me that is right up there – 65%

May on not sorting immigration out when SoS for Home Office – forget the fact that it would have needed the ability to bring through parliament the level of controls that would not have been passed – she did not even try – so fuck her - 55%

And many others...................

Major on Maastricht......... utter contempt for the populace – 80%, but folks we have a winner.........

Bliar – what a self-serving twat!!! By the late 90’s he was in discussion with the EU leaders to be the 2nd EU president – he just needed to get us tied into the EuroZone – well at least Brown acted for the good of the nation for once.

So, for me, Bliar is the winner – 100%.

Now let’s see you fit the decision of Cameron to undertake the referendum that he had committed to in his manifesto into the same range

Your chance for objectivity.....

Len - bumping this for you as you obviously missed it

 

[urban genie]

This is a wishy washy attempt to deflect from Corbyn's long established pacifist, anti military, CND stance.
He has consistently refused to state, and still does, that he wouldn't utilise our nuclear deterrent, which means, it's blindingly
obvious he never would, therefore rendering Trident useless.
No CND member would.

Or maybe it's just the manifesto stance that the deterrant will remain. Trident once renewed will outlast the next parliament, it's not just about jezza being in control of the button, and in the next 5 years the only 2 idiots in the world who would consider pressing such button would mean us probably obliterated before we could anyway.
Their is only 2 ways trident will ever be used to start an attack in a conflict which realistically no sane leader would, and in a revenge attack after we had been nuked which wouldn't stop us already being destroyed anyway.

The clues in the name deterant, it's about discoraging use of nuclear weapons by anyone, like a global mexican stand off, no one will ever fire first.

 

[Damocles]

I am working class and I wont be voting for him.

the clue is the word working.

Old person in right wing shocker.

 

[Damocles]

You are spot on - the EU can ask (demand) whatever they like and Labour will either pay it - so £85bn is their starting point - it will only go up with Labour bending over.

So have they costed in £85bn ? Does not seem so - so all their forecasts are built on sand

More likely though they would spend years being fucked over by the EU - with them continuously increasing their bill - and it will most likely end up with us withdrawing the A50 notice and staying - without a rebate, without opt-outs and tail firmly between our legs.

Me and you both have a briefcase.

Inside your briefcase is a certain amount of wealth that is used to pay for society. You don't know what's in my briefcase.

Our country votes for us to swap briefcases.

You say "hold on a minute, can't I have a look inside your briefcase before I give it away to check if I'm getting a good deal?"

I say "No, that's treacherous. The people voted".

You say "Well can you tell me what's in it before I give it away?"

I say "No. Briefcase means briefcase."

You say "Well how do I know your briefcase has anything at all in it? It might be full of gold but also might be completely empty. In fact, lots of people are running scans on it and say it has less in it than mine."

I say "Do you want to listen to them? People will laugh at you if you don't swap briefcases. "

Some people are suggesting that even if we open the briefcase and theres literally nothing in it then we should still swap it.

 

[cibaman]

Get the impression Farron is doing his best to not get elected. Country just voted for Brexit with many being labelled as Little Englanders/Britainers or racist and his main campaigning point is to take in 50,000 Syrian refugees. Heart might be in the right place but his head isn't in reality.

The Scots voted against independence but then elected 56 SNP MP's. So targeting a substantial minority group in a first past the post election isn't necessarily bad strategy. Its just that Farron and the Lib Dems are hopeless.

 

[urban genie]

Bury Norths Lib Dem candidate has urged his supporters to vote labour to overturn the 300+ tory majority of last time and will not campaign in the constituency, LD central office have decided not to comment on it at present.

 

[inbetween]

This country is in a mess. Cuts doesn't help.

Solution. High taxes but use the money to improve services and schooling. Juts look at the Dutch system. They laugh at us seeing the state we are in. Time to put an to cuts and rid of Tories. Corbyn the man to make this country a better one for the low and middle class families. Rid of student fees and public railway ownership. Sweet sound to the ears.

I am not against higher taxes, I don't mind paying a little bit more to help public services. I really think we should be paying a health insurance surcharge like they do in Germany for a start. I do not want a radical approach though, I want an evidence based measured approach as to how taxes are spent. Labour just represent the wrong side of the coin and that is they want to chuck as much money as possible at everything without considering it's merits. This historically does not always work and the shear numbers just are not necessary. It is ridiculous to say any of this will be realistically costed, it just insults peoples intelligence. The Tories will not cost their manifesto because in reality it will mostly contain bad news anyway.

In business when you have a problem you don't just say lets throw money at it, you sit down and work out the best solution. Quality is not created by investment, it is created primarily by thought and collaboration. Given none of the Labour front bench has worked a day in their lives in business it is no surprise they do not understand this. Now I'm not saying the Conservatives have but for the most part economically the country is at least viable. I might be blind but I have not seen anything Labour plan to do to increase the economic viability of the country which is wealth created by business. With self proclaimed Marxist's on their front bench too well that is no surprise either.

What has not been understood is that it is okay to raise the minimum wage to £10 but what will this do to small businesses up and down the country who will then choose to pay people zero by not employing them? What will it do to the pub, leisure and retail industries that directly rely on unskilled labour? Are these companies likely to employ more people or invest after this? No. With the extension of even more policies like this they will utterly destroy the business sector which means unemployment and clearly Corbyn will get everyone else who has earnt a bit to pay for that too.

Unfortunately with Labour's ideology you just cannot run a country with that thinking because it means you are completely unwilling to make hard decisions and be measured in your approach, that is what makes him unelectable for me. I could explain in very simple terms why his policies would heavily damage small businesses but he would not be interested. It is the same how if we had the leader of ISIS in our sights he would not be willing to make the hard decision, the same if one of our cities were completely destroyed by a nuclear weapon he would ring up the UN to discuss it first completely undermining the whole point of a deterrent.

Sorry the man is nice, principled and stands for the vulnerable which is fantastic but he does not stand for anyone else not in those groups unfortunately.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Or maybe it's just the manifesto stance that the deterrant will remain. Trident once renewed will outlast the next parliament, it's not just about jezza being in control of the button, and in the next 5 years the only 2 idiots in the world who would consider pressing such button would mean us probably obliterated before we could anyway.
Their is only 2 ways trident will ever be used to start an attack in a conflict which realistically no sane leader would, and in a revenge attack after we had been nuked which wouldn't stop us already being destroyed anyway.

The clues in the name deterant, it's about discoraging use of nuclear weapons by anyone, like a global mexican stand off, no one will ever fire first.

No, the deterrent effect is the fact that any aggressor is fully aware that they face a response; when the person
tasked with that response flat out refuses to say that he'd ever use it, then possession of Trident becomes pointless,
which is what Corbyn, for literally every minute of his time in parliament has always advocated. Abbott,two weeks ago
adopted the same vague 'We will always defend our country' platitudes when questioned, and refused to say if they'd
ever use it.
This is not a discussion of the rights and wrongs, or who is 'Mad enough,' it's the fact that the UK public will not countenance
nuclear disarmament, previous PM's have all committed to its' retention and deployment, Corbyn won't and it's merely an
addition to a long litany of unelectable views he holds.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I am not against higher taxes, I don't mind paying a little bit more to help public services. I really think we should be paying a health insurance surcharge like they do in Germany for a start. I do not want a radical approach though, I want an evidence based measured approach as to how taxes are spent. Labour just represent the wrong side of the coin and that is they want to chuck as much money as possible at everything without considering it's merits. This historically does not always work and the shear numbers just are not necessary. It is ridiculous to say any of this will be realistically costed, it just insults peoples intelligence. The Tories will not cost their manifesto because in reality it will mostly contain bad news anyway.

In business when you have a problem you don't just say lets throw money at it, you sit down and work out the best solution. Quality is not created by investment, it is created primarily by thought and collaboration. Given none of the Labour front bench has worked a day in their lives in business it is no surprise they do not understand this. Now I'm not saying the Conservatives have but for the most part economically the country is at least viable. I might be blind but I have not seen anything Labour plan to do to increase the economic viability of the country which is wealth created by business. With self proclaimed Marxist's on their front bench too well that is no surprise either.

What has not been understood is that it is okay to raise the minimum wage to £10 but what will this do to small businesses up and down the country who will then choose to pay people zero by not employing them? What will it do to the pub, leisure and retail industries that directly rely on unskilled labour? Are these companies likely to employ more people or invest after this? No. With the extension of even more policies like this they will utterly destroy the business sector which means unemployment and clearly Corbyn will get everyone else who has earnt a bit to pay for that too.

Unfortunately with Labour's ideology you just cannot run a country with that thinking because it means you are completely unwilling to make hard decisions and be measured in your approach, that is what makes him unelectable for me. I could explain in very simple terms why his policies would heavily damage small businesses but he would not be interested. It is the same how if we had the leader of ISIS in our sights he would not be willing to make the hard decision, the same if one of our cities were completely destroyed by a nuclear weapon he would ring up the UN to discuss it first completely undermining the whole point of a deterrent.

Sorry the man is nice, principled and stands for the vulnerable which is fantastic but he does not stand for anyone else not in those groups unfortunately.

Exactly this.

 

[urban genie]

No, the deterrent effect is the fact that any aggressor is fully aware that they face a response; when the person
tasked with that response flat out refuses to say that he'd ever use it, then possession of Trident becomes pointless,
which is what Corbyn, for literally every minute of his time in parliament has always advocated. Abbott,two weeks ago
adopted the same vague 'We will always defend our country' platitudes when questioned, and refused to say if they'd
ever use it.
This is not a discussion of the rights and wrongs, or who is 'Mad enough,' it's the fact that the UK public will not countenance
nuclear disarmament, previous PM's have all committed to its' retention and deployment, Corbyn won't and it's merely an
addition to a long litany of unelectable views he holds.

how can remewing be dissarmamanent?
Corbyns says he won't use it to attack another nation, which is correct, he is more vague about defence and retaliation usage I will admit, but only one leader in the world today that even thinks of threatening to use nukes as a line of attack (not defence or retaliation) and that is kim joung un.

Renewing trident is a something that will be used for many years after corbyn, and people all people can change their opinion in the right circumstances, Jeremy says he cannot envisage a situation where he would push the button, but then that doesn't mean that situation isn't possible.
I don't see a situation where I could kill a person, doesn't mean I wouldn't under the right conditions.
The question about trident is are labour going to renew that answer is yes, the chances of it ever being used are remote.


Also in all probability jezza and the govenment would have been wiped out in the first stike against us and the decission would be down to the sub commander and the letters of last resort.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

how can remewing be dissarmamanent?
Corbyns says he won't use it to attack another nation, which is correct, he is more vague about defence and retaliation usage I will admit, but only one leader in the world today that even thinks of threatening to use nukes as a line of attack (not defence or retaliation) and that is kim joung un.

Renewing trident is a something that will be used for many years after corbyn, and people all people can change their opinion in the right circumstances, Jeremy says he cannot envisage a situation where he would push the button, but then that doesn't mean that situation isn't possible.
I don't see a situation where I could kill a person, doesn't mean I wouldn't under the right conditions.
The question about trident is are labour going to renew that answer is yes, the chances of it ever being used are remote.


Also in all probability jezza and the govenment would have been wiped out in the first stike against us and the decission would be down to the sub commander and the letters of last resort.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The PLP, who, at least have more nouse than Corbyn, have frantically tried
to persuade him to accept Trident's renewal and all that entails, this crackpot has reluctantly been forced to accept its
renewal but refuses to confirm he'll use it, which by any sane interpretation means he won't. He's also said it would
be the subject of a 'Review,' if he was PM, which means what exactly?
You're desperate to paint him as someone the public can trust on defence, whilst completely ignoring his current CND membership,
(unilateral disarmament), his long record of anti war rhetoric in the Commons, and a repeated refusal to say he'd ever use the nuclear capability.
He is a sad old lefty,the type I thought had been completely marginalised until this collective insanity gripped the Labour party;
folk know it, and I'm hopeful that if, as seems likely, he loses this election, then he gets immediately replaced by
someone who chimes with the public mood.

 

[mcfc1632]

Me and you both have a briefcase.

Inside your briefcase is a certain amount of wealth that is used to pay for society. You don't know what's in my briefcase.

Our country votes for us to swap briefcases.

You say "hold on a minute, can't I have a look inside your briefcase before I give it away to check if I'm getting a good deal?"

I say "No, that's treacherous. The people voted".

You say "Well can you tell me what's in it before I give it away?"

I say "No. Briefcase means briefcase."

You say "Well how do I know your briefcase has anything at all in it? It might be full of gold but also might be completely empty. In fact, lots of people are running scans on it and say it has less in it than mine."

I say "Do you want to listen to them? People will laugh at you if you don't swap briefcases. "

Some people are suggesting that even if we open the briefcase and theres literally nothing in it then we should still swap it.

Oh - I fully appreciate and agree with the concept of a 'Final Check' before committing - it is essentially what the Meaningful Vote amendment was and which is what the Labour policy or your ‘scenario’ essentially is.

It is what we do all the time in our real lives. My wife takes it to extremes and buys all sorts of stuff – then looks in detail when home and most of it goes back.

But that common sense approach to purchasing – or in this case trading / negotiating simply will not possibly, IMO, work in this Brexit negotiation situation. In fact, unless we are willing to take the worst of all possible deals, again IMO, it will be deliberately made, by the EU, impossible to work – and we will end up not leaving the EU.

So I am Barnier, acting on behalf of the EU and you are Jeremy Corbyn, the newly elected PM. We are having our initial substantive meeting.

You say:

I want the best outcomes for the UK in all areas and I will not accept a bad deal. Explicitly, as I have stated in the manifesto that I was elected on, I will not take the UK out of the EU without a trade deal agreed.

Having been not only given an ‘extreme EU must massively win and the UK must be badly punished mandate’ from the EU, but also having had it confirmed by Mr Juncker that the very best outcome for the EU is that the UK actually remains in the EU – ideally without any special conditions such as opt-outs and rebates,

I say:

I fully respect your positions and I am here to negotiate fairly and in a manner of respectfulness consistent with how the EU views the UK. As you will already know from the many communications from the EU – we will not consider any discussions on a trade deal until the Exit bill has been settled. We have assessed this to be 150bn Euros. We had initially thought that it would be 50bn and then 100bn, but further analysis identifies it to be 150bn – but we also reserve the right to increase this at any future point, entirely at our discretion, should we find reason to do so.

We also insist that UK citizenship should be conveyed on all EU citizens residing in the UK therefore providing them with dual EU and UK citizenship and that rights, in perpetuity, be given to all family members of these > 3m people to be able to join their relatives and also receive dual citizenship

We then convene our 2nd meeting and

You say:

My team are looking into the Exit bill you have put forward – there is an awful lot of angst and we need much more detail – 150bn Euros seems totally excessive and unreasonable, meanwhile my team stands ready to commence negotiating on a trade agreement, and

I say:

Actually it is 175bn now – we have decided to create a special bailout fund for Greece and you must contribute. On trade – we will not speak about trade until the Exit bill is settled to our entire satisfaction

Fast forwards a year or so of frustrating meetings during which the bill has gone up and up and

You say:

Actually we find that the UK simply cannot afford to meet the demands of the EU’s Exit bill and we cannot walk away because I have already refused to do so without a trade agreement. So can the UK very respectfully request that you allow us to withdraw the A50 notice, to which

I say:

The EU leaders have already met and agreed their stance should this request come forward from the UK and I am delighted to be able to inform you that the UK are invited to withdraw the A50 notice, dependent on meeting the following conditions:

Rebates that were agreed in the past no longer apply

Opt-outs that the UK enjoyed in the past no longer apply

The UK is immediately a member of the Schengen agreement

The UK must join the Euro within 5 years.

You – tail between your legs – say, Oh - OK then

Bottom line - from my POV - is that, given the subject is about managing and achieving the exit of the UK from the EU - the Labour party setting out a policy that means that even an apprentice negotiator could use that policy to prevent the UK from leaving - is either naive or duplicitous.

It is a betrayal by Labour via the back door of the referendum outcome.

Back to your briefcase scenario.

I fully expect, economically and financially, that the remain briefcase will be worth more than the leave briefcase for for quite a few years - perhaps even a decade.

But I am confident that generations after us will say versions of - thank fuck......

 

[Ell-ano]

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The PLP, who, at least have more nouse than Corbyn, have frantically tried
to persuade him to accept Trident's renewal and all that entails, this crackpot has reluctantly been forced to accept its
renewal but refuses to confirm he'll use it, which by any sane interpretation means he won't. He's also said it would
be the subject of a 'Review,' if he was PM, which means what exactly?
You're desperate to paint him as someone the public can trust on defence, whilst completely ignoring his current CND membership,
(unilateral disarmament), his long record of anti war rhetoric in the Commons, and a repeated refusal to say he'd ever use the nuclear capability.
He is a sad old lefty,the type I thought had been completely marginalised until this collective insanity gripped the Labour party;
folk know it, and I'm hopeful that if, as seems likely, he loses this election, then he gets immediately replaced by
someone who chimes with the public mood.

Defence from who? we're not at war. Terrorists aren't put off by bombs, as he's said, if anything it brings them more sympathisers from people who may have been moderate but have had family/ friends killed by these bombs. And to think we'd ever be realistically be facing off with Russia/ N.Korea whilst being allied with America is ridiculous. The fear mongering of N. Korea just before a election (shock) when Corbyn's made a point of reviewing trident when about a year ago they were photoshopping extra soldiers into to pictures because they don't have enough, might as well look at the threat posed by Wales while we're at it.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Defence from who? we're not at war. Terrorists aren't put off by bombs, as he's said, if anything it brings them more sympathisers from people who may have been moderate but have had family/ friends killed by these bombs. And to think we'd ever be realistically be facing off with Russia/ N.Korea whilst being allied with America is ridiculous. The fear mongering of N. Korea just before a election (shock) when Corbyn's made a point of reviewing trident when about a year ago they were photoshopping extra soldiers into to pictures because they don't have enough, might as well look at the threat posed by Wales while we're at it.

You're offering up an argument against possession of nuclear weapons, which is not what we're discussing.
The point being that the Labour party, in common with all major parties, has in it's wisdom, and I agree
with them, agreed to adopt, deploy, and utilise if necessary, Trident subs armed with nuclear missiles, Corbyn, for reasons
stated previously, will not sign this off by saying he'd use them. This is contrary to the fact that the voting populace
want the deterrent, every major party does, in fact pretty much everyone. You don't, fair enough, but that is totally
irrelevant, a discussion about the merits or otherwise of nuclear weapons should be started under another topic.

 

[Ell-ano]

You're offering up an argument against possession of nuclear weapons, which is not what we're discussing.
The point being that the Labour party, in common with all major parties, has in it's wisdom, and I agree
with them, agreed to adopt, deploy, and utilise if necessary, Trident subs armed with nuclear missiles, Corbyn, for reasons
stated previously, will not sign this off by saying he'd use them. This is contrary to the fact that the voting populace
want the deterrent, every major party does, in fact pretty much everyone. You don't, fair enough, but that is totally
irrelevant, a discussion about the merits or otherwise of nuclear weapons should be started under another topic.

Understood, my mistake. I'm not sure on the majority of people wanting it but fair enough I read your argument wrong. I just feel that May's policy of winning the election on fear, fear of immigration, fear of the EU, fear of terrorism, fear of Russia is ridiculous and diverting attention away from what should be being discussed, hence her not wanting a public debate.

 

[smudgedj]

Old person in right wing shocker.

The wisdom of age. lol