[Archived] Election called for 8th June

[jim mk2]

Not the point though is it? Should a supposedly modern progressive country in 2017 be sanctioning the right to chase across the countryside on horseback in order to tear apart a live animal ? 

[blueboy3333]

Do the Tories have policies that don't include killing things?

I see old Jezza may be about to announce he's abolishing tuition fees. Should be a vote winner. Safeguarding our future with the brightest, not richest, students is terrific. We'll need them when all those EU nationals that bring value to our industries are sent packing.

[Glenn]

When actual new pledges come down to free parking at hospitals or allowing hunting of live animals for sport, it's not a tough choice is it.

 

[blueboy3333]

@GlennIt's too tough for some. They always seem to vote against their best interests.

[Baz]

So I see the Tory MP'S have been told they won't face criminal charges by the CPS, as they had been told by Tory HQ that the battle bus expenditure was a national cost.

Now I happen to agree that if that is what individual candidates where told, then it's hard to prosecute them. However, I cannot understand why Tory HQ seem to be exempt from the law.

Anyway, it all seems a long way from Mrs Mays assertion that they did nothing wrong, and then accused the investigation of being politically motivated. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/no-conservative-election-expenses-charges-from-14-police-force-inquiries

 

[jim mk2]

Establishment closing ranks again - with an election imminent what did you expect ? 

[blueboy3333]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways

Plans to renationalise the Railways, Energy and the Royal Mail. Plans to build Council houses and to ban fracking. Extra funding for NHS and Childcare.  End to the Bedroom Tax. A stop to the cuts in education.

All things that will improve a lot of people's lives. Some of those people will vote for a reintroduction of fox-hunting instead. Bewildering.

 

[Baz]

16 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways

Plans to renationalise the Railways, Energy and the Royal Mail. Plans to build Council houses and to ban fracking. Extra funding for NHS and Childcare.  End to the Bedroom Tax. A stop to the cuts in education.

All things that will improve a lot of people's lives. Some of those people will vote for a reintroduction of fox-hunting instead. Bewildering.

 

Yes but we can't afford all that AND give the multimillionaire Tory party donors a tax cut. Get your priorities straight!

[Rover-the-Top]

10 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways

Plans to renationalise the Railways, Energy and the Royal Mail. Plans to build Council houses and to ban fracking. Extra funding for NHS and Childcare.  End to the Bedroom Tax. A stop to the cuts in education.

All things that will improve a lot of people's lives. Some of those people will vote for a reintroduction of fox-hunting instead. Bewildering.

 

They're just waiting for Diane Abbott to confirm it all adds up...

 

I guess Labour are in a hopeless situation - they're that far behind in the polls that they're saying whatever they think could give people a warm fuzzy feeling to try and win the votes.  Some will fall for it, but more will see the Conservatives offering the more feasible and competent policies for keeping their jobs and their families safe. 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Rover-the-Top said:

They're just waiting for Diane Abbott to confirm it all adds up...

 

I guess Labour are in a hopeless situation - they're that far behind in the polls that they're saying whatever they think could give people a warm fuzzy feeling to try and win the votes.  Some will fall for it, but more will see the Conservatives offering the more feasible and competent policies for keeping their jobs and their families safe. 

 Such as?

Do you mean like the huge cuts to the police force since 2010? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-further-planned-cuts-to-police-budgets-under-tories-says-theresa-may-10208096.html

I'd hate to think what the figures are now.

 

[broadsword]

Strong and stable policies?

[JBiz]

37 minutes ago, Rover-the-Top said:

They're just waiting for Diane Abbott to confirm it all adds up...

 

Some will fall for it, but more will see the Conservatives offering the more feasible and competent policies for keeping their jobs and their families safe. 

Whilst Diane made a blunder or two, don't let the media and easily led public divert your attention from the issues at hand. We are seriously short of police, whether she cocked the figures up or not.

One manifesto says we need more, the other is 99% brexit and 1% "labour will wreck the economy!"

Since 2010, this government has put my job at risk, lowered the value of my house and made it so a paraplegic member of my family needs to find most of the money for private care without support.

Fair enough - those are my circumstances but I'm sure many could concur.

[blueboy3333]

John McDonnell on Labour's proposals for the railways. It will blow the Tory Brexiteers minds. A Labour government looking after the national interest while the Tories are happy to allow them bloody foreigners to own our railways, rip off the British, and take the profits back to their own country. Strong and Stable Tories, looking after the national interest...of Germany. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/11/general-election-2017-labour-leaked-manifesto-politics-live

"In terms of railways, I just say a lot of foreign countries now actually own our railway system, a lot of of foreign companies who are then ploughing those profits back into their own railway system. It seems a bit odd that we are subsidising German Deutsche Bahn, for example.

It’s a transformational programme. It will modernise our economy and it will ensure that everyone shares in the prosperity of the country"

[Rover-the-Top]

Just now, Biz said:

Whilst Diane made a blunder or two, don't let the media and easily led public divert your attention from the issues at hand. We are seriously short of police, whether she cocked the figures up or not.

One manifesto says we need more, the other is 99% brexit and 1% "labour will wreck the economy!"

Since 2010, this government has put my job at risk, lowered the value of my house and made it so a paraplegic member of my family needs to find most of the money for private care without support.

Fair enough - those are my circumstances but I'm sure many could concur.

Sure there's an element of having a cheap laugh at Diane Abbott's expense, but there is the serious issue that you can't just say you'll provide more of everything and dismiss the importance of getting the figures right first. If it's not affordable, you have to make tough choices. Some may argue they go too far, but the Conservatives don't shy away from making those choices.  Whilst Labour's attitude seems to be that they're just going to make everything work better at no extra cost.  Sounds wonderful but it's fantasy.  They will wreck the economy if they start renationalising things and pass the bill on to "the rich".

[JBiz]

Just now, Rover-the-Top said:

Sure there's an element of having a cheap laugh at Diane Abbott's expense, but there is the serious issue that you can't just say you'll provide more of everything and dismiss the importance of getting the figures right first. If it's not affordable, you have to make tough choices. Some may argue they go too far, but the Conservatives don't shy away from making those choices.  Whilst Labour's attitude seems to be that they're just going to make everything work better at no extra cost.  Sounds wonderful but it's fantasy.  They will wreck the economy if they start renationalising things and pass the bill on to "the rich".

Why is a healthcare service that doesn't allow people to die in corridors a fantasy? Why is bringing more nurses through, and paying them enough to avoid food banks a fantasy?

Why is a public transport system that consistently provides quality that reflects the cost a "fantasy"? Why is putting the profits back into services, new trains etc as opposed to arriva taking them, a fantasy?

Why is a far more tangible police presence on our streets a fantasy? Why is reversing the increase in the criminal figures a fantasy?

Why is a social care budget that guarantees us piece of mind if the worst should happen, a fantasy? Why is the thought of improving child protection services in light of recent scandals, a fantasy?

Why is a secondary school that doesn't need to ask parents for more money besides taxes, a fantasy? Why is providing education up to level 5 and 6 (degree) without the 50k loan burden, a fantasy?

The conservatives aren't interested in the 95%, and that's why all of those examples are the way they are. Corporation tax, wage rises for bankers, politicians, management roles within public services, erstwhile the unemployment figures are low so ra ra ra Mr Castlemead, have another 5 years of punishing the many for mistakes of the few.

[JBiz]

Gav - feel free to borrow any of those questions for anyone else who might be trotting the same Daily mail rhetoric  

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Rover-the-Top said:

Sure there's an element of having a cheap laugh at Diane Abbott's expense, but there is the serious issue that you can't just say you'll provide more of everything and dismiss the importance of getting the figures right first. If it's not affordable, you have to make tough choices. Some may argue they go too far, but the Conservatives don't shy away from making those choices.  Whilst Labour's attitude seems to be that they're just going to make everything work better at no extra cost.  Sounds wonderful but it's fantasy.  They will wreck the economy if they start renationalising things and pass the bill on to "the rich".

Of course they don't, they actively want to make those choices, because those choices are detrimental to the majority of people in this country. The Tories represent high-earners and Corporations...and fox-hunters. They always have. Nobody else matters to them. They never have.

[Rover-the-Top]

Just now, Biz said:

Why is a healthcare service that doesn't allow people to die in corridors a fantasy? Why is bringing more nurses through, and paying them enough to avoid food banks a fantasy?

Why is a public transport system that consistently provides quality that reflects the cost a "fantasy"? Why is putting the profits back into services, new trains etc as opposed to arriva taking them, a fantasy?

Why is a far more tangible police presence on our streets a fantasy? Why is reversing the increase in the criminal figures a fantasy?

Why is a social care budget that guarantees us piece of mind if the worst should happen, a fantasy? Why is the thought of improving child protection services in light of recent scandals, a fantasy?

Why is a secondary school that doesn't need to ask parents for more money besides taxes, a fantasy? Why is providing education up to level 5 and 6 (degree) without the 50k loan burden, a fantasy?

The conservatives aren't interested in the 95%, and that's why all of those examples are the way they are. Corporation tax, wage rises for bankers, politicians, management roles within public services, erstwhile the unemployment figures are low so ra ra ra Mr Castlemead, have another 5 years of punishing the many for mistakes of the few.

The fantasy lies in believing you can spread finite resources an infinite number of ways. 

[Biddy]

18 minutes ago, Biz said:

 

Why is a public transport system that consistently provides quality that reflects the cost a "fantasy"? Why is putting the profits back into services, new trains etc as opposed to arriva taking them, a fantasy?

 

I'm guessing you weren't aware of the days of "British Rail" when even their best advertisement had the strap line "We're getting there". They never did.

[JBiz]

Just now, Rover-the-Top said:

The fantasy lies in believing you can spread finite resources an infinite number of ways. 

We are the 5th richest country in the world. 10% of the nation has 45% of the country's wealth, whereas the bottom 50% hold about 8%.

The inequality gap has widened considerably. I would call myself a centrist, do I think some of those people don't work hard enough? Yes, but compared to the businesses that take so much out and put so little back? The priority has got to be a fairer society.

Those "fantasies" are not worth sacrificing to allow google to pay zip tax, apple to import and sell billions of pounds worth of equipment made via an Irish loophole! 

 

[JBiz]

Just now, Biddy said:

I'm guessing you weren't aware of the days of "British Rail" when even their best advertisement had the strap line "We're getting there". They never did.

No, but I do use public transport. It was cheaper to fly to Edinburgh than get the train the last time I looked, plus Transdev, Arriva et al are taking profits out of the country.

Im not saying that it will be easy, but look at greater Manchester - 3 price rises in 9 months. How much of that will go back into improving the service? The trains are still the same old "British Rail" ones in a new livery in the most part! 

[Biddy]

The compensation costs alone that the country would have to pay out to all the private businesses would probably mean there would be no more money for any investment in the forseeable future.  It's easy and cheap to sell off, not so cheap to buy it back.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against nationalisation on essential services.  I just don't want then to be held to ransom by unions and we have to remember, it won't be cheap.

And I still think all parties are missing the point with Gas and Electric especially.  NONE of the suppliers should have differences between standard and fixed rate tariffs. It's the same bloody stuff coming into your home no matter what company you are with or what tariff. Each supplier should be forced to have only 1 single tariff, ie, their BEST price.  then we can have proper visible competition.  All these, move and you will save hundreds of pounds is also nonsense if you have already taken out a fixed price tariff. If you compare the price per unit costs between companies when you are on one, it is negligible.  The only real savings are when its compared to the standard tariff.

[Dreams of 1995]

I'll continue to spoil my ballot and take my place in the future "Ungovernable Generation". If all who refused to vote did that none of the corrupt, thieving bar stewards would have a mandate to rip off whichever section of society they choose to attack. 

[JBiz]

Just now, Biddy said:

The compensation costs alone that the country would have to pay out to all the private businesses would probably mean there would be no more money for any investment in the forseeable future.  It's easy and cheap to sell off, not so cheap to buy it back.

I very much doubt that it would be as simple as, bye bye private industry, take this money and eff off!

Other aspects of the manifesto stop more public to private transactions, like football pitches, schools, hospital car parks. We need to protect these facets, not simply because of the benefits of a "not for profit" service but also because our parents and their parents paid for these things to be built!

Taxes built schools, to be sold off into academy trusts where profits are paid to shareholders... how can people support that?

 

[Biddy]

Just now, Biz said:

academy trusts where profits are paid to shareholders... how can people support that?

 

Where did you get that from?    They are still funded in the same way from central government as not-for-profit.

There are advantages, certainly in Multi Academy Trusts as teachers can be pooled and shared between schools so if one is failing in an area, teachers can be moved around to assist.  

Academies were introduced under a Labour government btw.