Thetownend.com

I've set it up so you can change your choice, if something happens over the next few weeks to make you rethink your selection...

Not voting at the moment. All a load of wankers. I will probably get swayed by one of them though, because I'm a gullible cunt like everyone else. I just hope it isn't all about Brexit. There are other important issues which need to be addressed.

Can we have spoiled ballot option...?

Done.

Thanks

This is much like the South Park spin on the American election we've got the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. I couldn't bring myself to vote for May as there's no way she's a world leader and on the flip side you have Corbin who just can't be allowed anywhere near running the country.

Why? Have you looked at his policies?

Policies are irrelevant without the ability/respect of the house to get them through.

At the minute I'll be voting Labour, unless someone else springs a surprise. The country has been crying out for something different as the previous Labour government seemed to be Tory-lite, Corbyn comes along and the media portray him as some lazy schmuck who doesn't care. He talks a lot of sense to me.

Do people deliberately misspell Corbin?

I don't know who I'll vote for yet. I don't know where I'll be living as I move on the 5th, how does it work if I've moved from one constituency to another during an election?

Chances are I'll be somewhere in Toryland still.

Pretty sure it's Corbyn... (http://'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn')

Good question.... I'd imagine you will vote in the constituency in which you've registered. However, I could be wrong.

My constituency is overwhelmingly Tory so my vote will make little difference... But I'll vote for the nearest challenger, unless its UKIP.

Ditto

Plus opposition parties throughout history have produced crowd pleasing policies knowing that should they get into government they can brush them under carpet. Parties are rarely held accountable for pre-election policy promises they aren't implemented

Undecided at the moment.

I'm interested to see what happens in the upcoming council elections, that will be a good indicator of public sentiment.

Interesting to see May's already bottled a TV debate. Worried about getting out-charisma'd by Corbyn and Farron? Jesus.

I live in Swindon South, so it'll be Buckland's biggest challenger for me... probably Labour I'd imagine

Its become clear during PMQ's that she is entirely shit at thinking on her feet and cannot deliver unprepared bollocks unless its written down.

One thing Cameroon did have going for him was that he could talk bollocks, not answer a question and you would not be immediately sure he was being an evasive wanker until you properly stopped and thought about it. If May cannot answer the question and tries to bluster its blindingly obvious (see also Rudd, A) that she is talking shite.

Farron is OK but not great, Corbyn has been half decent in PMQ's recently and made May look a bit of a fuckwit, but I don't know whether than him, or just they have improved the abilities of his handlers!

As for who to vote for, I just cannot see if one voted to remain how one can vote for the Tory Labour coalition on Brexit (although that may change if Corbyn gets shafted), cannot vote green as from personal experience they are lying wankers so gonna be another Lib Dem vote, which as I live in Lib Demville up here will probably not achieve a great deal.

Interesting to see May's already bottled a TV debate. Worried about getting out-charisma'd by Corbyn and Farron? Jesus.

Its less about bottle and more about what she has to lose. They have a 20 point lead in the polls that is never going to get wider so a public debate for her can only weaken her position. Much like advice i give to idiots at work regularly, better to stay silent and have people assume you are stupid than open your mouth and prove it!

If you live in either Swindon seat, then the only choice (if you don't want the Torys to win) is Labour.

There's a link on this page to a tactical voting system for every constituency in the country:

https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/6626e9/how_to_tactfully_vote_to_stop_the_tories_on_8th/

I hate tactical voting.  Vote for who you believe in.

Nah fuck that, vote for whoever gets the cunts out. Although What I've heard so far doesn't sound like the lib dems are particularly open to a pre-election 'axis against evil' against the Tories

According to one of those online polls the party which most aligns to my views are the SNP, so I'm moving to Edinburgh

I hate the tories more

Tactical voting is a necessary evil with the voting system we use.

It's fine getting the Tory's out but where are the viable options to replace them? That's the reason they'll get in again.

Doesn't really matter who I vote for in my neck of the woods, it is so Blue it only needs about 20% turnover for the Tories to win.

And yet another rat deserts http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-is-leaving-westminster-for-now-a3518001.html

Corbyn and Labour for me.

I'll vote Lib Dem but considering my constituency (South West Wilts) voted 70% Cons + UKIP in 2015, I may as well vote Bald Brummy.

Dunno, look at Witney and Richmond.....

Lib Dem or Conservative depending on their policy proposals.  I live in a strong Labour London seat (60% majority), so it won't make any difference.

Yes, but South West Wiltshire is not a heavily remain leaning wealthy urban area. In fact, it's none of those things.

I want to vote Labour, but it won't mean much as the Tories took the seat here for the first time in nearly 40 years from Lib Dems in the last election by 6,000 votes with a 42% share of the voters.

labour on the other hand down here polled just 4,000 votes a 7% share of the voters.

Always been fairly safe seat for Paddy Ashdown and David Laws until the last election, I don't want the Tories to win so I may have to tactically vote.

Personally I don't agree with the concept of leaders' debates - for the simple reason we don't directly elect them.

Sadly if the polls are correct labour will be wiped out during these elections and will take many years to get themselves back into a position to be a credible alternative.

I don't trust May she fills me with dread with what she is going to do to thid country, especially wuiht the NHS & education, and some of the things Corbyn comes out with you can see why he couldn't be trusted in the hotseat, Lib Dems are not even credible any more and UKIP....just a bit of a joke.

Sadly it seems we are in for more Tory rule with a bigger majority to make it much easier to push their policies through without any tough questions.

Bit of a difficult one. Maybe tactical.

Obviously not voting Tory. As a remainer I feel they have shafted the country.

Labour are an absolute shambles.

Lib Dems are a bunch of spineless sellouts who sold out their manifesto principles during the last power share and betrayed my vote.

Completely agree, think it's a horrible Americanism, but still thought it was interesting that she clearly doesn't back herself in the hardly charisma-laden company of Corbyn and Farron

On this occasion autocorrect on my phone took over. 

But it's a sad state of affairs when you have a largely hated party accompanied by such an uncharacteristic leader as May with no credible alternative.
Corbyn isn't even trusted or supported by his own MP's so how he expects to challenge in an election lord only knows, Labour are an unelectable mess at the moment.
Lib Dems sold their soul to the devil to be part of the coalition and as for the rest... I'd rather not.

What a choice we have!

So its clear from here that turn out is likely to be incredibly low.

From wider social media, I fear its going to be like 2015 and 2016 all over again, loads of people declaring that they would never vote Tory/Brexit but then secretly doing so. The choice is actually very limited unless you live in Scotland as if you voted remain the Tories and Labour are out of the question, whilst the Lib Dems are dead to many due to the events on 7 years ago.

At best another Tory default victory beckons.

Looks like ITV are going to empty chair her then as they seem to be planning a debate anyway. Not that it matters, she could roll up and say fuck you scum, to every question from the audience and the faithful would still vote them in. 

She's basically said that already. Lying through her teeth every time she speaks.

The issue isn't the faithful tory voters, it's the labour voters who have lost all faith in the labour party and are going to vote tory because they can't see any remotely credible alternative.

Probably Labour, although the Greens will have the one of the best policies if they run with the 3 day weekend idea.
Will at least be able to sleep with a clear conscience for the next 5 years at least.

Would like to see current Socialist political thinking go down a more Libertarian path.

I probably will not vote...for the reasons I've been banging on about on here since the 2010 election.  Under FPTP, my vote - and that of anyone else who does not support the leading candidate in a 'safe' seat - is worthless.


The only detail to have changed in the last 7 years is that Gerald Howarth is now 'Sir' Gerald Howarth and, without a doubt, even more smugly Tory than he was before.  His majority is so substantial that he probably won't bother canvassing/doorstepping anyone, but I cling to the remote hope that the above bollock-kicking might be possible this time around.  Hasn't happened yet.

Your previous MP, Julian Critchley, though a Tory, was however a great backbencher and not afraid to speak truth to power in Thatcher's day

However distasteful these people are, it is important to try and be civilised and avoid violence.

I'm hoping that, given the result of the 2016 council elections in my ward where the Tories lost what they thought was a safe seat, we may see some more canvassing so that I can give them a hard time. If Buckland himself turns up, then even better.

The same for me, in my entire life I have not once been represented by someone I voted for.

In my opinion (which obviously counts for fuck all, see above) it makes a mockery of a so called democratic system.

I've never thought it right that a party can have a landslide victory when over 50% of the people that bothered to vote, voted for someone else.

Im also in a Tory safe seat. Its been Tory for over 120 years and the current MP has held it for 30 years.. I will still vote though.

Tory for me. Sorry but none of the other parties are capable of running a bath let alone the country.

I'm with you and Posh

FPTP'ers (Cons and Labs) say they like strong government but why should a party with minority support in the country govern strongly and disregard, on every single issue, the combined majority who oppose most of its policies ?

PR can mean a bunch of t***s (voted for by a significant tranche of t***s) having a not so pleasant voice but is that not democracy?

I have always voted for the last 20 years but it is a soul destroying exercise (but then so is supporting STFC ;) )

Tell me what the tories have done that show they're more capable?

Any of you twats that vote Tory deserve all that's coming to you, your kids and your grandchildren. Sadly you'll fuck it all up for the rest of us too.  :badmood:

Very good Ardiles, apart from the not voting part.  In the same spirit I'll share my previous thoughts on my old MP too, lovely, lovely bloke...maybe I was on the right lines, he was never going to hang around doing a job he didn't want.

Cameron is a total cunt who left behind a total fucking shambles ably helped by his mate Gideon.

Margaret Thatcher is the biggest cunt of the lot. Sorted out the unions. Yeah, well done Maggie. Let's get the secret service to infiltrate the miners then allow the police to crack a few skulls. Let's promise the earth to the nottingham miners and then fuck them over. Good old Maggie the saviour of the working class. Those pesky fucking unions that have stopped us sending kids up chimneys. What cunts. Then you've got the tank cunt McGregor saying only a few mines were to close. Cabinet papers released a couple of years ago show Scargill was right, the plan was to close them all. Maggie was a fucking g bitch and the conservatives should have been unelectable ever since

Whereas the recent Tory 'austerity' plan (raising tax, slashing benefits, support for the mentally ill and disabled etc, whilst cutting inheritance tax, scrapping plans to raise business tax, failing to introducing tax avoidance measures or impinge the banking sector etc) has got the country even further into debt? Gideon has run up more debt that all previous chancellors combined I believe.

any Tory austerity policy has presumably been totally fucked by Brexit anyway.

Brexit is good. I still think something will happen that will prevent us from leaving.

it's done and we'll agree not to get into a pro/con Brexit discussion or we'll all go round in circles again.

Fuck it, I am voting 4-4-2 I am fed up with 3 at the back.

This is the sort of comment I hear quite often from the 18-24 age group, who by and large couldn't be arsed to vote in last years referendum, the bitch about the outcome.

Don't think I'll bother given I'm in a Country run by a loon for the next few years anyway, seems whichever way I'd vote in the UK I'd get a similar result.  Have the parties simultaneously been run by such a bunch of no hopers before?

I'm guessing the Lib Dems may go full reversal on Brexit as a policy, which may be interesting to see play out and challenge peoples views in some Conservative voting areas, however you can bet the SNP will walk Scotland again.

We've invoked Article 50 so in all practical senses we're leaving, the question is how. If we want to 'remain' members we would have to rejoin under Article 49 and that will include joining the Euro and Schengen as all our opt-outs will disappear.

They're all a bunch a lying two faced cunts, in it for self gain.
Personally, i am fed up at austerity measures yet we continue to spend millions££££££ on foreign aid. Should we not be getting or own house in order before pumping millions into countries where, it only ends up in corrupt fuckers hands and not helping those that need it?
 

At one of the previous General Elections I read an article that basically said that if you anonymise manifestos and got people to vote for the policies they believed in then the Green Party would be the clear winners.

Unfortunately most people think that the Greens are a wasted vote and therefore chose another party, again indicating the flaws in our voting system already highlighted.

The Tories are wankers who look after their own
Labour are useless and fucked us over last time
The Lib Dems are pointless
UKIP are UKIP

Choices, choices  ;D. When is Kim Jong Un available ??

I have amended it for you as its a crown that May is desperately after and on form to date has a bloody good job of delivering on.

FYI we spend 4 times more on the national debt interest payments than we do foreign aid.

I am not going to go over it again as I have moaned about it in the past, but from personal experience the Greens are as despicable and full of self serving bullshit than any of the others, don't fall for the cuddly image they seem to get away with, their politicians are as prepared to fuck their constituents over as much as the next crooked wanker!


Agreed although to be honest the LD's are mainly pointless as people think they are and thus don't vote for them?

The Lib Dems had a sniff of power and sold their soul to the Torys. I doubt that will be forgotten for a very long time.

Yet Labour had a sniff of power and turned into Diet Tory?

I get that coalitions aren't common in the Uk, but I see a lot of this and I'm really not sure it's fair. Can you really not see a difference in policy and approach between the coalition prior to 2015 and the conservative majority government since? It seems pretty clear to me that the Lib Dems manage to exert *some* influence. Yes, the majority of what happened was driven by the conservative agenda but then again they had five times the number of MPs so that we always going to happen. I agree it wasn't perfect (no government ever has been, it's just pick your poison really) and Clegg personally seemed to enjoy the pals act with Cameron far too much.

I'm never quite sure what people expected in 2010, a LibLab coalition where they propped up Brown? I can't see how that would have been fondly remembered either.  

Think it was the other way round to be pedantic, but your point stands :)

Do I agree with them all, no but it is useful to see them all placed together whilst the conclusions regarding the reporting is hardly surprising ( LSE Research is here.... http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf ).

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/how-many-of-jeremy-corbyns-policies-do.html

Possibly, although I still think that Mandy et al identified what would work (i.e. Tory lite) and positioned themselves accordingly.

And to think, if we used that money to assist with the debt reduction.
Every little helps!!

Er, yeah, that was what I meant. I think I may have whooshed myself :)

Just imagine what we could do with £200bn

Nothing, remember Power would just pocket it all.  :hmmm:

I hate politics and don't understand voters who have overly strong political beliefs. No party can be 100% perfect. Any canvassers who come to my house will all get the same response, whichever party they represent :)

Jezza's is in Swindon this morning, hope all you Labour voters will be there to welcome and support him.

I actually meant the country rather than STFC, but you're still probably right :)

Did we do one of these at the 2015 election?  Would be quite interesting to see the difference.  Im sure the Kippers would have had a lot more supporters then.

I would not be particularly surprised if UKIP folded all together within the next 12 months or so.  The party's primary objective was achieved last year; and the Tories have moved to the right during the last few years and now occupy much the same space on a lot of issues.  Add to that their tendency towards infighting, punching each other and to changing their leader every 5 mins...it's probably time to call it a day.

Plus Farage and their major backer Aaron Banks are setting up a new hard-right populist party, The Patriotic Alliance, backed by some of the same people that backed Trump in the US. Don't think UKIP will fold, just fade into irrelevance. But Farage/Banks' new project look like they could be a very nasty bunch indeed

These things are usually filled with people they know support the leader, I saw the picture of him earlier and wondered who the people at the front were holding the vote labour placards, conveniently a very diverse bunch.

The problem with UKIP is it started off with good intentions with many intelligent disillusioned people from other parties who from the outset wanted an alternative to the mainstream parties, only to have it hijacked by an alcoholic, cocaine snorting, womanising, thieving sociopath. As a result, yes I agree, UKIP will fade into obscurity.

Arron Banks is equally clueless as I discovered when I met him just before the referendum campaign about having an EU exit plan and organising a campaign on the back of that. The damning indictment of him is he - and Farage -couldn't even win the official leave designation against "vote leave" which was stuffed full of Tory boys who didn't want to leave and didn't even fulfill the Electoral Commission criteria.

Banks' only response to criticism that politics is not like running a business was dismissed with "I started my company with a desk and telephone, so I know more than you".


A bit like Trump really.

Just corrected it for you, Banks seems to have some manner of unrequited crush on Farage (similar to the one that Dacre has on May, I think it all harks back to nannys firm hand), its a glorious bromance.

Why does Farage need to stand, the BBC will give him a platform daily to witter on (plus QT every fortnight!) so why bother with hassle of having to roll up to parliament.

At the time I feel the same as jayo but with hindsight I agree with you completely. Gordon Brown was the reason that a negotiations to form a Labour/Lib Dem coalition never really got going.

I'll be voting Lib Dem which some will say is a wasted vote, but tactical voting is a political game (as is the whole of politics) which irks me somewhat.

Oh, they're a lot like Trump, including the Breitbart clan (or should that be Klan) backing. That's what makes them frightening

Don't forget the entirely reputable Westmonster....

Oh at the time I agreed with Jayo completely as well! I think there was a certain public school smugness to the Cameron/Clegg axis that made it easier to hate when actually there were some fairly reasonable things going on behind the scenes.

Probably why the AV referendum went so badly, it basically became an opinion poll on Nick Clegg.

Interestingly the people behind the No to AV referendum (including Matthew Elliott of Taxpayers' Alliance) were the same people behind the official Leave campaign, which included the same misuse of dodgy statistics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12564879

Not only that but much of that campaign was used instead to enrich their friends by defrauding the taxpayer.

Farage will be remaining a Euro MEP however

Although he has in the past argued that the EU is undemocratic and that the Euro Parliament is a powerless, rubber stamping institution, we must surely take him at his word when he says he believes he can be more effective as a Euro MEP than as an MP in the newly sovereign Westminster Parliament.

It would be scurillous to suggest that this has anything to do with the higher salary offered to MEPs as against MPs - even more valuable to a Brit since sterling's fall in the wake of the Brexit referendum result.

It would be more scurillous still to suggest that Farage is motivated by the superior pensions and benefits offered in retirement to MEPS as against MPs and not to fully support his views that the UK should just leave the 27 remaining States to fund it.

We need a tough bulldog to get us through Brexit negotiations. Conservative is the only option. suprised anyone would vote labour or lib dems in this environment.

Conservative. No one else will implement Brexit or has strong enough leadership to run the country

The only positive of the relegation is that it pisses off people like you. Strong leadership? Are you fucking joking?

If you want to vote tactically to keep the Tories out this spreadsheet is very useful

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19_yf4RL133fBKscvSbID4eRKwztzY9KSI_2BMaI1bU8/htmlview?sle=true

I am all for Corbyn but may cast a Lib Dem vote based on my constituency.

Theresa May's husband works as a senior executive in one of the world’s largest and most powerful financial institutions, a firm which controls $1.4 trillion in assets.

Its portfolio also includes $20 billion of shares in Amazon and Starbucks. Both, just a little ironically, were cited days ago by Theresa in her pledge to crack down on tax avoidance.

We are are all in this together.
They are all in this together.

If you think they give a flying fuck about leading anybody but themselves and their close friends into further advantage then you are severely misguided.

Well you could argue that if she and her husband are that rich then she must be doing this for the love.

Personally I don't think there is any other option but to vote Tory in this election. People don't want Corbyn, and they don't want Lib Dems. We need a tough cookie for Brexit negotiations to give Verhofstad a kick in the nuts, Theresa is the only credible person to give us that

We don't need a 'tough cookie' for Brexit negotiations... we need a team of skilled diplomats and negotiators, that even then won't help because the EU will quite rightly take a hard line to protect their interests. They don't care a jot for this shitty little island, and why should they?

So you think May, who has backtracked so many times I've lost count, is credible? Could you provide your rationale, as all I see is a two faced, lying, elitist cunt.

http://thetownend.com/index.php?topic=55759.0

Interesting to compare with our exit poll from last time. Looks like Green and UKIP voters have largely returned to their natural homes with the Conservatives/Labour. Labour actually outperforming last time % wise which suggests that the TEF might be a bit more Corbynite than your average voter - not sure anyone would be too surprised by that.

what's UKIP for exactly? I thought Nigel said he'd disband the party if we had a referendum.  :hmmm:

All politicians are two faced, it's why we should have democracy. It allows us throw them out of power. We have to cause them pain of losing office to make them listen. Without that they will ignore us.

It's so depressing to see so many gullible people who are football fans, from a town like Swindon, have been convinced by the mainstream media etc that Labour are some how unelectable, that  they have no choice but to vote Tory.

The stupidity of redneck hick trump voters in The US is one thing, but the fact that  is being replicated in Swindon/uk is enough to make an old man weep.  :doh:

Fucking dumb ass hobbits.

Top class political debate there saint. that'll really win em over

Yeah I'm sure my comments on here are gonna make all the difference to many a fuckwits political awakenings

Labour as a party is not fundamentally unelectable but with Corbyn Monoxide as leader it is. I don't think anyone is in any doubt about that.

Apart from the hundreds of thousands who voted for him as leader you mean?

Keep being told what to think. Moron.

 

This is exactly correct. I am a huge fan of Corbyn, along with those in his constituency who have voted him in every time since 1983. I admire his hard work and dedication to the role, improving lives, his humility, honesty, principles, and most of all the desire to take a wrecking ball to the inheritance-based, tax-avoiding, public-shaming group of multi-million and billionaires we have ruling everything.

I was not a member of the Labour party until they made him stand for a second time in their leadership 'election'. Fuck that! It was £5 to join the first time I think, then I had to pay about £20 a few months later as they'd raised it to try and put people off.

The media bias and pressure against him is huge. Huge. For very clear reasons. The Guardian don't even do him many favours. I started to doubt JC then realised I was just being gradually bombarded and berated by tactical coverage of him, my faith and belief in his obviously steadfast principles being slowly worn down and worming irrational doubts into my subconscious. You need to try and look past all of that coverage, but it is very difficult with the frequency and tone.

Unfortunately I believe, not because of what the media are saying but, because so many seem affected by it, that he has a very small chance. I only hope that, again, this coverage of so many people supposedly doubting his leadership is a guise for weaning away support, in the same way I had started to think. And that people see through another media ploy and stick to their guns.

Anyone with the smallest amount of compassion for other humans, particularly in this country, along with a modicum of intelligence, can see that voting Tory is quite insane unless you are one of their close friends/business associates. Their timing is great as the police forces investigating the expenses misallocation of the 2015 general election will find them guilty after this one is over, and it will have significantly less impact.

I now wonder if that spreadsheet of 'how to keep to tories out' is also a ploy to turn voters from Labour to Lib Dem, which will effectively empower the blues I believe.

Well I guess we'll see in June.

It does make me chuckle how as soon as you start talking about Politics on here it turns into thisis..

Indeed, which is why I've stayed off this thread.

I don't understand the need for personal insults and name calling when people have a different political opinion to your own.  Some of the comments are nothing but insulting.

Good job staying off the thread!

I will say it again, roughly 500,000 which if they all vote for him in the GE is about a third of what the Greens got last time and much lower than UKIP got.

Party membership/core voter support means absolutely fuck all if the floating voter won't vote for you in numbers, Labour experienced that with Miliband (E) and have not learnt the lesson with Corbyn and will continue to fail to do so until they realise its not student politics or that as portrayed in the Life of Brian.

 :).  I mean I've meant no reference to which way I'll be voting and my views on the various parties.

I quite agree.

A forthright competition between ideas is fair enough but play the ball (idea) not the man ("person";))

I would say the likes of Power and PDC or even Cheese can be more divisive than mere Politics though...

It could take far less than that:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/how-just-639-people-could-10288346

In my constituency which was mainly Labour but dabbles with Tories every now and again. It's currently Tory but it's very much an exciting constituency for the neutral as it can easily swing back. Of 45,600 (65%) that turned out last time;

20k voted Tory
16k voted Labour
7.2k voted UK...them
1.3 voted Lib Dem
1.1 voted Greens

Tory gained 5.4%
Labour lost 2.7%
UKIP gained 13.9%
Lib Dem lost 11.5%
Green gained 2.4%

In this constituency I guess many will return back to their old party of choice, with UKIPs decline. Here they aren't all Tories, many were Labour and will probably take around 3k off UKIP. I see the Tories stabilising on their current position with a minor rise. Labour will gain here and if they campaign in the right way they could swing maybe 500 Tory/float voters. which would mean they would only need 500 more votes to edge the Tories. However the Tories will probably gain 1k off UKIP. Lib Dems will gain slightly as some trust is coming back. I think they'll get around 500-700 of the UKIP votes maybe making the 2k mark. Greens again are slow burners (the irony) here but I think they will also gain again and it'll be similar to Lib Dem with 500+, taking them to 1.5k. My projection for UKIP is they'll lose around 5k seats.

So my indicator is something like this.  The Tory/Labour battle will be back to usual and it'll be a close call while the other 3 main party will be squeezed together. What interests me is if you set up as an Inde and gave the right voice you could do quite well in a constituency. you may never win, but you'd have a good time watching the big two scratch for votes and sweat on the results. An Inde (as shown by UKIP, albeit with a lot of cash thrown at it) can easily attain 3rd place here.

My projection for June 8th 2017 is;

Con 20.4k
Lab 20k
UKIP 2.1k
Lib D. 2k
Green 1.4


You may think this is all a bit pointless, but it gives an indicator to how important it is for people to go out and vote. Especially in constituencies that have changeable control and seemingly many floating voters. Only 2000 voters changing their mind at the Ballot box or being convinced by a little extra campaigning can change an outcome. A 5% swing here is massive in terms of gaining power. Can Labour do it here? I'm not certain but if they target the working demographic here and use the campaign policies that Corbyn is then there is no reason why it shouldn't be a very close call. I also feel this Nationally too. It won't be a walk in the park for the Tories and if they don't bother to campaign well in marginal seats then it could well be a hung parliament.

This is what I don't get. Why is someone a moron for disagreeing with you? For having a differing opinion?

Why is everyone who voted Leave branded thick, rascist etc? Why is every Tory voter insulted? That's not the way the Left improve their chances of winning anything. Engage people, understand why millions of people are voting the way they vote. Understand why normal, everyday people feel let down by any one of the particular parties.

Debate and discuss and if you disagree, fine. That doesn't make them less important than you, or their vote worth less, or their opinion worth less. Extreme views of any kind tend to be damaging, but there is no right or wrong when voting, despite the bollocks a small minority like to shout about.

coming from a total political novice, why the massive split of opinion on Corbyn?

Spot on. Win the argument. Shouting down people doesn't really work. Let people speak and win by words. Its interesting the most intolerant people I come across appear to vote for the supposedly  more tolerant things.

I think the anti Corbyn stems from the in party shenanigans that didn't want him there. This has been driven by the media and thus many will take what ITV, BBC, Sky say as gospel truth...

imho, Corbyn seems like a great man with great ideas. Maybe he is a bit different and some are quite scared of that. Some feel he is more of a protester than a leader. Many people don't like change, however recent events (EU Ref.) would say differently so maybe Corbyn does have a chance. A chance at least to squeeze the Tories nuts and strengthen their own position.

I find it very strange though that so many can be split on Corbyn for being "too nice" "not a proper politician" or "he's too different" when so many people seemingly really liked Farage. 2.4m of them seemed to like what he said and yet everytime I saw his chortling smug face and a pint of beer (because, you know....he's a man of the people) all I wanted to say was shut up you horrible man!

As you can tell i'm not a fan of Mr.F

This is why I find it baffling that apparently many don't like Corbyn. I think though there are many that will agree with his policies, if they bother to read them. He's also doing what most of the parties didn't have last time out and that is he actually has some policies.

As a trade union member i had a vote on the labour leadership.
I voted Corbyn because if you look beyond the vile vendetta against him he is a thoroughly nice chap with ideas that would be better for the nation and world if we embraced it.

I will never understand how anyone could vote Tory but they do. I agree that educating people is more productive than abusing them. In some cases that is like flogging a dead horse though.

Many of those ex-Labour Kippers won't go back to Labour, at least not at this election which is being pitched as a Brexit election. They'll either vote Tory as a pro-Brexit vote or just not vote. This is why this election is so worrying for Labour (and one of the reasons why May called it), they risk being wiped out in their heartlands by former core Labour voters who voted Leave and won't vote Labour if they see the party as being likely to backslide on that. Which is why Corbyn ordered his MPs to support the Article 50 vote, to the fury of many of them and the metropolitan liberals (small l).

Thanks bamboo and arriba. I really am trying to take a vested interest in politics now, as my wife said, if not for your own future, think about the boy's futures, and she's right if i want the best for my boys i can't carry on sitting back and start doing my bit.

Another novice question. Why does Corbyn's own party have a vendetta against him? I recall at the last election they were trying to oust him but i didn't really read into it.

I voted Tory last time around because there was no valid opposition, not one that I could see running the country anyway.  I am undecided this time at the moment, though am still in the Tory camp at the moment, I am not as far in that camp than I was at the last election.

Corbyn is a better option than Milliband IMO, but still not somebody that I can see running the country.  I am open to being convinced though, as I really would prefer to vote Labour.

Thoroughly nice chap sums it up for me, I don't want a thoroughly nice chap taking us out of Europe and taking us forward.  I want a strong leader with new ideas and a clear vision.  I fear that Corbyn is not that, but I also see that neither is May.

100% this.

Stems from the change in the party to new Labour under Blair and then Brown. Simply put, a lot of the MPs aren't aligned to his political views

Is it just me or are the modern day liberals the most Intolerant people 😂. What happened to debate and free speech? Shutting a persons opinion down and being abusive because of your hurt feelings isn't democratic.  Who'd have thought we'd have fascists masquerading as 'liberals'.....

I can see your points totally. I had always been a Lib Dem voter, chiefly because I was brought up on core Liberal values and very much have them today. Fairness for all, kindness to humanity, etc. Doesn't exempt me from being a total idiot at times though yet that comes out of frustration of others, however I am learning that not everyone thinks or agrees with me. It's certainly a time honoured thing and a valuable lesson at that. Any way, last time out I voted Green, which in my constituency some would say was wasted/non influential/non tactical, but you have to vote for the policies you believe in I guess and if you don't then you're not really basing upon anything other than a personality. Anyway, enough about me...

What kind of things would convince you to vote Labour? Putting the person aside, Corbyn. The policies he has put forward do work for the working demographic whilst still maintaining some core Liberal values towards immigration (that's another story because it really is the biggest media stirred myth going, especially here. check out the UNHCR website for the data, its astonishingly low in terms of numbers and the cost to the UK taxpayers is something silly like 2p per person per year. When someone chucks their 5p change from a coffee on the floor, I remind them that they can't moan about immigration as that 5p would cover their cost twice over. As I said that's another story). The policy promises are encouraging and I've yet to see anyone else come out with anything near that. Delivering on it is always the Tory counter argument but every party is guilty of this. You have to have a set of policies to get people interested otherwise no one would campaign and then none of us would really vote, except the stoic Tory and Labour voters.

Your point on recognising both May and Corbyn as "not the people to lead us out of the EU, are very valid indeed but maybe instead of looking at the individual (I know we need a leader to look at and be proud of etc.) maybe look at the actual party and ask yourself "Which of these parties do I think can lead the nation through a Brexit negotiation?" It's tough, we have to put all the personalities aside and chiefly look at the parties. Only you can truly decide which party that is but also looking beyond, you have to look at who will maintain and help us grow again as a nation in our juvenile independence after the route and agreements of Brexit are more clear and we have a better idea of where the nation will end up. For me personally, Corbyn offers a warming hand to the rest of the EU and a charm offensive could well be what is needed. It's going to be a sensitive exit and there is absolutely no point in trying to play hard ball when we are the ones that have decided to leave. This I fear is what May is missing the point on. She's trying to take the position of this negotiation as the lead role. No one has any respect for her in the EU because at the end of the day, the UK has acted like a spoilt child that wants to "go home from the proverbial theme park" and still eat 12 bags of Candyfloss and then complain about it. I'm not against leaving but if you're going to request to leave, you can't expect to be given all the same agreements and pick and choose what you keep and so on.

I know I've rambled on, I always do....but I'd say Berni, take a look at the policies being offered by ALL the parties. Look at how they may enhance your own life and then take a wider look at how the country would fair if that party were in control of Brexit. If there are too many crossovers then I would say discard because for most voters clarity is the key component and parties should look at this as the best way to obtain a vote from the electorate.

I'm mainly a Liberalist and I certainly don't share the values of a recent poster. They may just be a WUM in which case they can freely WUM off to another place. However I don't think the person in question was a true Liberal. Possibly Labour, definitely anti-Tory. I would also say they are more akin to an anarchist than a fascist but I totally understand why you are annoyed and the persons comments.

We don't need to read newspapers to know Corbyn is toxic. Just following his interviews where he is extremely irritable, PMQs and incoherent statements tells us all we need to know that he is incompetent, unfit for high office and completely inconsistent among so many other things.

On a personal note I find it an insult that Labour PPCs' will now be knocking on doors asking the electorate to vote for a party with a leader that the Parliamentary Labour party don't agree with; who have tried relentlessly to oust him resulting in numerous cabinet resignations.

Corbyn himself admitted he didn't want the leadership, the Parliamentary Labour party don't want him as leader so why the hell should the rest of the country?

That probably sums me up quite well. Let's get brexit done and dusted and then I'll see how the land lies politically. The danger for me is someone trying to negotiate a soft brexit or even worse an effectively non brexit. Its ukip for me again. Keep the pressure on.

I'm not so sure paul. The EU vote was so close (when we talk about the differential of swing needed for it to go the other way and the fact only 1/3 of the nation actually voted Remain. That's for another day though) and that stemmed cross party so in politics it was a divide across divides. We all know at the time many friendships or working relationships would've been tested with people who usually vote for the same parties, same values etc. That is still a little raw but we all (like it or not) must work together and get the country through Brexit, not necessarily too rushed either but through it the "right way".

I think what many are confusing UKIP voters with is Tory defectors. Yes many Tories politicians/candidates jumped from Conservative to UKIP but many voters did stick with Tory. It was Labour and Lib Dem who lost many to UKIP. Looking at figures it was those two who lost the most. UKIP were up but always would be with a growing popularity (at that moment) it's just they surpassed because no one liked Milliband (Lab) and Lib Dem had aggressed their faithful by going back on tuition fees and the selling of Cleggs soul to Cameron. It was a shame as they did actually delay many Tory policies so they did do some good. However they became the media scapegoat while Cameron played the role of Walter Mity...

Figures at 2015 were very interesting compared from 2010 and it shows the Conservative didn't make massive gains. They were as follows;

UKIP +9.5%
SNP +3.1 %
Grn +2.8%
Lab +1.5%
Con +0.8%
LibD -15.2%

If we discard UKIP, SNP, and Green we can clearly see that both Labour and Conservative didn't make massive gains overall. The underpinning difference was Lib Dems shocking -15.2% decline. Now we know a lot went to UKIP and some to Greens. I don't know many true Lib Dems that would ever vote Conservative it just goes against the values imo. Some would for sure but then they must never have been a true Liberal. I can see why they would vote UKIP though (I certainly wouldn') but that goes down the route of Liberal independence so there is strangely some kind of sadist link between UKIP (early ideas) and Liberal ideas. Maybe the more older Liberals could explain this better than myself?!

My point is, Conservative didn't make massive gains from 2010 in the 2015 election, voters mainly just shifted from the smaller parties to UKIP. This is why this time round it'll be tighter, based upon people not having been able to vote in Theresa May and that UKIP will have less share this time. If anyone truly gains it'll strangely be the Lib Dems.

I think people are foolish if they think Labour would backslide on the notion of Brexit. Article 50 has been triggered there is no way back on that and all Parties know this. Every single person who voted Leave or Remain should also be aware of this. No real way back  on that idea i'm certain. We've made our bed so to speak and now we must sleep in it, whilst bake our own cakes if we so wish to eat them. People will return back to Labour, Con, Lib Dem etc. and for that reason is why I think we'll be looking at a hung parliament.

+1 on most of that.

However I am at a loss where this idea seems to be circulating that Labour will do anything bar support Brexit, leaving the EU entirely follows Corbyn's longstanding policy position and whilst he witters on when it suits him that policy decisions etc are made at conference on many issues they tend to just reflect his personal position.

I thought he would be breath of fresh air when elected, but in the first few months he made various policy speeches which were lapped up by the faithful and then quietly contradicted and forgotten by 'spokesmen', meaning that he made the big news and never had to deliver the true position, made me suspect he is little better than any other politician at playing to the crowd for his own advancement and objectives  - sadly.

In fairness Keir Starmer (Shadow Brexit) set out Labour's Brexit position pretty thoroughly today which is basically soft out:

- No second referendum
- Guarantee right to remain for EU nationals on day one, seek to get UK nationals in EU guaranteed in return asap
- Devolve powers returned to the UK to regional assemblies
- Retain EU working rights legislation
- Seek (not at any cost) membership of the EEA
- Parliament vote on final deal


So softer than Tories but still out. That's the good thing about elections, they mean the parties have to be relatively clear about what their positions are. Doesn't stop them ignoring that entirely once they win though...

I completely disagree and will personally therefore be voting Lib Dem.  I equally respect your call, CS.

Lib Dems and UKIP are the only two parties who are, broadly, united over the EU question.

It is far from being the only question but the next Parliament will surely be defined by the Brexit negotiated.  Its economic consequences (whichever version you prefer) will affect the NHS, Education, Social Care, Tax and so on as much as any left/right political postures.

Some even suggest that May wants a bigger majority to dilute the Tory Euro-sceptics and thereby enable her to negotiate a softer Brexit.  She has as PM been a massive flip:flopper, so who really knows.

I cannot "agree with Nick" about a possibly close election.  The results as usual will depend on the outcome of the marginals rather than percentage vote shares where the Tories will be highly professional, resourced and focussed.

If only bloody STFC had been similarly focussed on their 6 pointers!

Oh no absolutely, I thought that's what I was alluding to? I think Labour know that Brexit means Brexit and they would handle it accordingly so. As would or should any other party too.

Liberals, as opposed to LibDems, can come in all shapes and sizes.  However the essential dichotomy is between social liberals and economic liberals.  Social liberals believing many behaviours are acceptable. Economic liberals believe the free market can sort out everything. You get some social liberals who are economic liberals like a Cameron and Osborne, and economic liberals who are socially illiberal like a May, and the alt-right mob who've taken over the White House.

Socialists should recognise that there is no such thing as a free market, and that as a consequence there has to be some loss of liberal values to maintain a cohesive society.... you can argue about degree.

Ha-Joon Chang's book 23 things they didn't tell you about capitalism is a good read.  Makes a change to have a Chang not talking bullshit. Quite easy reading the sort of thing Chubbs might consider, to get some idea about his kids' future

I don't understand why Labour don't just come out and go full anti-EU.  They only really supported it because of the labour laws introduced, but they can easily make a statement that they will maintain those and continue on the same path the EU has gone.  Outside of that, they could easily push an agenda to the left that involves not being in the EU.  For example, they could push for a reduction in VAT, or to remove it from Utilities as they would clearly like to align to a progressive taxation policy.

That was their original position

This is the sort of difficult shit I wrestled with this time last year. There really isn't an easy solution... on the one hand EU, an undemocratic, banker's construct that is screwing over the likes of the Greeks..and looking to do deals with the US that will break up the NHS.

On the other, there is the Social Chapter which involves workers rights which has an internationalist flavour much loved of socialists. Many of these rights are being gradually eroded though within the EU anyway, and you can be sure that the Tories will be looking to bin off what's left.

As soon as Corbyn allowed himself to be compromised by half hearted remain he was fucked.

Totally agree
I've been saying this for a while.
I'm a Corbyn Labour supporter and voted to leave the EU and I know a lot of others like me.
Unfortunately the whole focus of Brexit has been on Farage's  mob and immigration.
I think Labour have lost a lot of their traditional support over this issue.
It worries me that this election will become all about Brexit,meanwhile the NHS goes down the pan,the housing crisis gets worse,more food banks,more homelessness etc 

Yes, Labour has always traditionally rejected the concept of the EEC/EU. They only did a u-turn in 1988 when Delors' told them that being in the EU could reverse Thatcherisim. After then the party was taken over by establishment figures like Blair who liked the EU because it enabled him to waltz about on the international stage without accountability.

Excellent Reg, I'm usually found reading excerpts of Oedipus, Keats, and suchlike. I'll take a look at the Ha-Joon Chang. I may put it on my holiday reading list along with my long term favourite, Collapse by Jared Diamond (I think you'd enjoy that), A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson and either something by Iain Banks (Wasp Factory/The Crow Road) or Terry Pratchett's Discworld. You know, just to lighten the load. I can't read Nietzsche for 2weeks solid  :D :D

Any evidence for these opinions?


Irritable, really!? Doubt you could find a more calm, rational MP. When I've seen journalists repeatedly feed him leading questions and try to back him into a corner or make him say explicit/inflammatory statements, he's responded as previously described. I watched this the other day and whilst Marr isn't Paxman, he tries to back him into a silly corner on a few occasions, all calmly rebutted with rational points which answer the issues. I did like Marr's quip though, something along the lines of, "Well, I'll wait for your 'killer line' then...".

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

We don't have to go far to find evidence of Corbyn's irritability of being questioned under pressure

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jeremy+corbyn+angry

That's passion

 ;)

Can someone who is planning on voting Conservative explain which of their policies are the ones they find most attractive?

On the contrary, in PMQs Corbyn has outdone May on many occasions leaving her flustered and unanswerable to the RHG's original question.

I agree with that PPC notion though and that is irony but we've seen it all before across all parties. There is nothing new in getting behind the party leader per se in an election campaign.

Things have changed now and I believe he has grown into the role, much more so than Ed Milliband (well that isn't hard to emulate I guess). There is something about adversity which i'm trying to grasp at here. I've seen many examples before. The story of the man so hated yet in time and through hard work and focus people ended up liking the person and their morals etc. I think as well people can only "hate" so much until it becomes tiresome, boring, and repetitive to the point of annoyance. I think also you're looking at it a little too laterally. His party may be a little cold right now but they'll soon change tack. As for public support, there is more for him so sometimes it is possible for the public to want someone who the party necessarily doesn't. I'm not saying Corbyn is the best out there but he is way more competent than May, who let's remember, was not even voted in.

I looked at all the links on the first page. These were all which contained anything that may remotely link to your point about supposed 'irritability'....

This is perfectly justified and not a 'snap' IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTIYzt8izk4

I would avoid this scrum of hacks too, would you not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOAGEYu5KYU

Begins 5:12, Krishnan Guru-Murthy is a well-known cretin and gets a completely appropriate dressing down for his rudeness. He presses and interrupts Corbyn whilst he is answering the questions. Is rightly rebuked. Tries to get Corbyn to say he is a terrorist sympathiser with some isolated words taken completely out of context. Dumb, "Tabloid journalism", as he is told.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofHy8JsgBA

Guru-Murthy is a cretin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjC3ycS_2js

This isn't anger it's exactly what everyone on here is saying about the extreme media bias

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7_pNafffOE

She's trying to write the headline, "Misguided Corbyn confident of election win" here.

"Can you win the snap general election? Are you confident?"
"....We're very confident in getting support to win the election...."
"Yes or no please?"
"FFS, yes."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBXDrpox-9I

Nonsense amongst a crowd who have come to hear, in short conference, specifically about the NHS, which is being murdered. Press would have been asked to stick to topic. He had talked about this issue in about 10 other interviews, in much more detail.

As summed up in the comments.... ""I'm glad you've watched the cctv so carefully, it's absolutely crucial to the nation and the NHS" brilliant"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7i7g9hB8H0

Very calm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0sbgWgsNBU

I take it if you think he's irritable then you don't buy into the "he is too nice to be PM/leader etc."? Surely you wouldn't want someone leading a party or country that can't form an argument, and answer back when appropriate?

Regardless I'm yet to see any real evidence of a naturally irritable nature whatsoever, in the thousands of hours of footage of him. All of that junk above is mere proof of the bias in coverage, it's almost total nonsense, especially the titling of the videos.

I really, really don't want to get drawn into a blocks-of-text war with the Corbyn supporters on here, but I think, sadly to a point as I'm no fan of Theresa May, we're about to experience a perfect example of the simple electoral fact that strength of feeling does not amplify your vote. It's still one vote.

More or less every Corbyn supporter I know venerates the man and seem to be able to find no fault with him (I'm always worried if somebody can't find any fault at all with their favourite politician, but let's not go into that). The problem is he simply doesn't attract people who aren't quite sure about him, and you really, really need to do that in order to win a General Election. You can argue until you're blue (perhaps red) in the face about that being down to the main stream media coverage, but until he learns to play the media game (unlikely after three decades in politics) then he's got as much chance of being elected Prime Minister as I have.

The interesting thing for me is that many Corbyn-Labour supporters would rather see a Corbyn (or generally left leaning) Labour party in opposition than a more "New" Labour candidate actually getting anywhere near power (you could argue that vice versa is also true, but there's less evidence for that). That same instinct just doesn't really seem to exist in the Conservatives, who get vicious as anything in their leadership battles but then unite behind whoever it is that comes out the winner.

Labour are at historic lows in every poll and Corbyn's personal ratings are Michael Foot levels of bad. If you think he is *entirely* blameless for that (again, not saying he's the sole and only reason) then I don't really know how you can expect people to debate with you.

I don't think I have ever read anything anywhere on this forum that I so totally agree with as this.

And to respond to Hertha's question re what tory policies any tory voters on here actually agree with.  Like the current labour party membership and Corbyn you're missing the point.  

Yes there are people who positively vote tory (out of self interest, a belief in the free market and in some instances a bizarre deference to their 'betters') but they are never enough to win an election.  The swing vote that wins elections for the Tories are the people who naturally want to vote labour but feel forced to vote Tory out of desperation.

Socialists despise Social Democrats as Tory-lite but the reality is that this is what wins elections.  The country voted in Blair against all shades of Tory leaders.  They voted out Foot, Kinnoch, Brown, Milliband regardless of whether the tory leader was hard Thatcher, soft Major or patrician Cameron.  It's so fucking obvious it amazes me that the labour membership can't (or won't) recognise it.

As a Labour member I talk to a lot of other members and see a huge amount of desolation.  We voted in Corbyn, a man I like with ideas I like, but there was little else as an option.  No one offered a credible more centre left option.  Certainly when the 'coup' tried to oust him on spurious bullshit anti membership reasoning.

Owen Smith?  Angela Eagle?  Fuck me, inspire me. Inspire the younger generations, dont throw me a suit with another amorphous blob of politician in it.

Anyway, we're fucked.  We're all fucked.

Anyone?

Hertha, see Pax Romana post...

That doesn't answer the question. Unless the answer is that people are voting Tory whilst not agreeing with what they will do, or have already done, which is a bit baffling.

I wouldn't put myself down as a Corbyn supporter. I'm certainly not though, like yourself, a May supporter. I do think Corbyn is with fault and I think he also realises this. He is however full of passion and is coming across to the normal man as if he cares. Whether he really does or not we can transfer this to every politician in the history of time and we'll never truly know.

Hmmm true you need to attract the undecided but I think we could put that on those undecided about May too. Put them both together and who would most people vote for? On the one hand you have an unelected individual posing as a watery Maggie Thatcher who is the only one believing her own hype. On the other you have a guy deemed too nice to lead a country to stability who probably doesn't believe his own hype. For me May is trying the Iron fist approach but she is really just Lead. Looks tough, but is soft and malleable meaning it's easy to turn around. Corbyn is probably guilty of trying too hard. When he gets it right however he is firm and accurate and puts anyone in their place with hard facts.

See I don't think May plays the media game very well tbh. Does she have every chance of being PM as yourself or is your position actually slightly better? *sic :) For example, May was quoted in the media as saying that Jeremy Hunt is a fantastic Health Secretary and that the Tories have invested more in the NHS since they've been in power. When you look at the actual figures, since Jeremy Hunt has been Health Sec. every available piece of data has gone down, the investment has gone down. In fact the only thing that has gone up is.....waiting times! How can a person in her position plainly lie about this when there is so much data readily available to the general public, which totally contradicts what she is trying to lay claim as truth?

Granted, I was just trying to help. Pax merely responded but not to the direct request of your question. So it still stands...no one has answer your question on Tory policy.

I think you have to consider that it is also a case of not being allowed to play the game, rather than not being able to, wanting to, or learning to.

Of course he wants to make positive contributions in his media appearances, for himself and the party, in print and on television. He regularly gives interviews, as many as you would expect, and receives front page news. He speaks well, as I would hope a politician to; without triviality or any facade. I do not want a showman/woman to represent us, I would rather someone who has worked their arse off for the public for 30+ years, with steadfast values of a compassionate nature.

However, the tone and selectivity of the material printed and screened gives a subtly distorted message, distributed via his opponent-owned agencies who paint a carefully tainted picture. So careful and gradual that it's sometimes hard to detect. Sometimes, quite obvious, like in the majority of clips supposed to show his 'angry' nature.

For me, that he is not willing to compromise his values and integrity by going a bit extreme/populist/'motivational speaker' is a good thing. The general pomp/pathetic theatre of the House of Commons is utterly embarrassing and a true reflection of some of the people that sit in there. Cameron loved it and I recall Blair and Hague possibly pioneering such 'banter' (urghhh), which is about the limit of my historic knowledge of televised politics, other than some great Benn/Skinner clips.

I do not believe there is any tactic Corbyn could employ that would garner a significantly more positive level of coverage by media. They would simply ignore it or try to somehow turn it against him. It is not only not in their interest, but completely against their firm preservationist mentalities. There are examples of recent years of huge protests not being covered or barely being mentioned by the media, pre-Corbyn (rise of), showing their bias to anything paricularly anti-establishment.

Combined with the fact that many Labour MP's and those at the top of the party seem reluctant 'supporters', or opposed to many of his values, despite the overwhelming mandate in the membership vote, his ability to get across his messages and PR are being limited.

That new Wikipedia independent news website looks interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39695767

The problem with Corbyn is that he stands, very firmly, for an ideology that is loved by a small % of the overall population.  He is the opposite almost of a Farage.  Those that love that ideology will love Corbyn and have no idea how other people can think the other way.

Hertha - I'm guessing rhetoric on immigration, a view that they the tax people less from their pay packets (people will always vote for income tax reductions, even if the party promised to increase indirect taxation by the equal amount), reduction in the size of government (I include welfare in this).  Now, the last point is always an odd one to me as very few actual ideas will reduce the burden on this front because it's pensions that consume the vast majority of spending, but some people love to vote for a party that says they'll stop scroungers!

Hold your horses with Farage there!

Not sure he's that extreme, especially in contrast to the way both Labour and the Tories have both crept towards basically the same middle ground over the last 15 or so years?

Agree though that he could be perceived as a bit niche, again amplified. This is quite alarming:

The last couple of pages of this thread have been excellent.

Peter Lilley, a member of the Tory Lunatic Fringe, is not standing again. Good news which indicates further that advocates of the disastrous WTO Brexit option are losing their power.

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hitchin-and-harpenden-mp-peter-lilley-announces-his-decision-to-stand-down-after-34-years/story-30294974-detail/story.html

I could never vote for a PM who would scrap our nuclear deterrent. This is why Corbyn will have NO chance of winning...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjjVv3LwrUQ

I'd vote for him on the basis of scrapping trident.

France is the only other European country with nuclear weapons. If we need them, why doesn't anyone else, like Germany?


I made it two sentences into that idiotic voiceover. Who is this and what authority or knowledge do they have on the subject?! It's really dumb.


As someone has mentioned in the recent pages of this thread, you don't sit among your party for 34 years, then become leader due to a sudden realisation of your hunger for power, and this is clearly not in his character. Absolute nonsense.


Yeah we love the way the NHS is being murdered, firefighters are in desperation, the disabled are being run into poverty, mentally ill people are having their help and support significantly reduced or withdrawn, schools are facing a huge funding crisis and budget shortfall, some were tricked into Brexit voting by huge lies, empty promises and misinformation, record numbers of people are having to use food banks, nobody new can get on the housing market because of landlords and foreign investors with huge portfolios, prisons run by private companies are rife with drugs and violence, turning criminals into hardened repeat offenders and relatively normal people into drug addicts.

All this whilst corporation tax has been reduced and May and her cabinet expand their £70m of personal wealth by promoting and making decisions in their own interests.

This country is being run really well, with real concern and care for its citizens, and most people have benefited from the brilliant leadership and decisions made by our current government (none of whom you may notice are around any more, except Boris who they hide at the back now, because he is too pertinent a reminder of all that cuntishness). We are represented by people who are experts in their fields, passionate about helping the public they represent, and readily make impartial decisions without any motivation towards their many business interests and greed for more personal wealth, for the benefit of the electorate.

You hit the nail on the head directly with this, these issues have been bouncing between red and blue for years now and Corbyn has certainly rufled a few feathers.
My stance on trident is we need a deterrent. Without it would be like going into conflict armed only with a paint balling gun.
My stance with Corbyn is, he us so anti this country, he has publicly refused to acknowledge the monarchy, has publicly let known his support for many faces of terrorism whilst attending rallies for dead IRA murdering scum,. Yet he has stated we should scrap our own remembrance parades.
Its good the government is being hunted down but i don't think this is the man who should be in charge of our country. Corporations need holding to account for tax avoidance raise money that way, to booster the NHS/schools/police/fire not cut the Armed Forces anymore, or use the £300,000,000 or so we give the EU each week to do it.

Why do people need an 'authority' to voice an opinion? The guy has a channel called 'Sargon of Akkad', in fairness he's a very clever guy and has very realistic political views for a liberal as he describes himself.
I don't disagree with some of Corbyn's anti globalist views, but the guy has some ridiculous ideas. Like scrapping trident. He's also said he'd like us to have no military. Total crackpot....

Really? When/where did he say that? Not saying he didn't, just curious if this is genuine

I see the Tories have let Boris out of whichever cupboard they had him locked up in. They must be confident.

Oh, and Zac Goldsmith is standing again in Richmond... for the Conservatives, the party he resigned from on a point of principle over Heathrow less than a year ago, which hasn't since changed. Entertainingly he could now lose a third election inside 12 months. What a champ.

Sargon of Akkad. He's a mate of mine, very successful youtube channel and a flaming liberal. He just doesn't like Jeremy Corbyn. We've had some great chats about it.

Here's another video from before he was so famous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqnwUSevgo4

Yep same.

The more the media go after Corbyn the more inclined I feel to vote for him.

 Good stuff from the Goat. You sound as if you could be getting active politically  :hmmm:

 On the subject of foodbanks, apparently it's estimated that the changes to the welfare system arriving this April will increase their use, particularly amogst young people, Swindon is reckoned the 6th most likely place to see a significant rise in the country.

Much of this debate has been about those at the top ie May and Corbyn. What about the local situation here in Swindon and the 2 seats to be fought out. I find in particular Justin Tomlinson to be an odious little snake. His conduct and voting record is shameful. Do the Tory supporters on here have confidence in that man? Are they happy to vote for such an Individual? Or are local politics not as important in a general election?

(Not a Tory supporter, btw) What is it about JT's conduct/voting record that's provoked your ire arriba?

In case anyone wants to look for themselves, here is Justin Tomlinson's voting record:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24870/justin_tomlinson/north_swindon

Also Robert Buckland's (South Swindon):

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24843/robert_buckland/south_swindon

Oddly, both followed the whip on more or less everything apart from investigating the Iraq War, which seems a weird thing to rebel on. Oh, and Buckland voted against equal marriage which is charming.

Same site has all sitting MPs if you live outside of Swindon. Get to know your local candidate - it's not just about who'd be the best PM, especially in an election like this one where all signs point to it not being especially close on that front.

His support for attacks on the disabled would be a good start.  Even IDS resigned....

His voting record speaks for itself. Reg has got there first with the most disgusting item. Then we have the wonga farce too of course. He often doesn't commit to giving an opinion until after events and has backtracked when decisions have become unpopular, amongst his own party even.

Fair enough, I assumed it was Wonga and the record as Minister for Persecuting the Disabled, just curious if there was anything else. Buckland's my MP, not especially controversial AFAIK, just a careerist empty suit

The clip of Tomlinson blubbing when having to apologise to the House over his Wonga dealings was one of the most nauseous things I've seen in many a year.

The fact that he got £30K from the Supermarine fella, who then got £30K from Wonga was just coincidence, as was the fact he then told Wonga what the governments plans were.

Wasn't he actually minister for the disabled too? The Wonga farce should've cost him his job. Corrupt prick.

While I disagree with Buckland on almost every issue, he is actually a pretty good MP. He always personally answers emails (we had a brilliant chat about the PIP payment - we agreed to disagree on that one) and he does work hard for his constituents. I wouldn't bloody vote for him though.

Neither of them are sqeaky clean.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-buckland-tory-law-officer-has-money-in-film-partnership-that-is-being-investigated-by-hmrc-10032684.html

Don't forget Buckland also told porkies to Cameron... neglecting to mention his censure for dodgy dealings when apointed Solicitor General.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28393743

Yeah but Cameron likes porkies :)

I laughed at the weasel cunt. Blubbing for himself as he'd been caught like a naughty schoolboy apologising in assembly.

I go back to the days of Francis Noel-Baker as Swindon MP.  He was an interesting character. I read his autobiography, got the Swindon gig by the time honoured method of being a bit of an outsider. In Swindon, the left of the Labour Party hated the right, and vice versa. The opposing wings would accept a middle candidate, but not one of the other lots.

Bit of a toff, the section in the book where he's taken on a tour of Swindon Working Men's Clubs, to get to meet his constituents... wonderful.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/6240722/Francis-Noel-Baker.html

I suspect Buckland's obit won't take up so much Torygraph print.

There are upcoming parish elections next week too

Probably a spoiled vote for me though not 100% sure yet. I don't consider myself to live in a parish.

That's a right fucking con, that. The Tories deserve an absolute pasting at the ballot box for that alone, shocking piece of political shenannigans, would put Tammany Hall to shame

Germany is under NATO article 5 umbrella thus its defense relies on the nuclear capabilities of other NATO members, against say Russia. That Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons itself is due to very obvious historical reasons.

Everyone in Swindon now pays the Non-Parish charge! You couldn't make it up.

Nadine Watts (Labour again) for me, if she's standing. One of the hardest working councillors in Swindon.

I'm fairly sure there are 5 seats up for grabs where I vote and that means voting 5 times!

I don't think we get one.. already established  parish
.

Our 2 MP's have been strangely quiet about this bit  of political corruption.

 
Early days in the campaign and it looks as if the Tory approach is a May v Corbyn thing with minimal reference to policy thus far.
Looks as if Labour will be concentrating on policy. They just need to make sure that all of the sums add up when the manifesto appears to bolster credibility. I fear that their campaign needs to be a damage limitation exercise more than anything.

I read one of the right wing red tops and my god, the attacks on and belittling of Corbyn are relentless. If the letters pages are truly representative of society, then the future for this country is scary indeed.

Don't get the strong leader matters above all else thing.
The main attribute, surely, must be a desire to attain true equality, both social & economic, for all citizens regardless of status.

We've already witnessed attempted assaults on those who are "just about managing" which the current government now purports to represent.
Also fully expect the pensioners to be fucked over when the triple lock disappears in the Tory manifesto.

All of the parties have their faults, but there is nothing more nasty or vindictive than a full throttle Tory government.

As for Trident, the biggest nuclear threat is terrorist's getting hold of a dirty bomb where a conventional deterrent would be useless.
In a more conventional setting, if Russia or China chose to unleash their full nuclear arsenal then our few poxy missiles are not going to make much difference by way of effective deterrent.
Just bring everything under the auspices of NATO and concentrate on building an effictive missile defence system if required. The war on terror is waged in cyberspace, so spend the money there.

Better still, divert the billions of pounds wasted on shit that kills people to positive shit that could cure diseases and improve all of our lives.

Given the lack of answer, I'm guessing this is the standard "I read it in the Mail so it must be true" horseshit then?

I'd be interested to know how you think this is achievable

"The main attribute, surely, must be a desire to attain true equality, both social & economic, for all citizens regardless of status"

We could start by making the tax system fairer?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hmrc-tax-richest-high-net-worth-unit-public-accounts-committee-mps-a7547596.html

I cannot imagine ever wanting to vote Labour or Lib Dem and ending up voting Tory out of desperation, spoil your paper but don't help them claim they have the 'will of the people'. Its all getting a bit close to Schrödinger's Tory as we had in 2015 where loads of people stated on social media and in the pre-election polls that they would never vote Tory... and then quietly did!


I have always like a bit of Liz Kendall although that might be more to do with the fact she looks like a naughty teacher?

Oh bollocks. Was doing a reply but took so bloody long that the session timed out.  :suicide:
Might try again later once regained the will to live and done some work.

Repeat after me, "Strong and stable, strong and stable, strong and stable"

https://twitter.com/RossCrombie/status/857710963818156034

https://twitter.com/TMayCasebooks/status/857537472087175168

 :)

Good to see football bringing down a Tory.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-39740178

Yes I know its the Guardian but its quite an entertaining read....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/28/theresa-may-snowflakes-health-and-safety-election

I cannot get the image out of my head of Theresa May washing her hands with antiseptic wipes whenever she has to shake hands with one of us plebs!

A good enough reason on its own to not vote Tory and stop the destruction of the NHS. For personal profit.

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

I also find it curious that people with kids will seemingly vote for Grammar Schools.... I guess they think their kids will be going, when of course it's axiomatic that more won't. This seems to be May's sole policy pronouncement.

This election is going to be largely about Brexit. I voted remain, but I am so pissed off with the rhetoric coming out of the EU with regards to punishing Britain for simply following the democratic will of the people. Realistically the conservatives are the only party who will stand up and fight for Britain. Lib dems don't want us to leave the EU and Corbyn is a complete wet idiot.
I would happily vote labour in a local election but under no circumstances would I want Corbyn to be our P.M. And let's face it, he won't be.

Got into this earlier with a mate - his opinion is "well, I'm alright and so is my family, so I see no reason to change" - fucking look and you'll find them! Mind you, he wants healthcare provided through work and loves zero hours contract. Warned him his son will suffer with education cuts, but think I was on a hiding to nothing there.

He loves zero hours contracts? Is he on one?

Nah, manages people who are.

Yeah. No wonder he loves them, makes his job easier. Doesn't matter I suppose that those he manages would struggle  to plan financially, or socially and would have problems securing credit, or even renting housing. I wonder if he'd be so enamoured if he was on a zero hours contract. Somehow I doubt it..

Realistically, it was the Tories that got us into this Brexit mess, and they haven't the first clue as to how to deal with it. I don't see any punishment rhetoric, coming from the EU, more like you can't have your cake and eat it attitude, which seems reasonable enough.

The next few years are going to be fun, as the Mail readers come to realise that sadly we can't go back to the 1950's.

But it allows them to have the flexibility they want!

This is the stance that many hold today and it's completely selfish. These are the same people that say "Charity starts at home" and "Well it's not happening here so it doesn't matter" No, sorry, charity starts where it's needed and that will always be the case. If that so happens to be at home sometimes then so be it but people who say that as a given irk me. Yeah we start a war (or join one) in another country and strangely enough the people residing there flee. When they turn up here people then have the cheek to complain. So to surmise; If people had been happy to let charity be spent away and protested against a war in another country then maybe, just maybe those people fleeing would not be fleeing and turning up on our doorstep.

I understand your predicament though, I have similar "discussions" with family members. It's so disheartening yet the saddest thing is they don't seem capable of having a more open mind :/

As a long-term leaver, I take the view the EU has simply stated the facts to a Tory government that is in denial about how the EU works - a party which has long been in denial about our relationship.

The EU is not being unreasonable - quite the opposite it's our own side that is clueless. Merkel et al is simply telling us to grow up about the realities of negotiations. I tend to agree with that.

I would be interested if Hobodan were able to give just one example of any EU official talking about punishing the UK?

Oh come on 😂 Have you not seen Merkels latest statement about about the UK having unrealistic expectations? In fairness it's been a constant stream of EU officials spouting how the Uk are going to get a bad deal.
I never knew we had so many wet lefties around these parts......

I think it's unrealistic to expect the EU to bend over and be rogered by the uk? Which they've consistently said, since well before the referendum? It's just common sense, and failure to see that is typical of 90% of the morons who voted to leave

I've decided not to be a democrat any more

The EU can do one.

They're showing themselves up for what they are.

Think we will end up just walking away.

And as for the divorce bill- quite how an organisation that has not had accounts audited and signed off for 20 years know the liability of a member state is beyond me- they're just trying it on as we pay 1/5 of the total budget

The 27 other member states are ganging up on the one that wants to leave?! WELL I NEVER

I'm a majority moron. Yippee.

I voted remain. If we had another vote now I'd vote leave. It's been interesting to see the real attitude the rest of the EU has towards Britain. Let's face it, we were / are just a cash cow for them. Amazing how quickly they forget their history.

The chances of 27 countries agreeing to the "final" Brexit deal is nil..so lets not waste two years and just cancel the direct debit, offer a reciprocal tariff free trade deal to anyone who wants it and get on with trading with the 85% of the world that is non EU trade. You don’t need a secession article to secede. If you stop paying your subscription, stop attending the meetings, people would notice that you’d left.

In the interests of accuracy, the statement above about the EU accounts is untrue. 

More 'rhetoric' from the EU nazis 😳

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/jean-claude-juncker-says-theresa-may-deluded-scathing-call-angela/

Out of interest, if France under Marine Le Pen had voted out and was now demanding all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the downsides, would you be furious if we and the other remaining EU nations said that that wasn't really on?

I think most of the rhetoric on both sides is for their home audiences - it suits both May and Merkel to look like tough negotiators in this current posturing stage. Hopefully when it comes to actually negotiation, more reasonable heads will prevail and we won't end up in a spiteful tit-for-tat war of micro aggressions, because both sides have a lot to lose from that, despite what some of the more ardent 'just walk away' types might think.

Well put. I'd happily walk away but hope we can come to a peaceful divorce. You would expect a lot of posturing at this stage. I want to see a successful Europe but a more successful England. Both sides don't have to lose but it is totally unrealistic to expect the same deal outside the EU as in it.

it's almost like the EU is sticking up for the EU. The bastards.

I'd have thought calling someone who campaigned for remain, who is now angling for a hard Brexit, deluded, is not unreasonable.

Apparently it is unreasonable enough to start claiming they are Nazis.  Maybe if you read between the lines he was gassing some Jews at the same time.

Junker is right up there with Dornier, Messerschmitt, Fokker Wolf and Heinkel in the average Brexiteer's nightmares.

I'd wager David Davis, even built an Airfix model of a Junker once upon a time.

(http://test2.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Junkers-Ju87/IMAGES/Junkers-Ju87-Parked.jpg)

Well put.

Untrue.  That neatly doubles the share of what the UK pays (before it receives anything back).

The EU budget for 2016 was £131 bn. at today's GBP/Euro exchange rate.

The Pre-Rebate UK contribution was £17 bn. or 13%.

The UK rebate however is deducted BEFORE the UK pays over one penny or cent (remember the side of the bus ignoring this?) so the actual gross UK payment is GBP 13bn. or about 10%.

For completeness, it would be fair to mention that the UK receives back £4bn. (eg agriculture, poorer regions, scientific research etc), leaving a net contribution of GBP 9bn.  

The EU is being entirely reasonable, they have their own concerns not least the issues of the Irish border which will undermine the integrity of the single market. Regarding the budget we have agreed to pay the costs that the EU is requesting.

This is not the EU's fault but our own. It seems to have escaped many in this country that the EU actually wants us gone and wants a relatively quick and smooth Brexit. To put it bluntly it's our own PM who is currently being delusional.

The French elections will have a big say on how the EU deals with the Brexit negotiations..

The Mail who largely set the agenda for May, need to create the impression that this is a battle between Brittania and Johnny Foreigner... so the gullible are taken in.

Yes, there has always been the "plant the UK flag" on an EU story mentality from the Mail and indeed right across all newspapers. Westminster, political parties and the media have never understood the EU project which is why they are being caught out in trying to understand Brexit negotiations..

Best summed up by the quote from Rupert Murdoch.....

"When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."

thought this might brighten up May Day!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.facebook.com/JaneyGodley/videos/10155380841194653/ :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Murdoch is being disingenuous there. The EU is precisely the sort of organisation Murdoch loves. It's easily amiable to rich men lobbying the bureaucracy while it is immune from the ballot box - Branson loves it for the same reason, and so does Mandelson

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/what-did-lord-m-do-on-holiday-hung-out-with-tycoons-and-ran-britain-1769945.html

If nothing else Murdoch is a pragmatist he is only interested in selling papers, media and making money - which is why the English Sun supported Brexit, but the Murdoch owned Times and Scottish Sun did not.

Corbyn posted a photo of his cat on his Instagram today, that's why I'm voting for him.

(his cat also looks like him)

Hopefully the French will have the fortitude to vote for LePen. It's the best option they have to repair France, and it will do us a big favour in Brexit negotiations.

Wow, you didn't just say that did you? You're either a WUM or a little silly if you think Le Pen will repair France...however Le Pen is mightier than the sword...

And why is that exactly? I'm guessing you have bought into the left wing media BS that she is some sort of racist / xenophobe / islamaphobe blah blah.

You think this guy (Macron) is going to change anything that is going on in France? If you haven't done your homework, maybe his will help.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jt6_A_CXwU

If you took some time to research The Front Nationale, you see that it is a racist organisation. The fact that she's trying to distance herself from them now is a good indicator that she knows this too.

A right wing nutjob in the Whitehouse, the probability of a right wing nutjob in 10 Downing Street and another one running France? Sounds great......

Where are the mainstream left wing media outlets you mentioned?

Mr Molyneux seems to know the 'truth' about a lot of things, I bet he also finishes posts on Forum with FACT!

Whilst there is a certain clarity with the French veering to the right reflecting whyat is happening inn the UK, I am not altogether sure how Le Penn will help the UK, whilst having another Putin Poodle on the doorstep is not going to be that helpful to anyone?

As you know i'm trying to take an interest in these elections and if there's one thing i hate when reading various party propaganda is when parties use others weakness to try to win votes as opposed to their own strengths.

On the news this morning was mentioned that 300 disabled people a day are going to court to prove their eligibility and fight for their benefits. This process is costing the British tax payer £1 million a week.

Thats the price we pay for strong and stable leadership....

Oh come on, left wing media bullsh*t, we all know that moist of the mainstream media has an erring to the right.

Hobodan. In my comment where did I even mention Macron was France's answer? I never even mentioned the guy. The situation in France is different because the real fact of the matter is many people want neither Macron or Le Pen. Many will simply refuse to vote (I don't necessarily agree with this stance) because politically and for some time now things in France have not gone the "French way". Mainly across their political spectrum the modern stance of an open country for all has wavered. Many french people are ashamed of how their state is behaving politically. Many are torn because they feel pressured to choose for fear if they don't then a Le Pen victory is imminent. If you know if the tiniest bit about the French voting directive a high concentration of the demographic is represented by who they fear. The nation deeply fears Le Pen.

If you actually bothered to research the relatively close confines of this forum (even this thread) you will see that I do not jump to erratic conclusions and you will also see that I don't act on impulse to mainstream media articles across any medium. I also don't react very positively to poorly put together youtube videos. However, I did ask you a question, possibly with some rhetorical notion but you did not answer all you did is post a "fact-based" video about Macron. Then decided to go on the defensive by falsely implying that I was a supporter of Macron, when I didn't even mention his name in my response.

As Chubbs rightly put (and also entering new territory of the political minefield) He summed up your responses perfectly.

Don't worry. Everything will be fine when Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott are running things.

Widely known. We are literally paying the government to abuse disabled people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-fit-to-work-assessments-cost-more-than-they-save-report-reveals-a6801636.html

It's not perfect but it's marginally better than a May/Hunt/Boris cabinet surely?  ;)  :cry: :cry: :cry:

All parties just seem to be doing a great job of proving that there really is no great choice at the moment.  I don't trust any of these muppets to run our country..

Tories sniping at Corbyn to win votes, Labour providing lots of ammunition to make it easy for the Tories to snipe..  what a great choice we have.

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick: ten out of ten for effort on the trolling and for introducing probably most of the TEF to nutjob Mr Stefan Molyneux.

Marine, to be fair, is less racist than her father Jean-Marie Le Pen who described the holocaust as a detail of second world war history and also less racist than her niece Marion Marechal-LePen but to suggest that it is BS that she is Islamophobic is absurd - she has been quite specific on that drawing parallels between the German occupation of France in WW2 and the manifestations of Islamic culture in France today.  She is economically a Protectionist.

To the project-fear Brexiteers, who dream of the fall rather than reform of the Euro and indeed the descent into chaos of the EU, and who would see this as some sort of vindication, I can see that a Le Pen victory may be encouraging.  Note however that she has however rowed back somewhat, in round two of the election, on France actually leaving the euro and on the holding of an EU referendum.

For the non-doctrinaire Brexiteers and indeed non-doctrinaire Remainers, looking now for a positive relationship between a strong, independent UK and a strong, reforming EU in areas of economics, science, defence, security and shared values, then Le Pen would be bad news (assuming racism is not yet at least a shared value).

Not sure Macron will not be inheriting more to bite off than he can chew but his election would be beneficial for the UK in my opinion and "no-brainer" preferable to the alternative.

Politician in getting the figures wrong shocker, whilst when you actually look at the breakdown of figures in the Labour press release they add up - strangely that bit is getting nearly zero reporting as is the massive drop in Officers since 2009 (just trying to recall who was the Home Sec in the majority of that period?).

I have no time for Diane Abbott, however if this entire campaign is going to centre on playing the man (or woman) rather than analysis of the policies (will be hard for the Tories as they don't appear to have any at the moment) its going to get ridiculous, the fact that this is the lead story on the BBC website, means that either its a bloody dull day or their reporting is somewhat more critical of certain parties than others?

Meanwhile in Cornwall the media are locked in rooms and banned from filming the PM or her answering any questions, should that possibly not be the news story of the day!

Here http://www.cornwalllive.com/prime-minister-theresa-may-visits-cornwall-ahead-of-general-election/story-30306323-detail/story.html

Yeesh, LePen seems to have done a decent PR job in the last couple of years if people think she isn't racist.  You can agree or disagree on some of the policies, but be sure she is a Leader of the National Front for a reason.  This nice shiny new Populist stuff is just convenient because it takes in some of the NF ideals, but it doesn't stop them being the French BNP.

I don't think she is the leader presently, she seems to have taken the lead of that Mr Farage by resigning when its gets a bit warm, sure she will be back in charge soon.

Stefan speaks a lot of sense. Please dispute what you don't like about any of his opinions? Feel free to ridicule any of his points on Macron?  I'm guessing you are probably sat in your comfy chair lapping up 'the young Turks' or some left wing bullshit 😂

Macron would be a disaster for France, he only brings more of the same which has gotten France into such a mess. It's ironic that there is next to NO mainstream media reports of the fascist communists rioting in France with their radical Islamist counterparts (yes, fascists lefties! Who'd have though!), yet you can find footage and on the ground evidence all over social media.
If you think Macron will change France you are the nutjob, but maybe extreme lefties do not want to change the 'diversity' experiment that has left Paris in such a dump from excessive Islamic immigration?
If you take the time to dig into the facts and not swallow the BS that the mainstream media push, you will be surprised how bad Paris is ATM. And let's not mention Sweden.

I have a sneaky suspicion that you might visit Breitbart.com or maybe infowars?

LePen is racist FACT.

No idea on Macron, wasn't debating his abilities, good or bad.

Left wing ideologues can be just as "fascist" (in the way you are using the term), as good old extreme right wingers.

I have not once mentioned that Macron would be brilliant for France!

and ICYMI

Alex Jones? 😂 Is without question a nutjob. Not familiar with Breitbart. Your accusation of LePen being a 'racist' is nothing more than expected of the typical lefty histeria. Your forgot 'xenophobe' and 'islamaphobe', more buzzwords slung around by lefties when they fail to argue any point. Please show me why LePen is a racist as you say she is?

I bet you 50 euros she's got a smelly cunt

Would LePen have been as outraged by a a bunch of white Christians having a prayer session in a local park?  Her reference to an occupation makes it clear to me that underlying her thoughts are worries about people who look and seem different, hence my FACT after the statement, suggesting in TEF fashion that my opinion is more worthy 😏.

I am neither left nor right and this recent move in politics that you have to be an extreme of either worries me.  Why can't people just have a range of views on things in the world? 

BTW, outside of the immigration stuff, LePen would be bordering on old skool Socialism, pretty far left.

Finally, I think we need further research on the bet above.

How well do you know France and French politics hobodan? How recently have you been in Paris?

Genuine questions. I'm trying to work out your qualifications for what you say.

Is there anything you want to ask me?

I was in Paris last month and thinking back i didn't really notice an excessive number of Islamic Immigrants. Romany gypsies on the other hand.....

I was there a few months ago and I did, especially around the city centre and in the side streets around Gare Du Nord.  Compared to time previous that I went to Paris I saw a huge difference, I didn't feel entirely safe last time around and if I would have been with my family I would have been on Meerkat alert.  Based on my last experience I am not in a hurry to go back..

This doesn't mean that agree with the political discussion about this, I just wanted to point out my observations compared to yours.

In all honesty i felt less safe in Munich than i did in Paris.

This is just a bit of fun. Theresa May bingo, if you must. :)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1385483308197167&id=665729536839218

Local elections today, but I didn't receive a polling card?? I assumed I was registered (have voted in all local, general and referendums since I moved here three years ago).

Live in Moredon, assumed I'd have been able to vote on parishes??

You can vote without a card. It's entirely possible that SBC have fucked up your registation as it seems to be you need to register annually.

I assumed we didn't have a vote (same ward), existing Parish so no vote?

Nah, turns out there's only one power hungry sad bastard person standing for one seat in our ward, so we don't get a vote

Where's Re-open Nominations gone when you need them eh?


Meanwhile, this made me smile on Twitter. It's from Private Eye, obviously: (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C--VU4BWsAEUxxK.jpg)

I had a total of 3 votes available to me today. I used 2 of them. Was going to spoil it but need to do my bit to try to keep the Tories out.
Very quiet so expecting a poor turn out

Either that or like me some people voted by post.
I voted for two also, Labour and Lib Dems, for the same reason.

 For Swindon residents... the Tory parish scam is a con of the very first order. 

By putting up candidiates both Labour and LibDems acquiesce in it.... whereas what they should be doing is looking at ways of challenging its legality.

It's reasonable to expect a shadow minister of a major office of state to be on top of her brief for an interview during a general election, especially as the Home Office is notorious for being difficult to run - it is dubbed "the graveyard of ministers". That Abbott was clearly out of her depth is not good enough.

Quite so, however in determining this one also has to compare her with the present incumbent who is equally inept and lacking in briefing (see her wonderful performance regarding IT matters and encryption - where she seemed to think that just taking a flyer on random IT terms would suffice - plus Ms Abbott does not share Ms Rudd's very mucky business history).

One could also conclude that Mrs May is equally grossly out of her depth as evidenced by her refusal to speak to any members of the public and only journalists in a sterile (and often locked) environment, setting aside her obvious complete lack of briefing and understanding of the Brexit process?

Ultimately Abbott has only got promoted as she is a loyal supporter of the leader, however the manner in which the media are just concentrating on these peripheral issues and not challenging the government on their lack of a campaign bar 'vote for us we are not quite as shit as they are' (with the two points in their poster both being blatant spin/lies) and the chaotic state of the public finances is giving the government (which already has a free shot) an incredibly easy ride. 

I completely agree that Mrs May is out of depth regarding Brexit, her current actions worry me enormously as does the lack of effective opposition to hold her to account. We can conclude that Labour's inept abilities is made clear by May not even bothering to campaign properly - she doesn't need to.

The media - "the fourth estate" - has long abrogated its duty to hold the powerful to account, on both sides. This is after all the same media that right across the board reported that Cameron "vetoed an EU treaty" in 2011 when he clearly didn't. But that fiction is now part of historical record.

I would like to see David Milliband return to Labour and politics, he has unfinished business after his dork brother was chosen instead of him. He spoke and came across so much better that it should never have been a choice, must have been monetary or in-politics I guess?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/04/im-an-ex-politician-david-miliband-dampens-talk-of-return

To say the least, I wish Tony Blair would be more quiet.

I recall the Millibands were decided by an in-party vote maybe, of more senior officials or MPs? Unlike Corbyn with the wider, almost public, vote. If that was the case then the same senior members now against Corbyn are probably also the fools who chose Ed over Dave.

Ed had the backing of the unions...

Blair is entitled to his say... he did win 3 elections, for which I'm grateful, certainly my life changed for the better in those Labour years.  OK he fucked up over Iraq, but I guess that is the fate of all long serving leaders.

It's just about 20 years to the day, that the first of those elections was won. What a great night in the pub...drinking right the way through, as a succession of loathed Tories bit the dust.

David was the Blairite continuity candidate, Ed was seen as the left-wing choice. Fairly sure from what you've said you don't want David back.

Well, it is the fate of the ones that start illegal wars which kill hundreds of thousands and continue to cause chaos and instability worldwide to this day, yes. Although, that's pretty much just Blair.

Spot on Reg. I'm with arriba, in that I'm tempted to spoil my ballot by writing what a con the whole thing is on it. But
a) it's a bit pointless
b) that would just reward the scammers by removing a potential vote against them
Appalling piece of gerrymandering.

My answer was to vote for an independent who drinks in my local. 5 times  :)

Hazy of course to suggest that local election results can be read into too far, but the overnight results are looking increasingly like a Tory landslide. UKIP vote collapsing to them especially is a big factor, counterintuitively the left probably need Nuttall's mob to hold their own, but it's not looking like the polling companies are collectively underplaying Labour's hand at the moment (nor, for the sake of balance, are the Lib Dems making the progress they'd have hoped for).

Overall, it's beginning to look like the TEF may not be a representative sample of the electorate. Who'd have thought it?

The UKIP thing is entirely understandable, although I don't buy the whole argument being peddled by many Tories that their point has vanished.

Its more the case that the Tories have veered so far right that UKIP voters are returning to the fold as  May have brought the more extreme policies of UKIP into the main stream, the speech about the EU in the week was exactly what Farage has been saying whilst her conference speech was probably even more right wing that Farage would have dared. 

The Tories did better than I expected. 9/3 majority in West Swindon, which I suppose shouldn't be all that much of a surprise given the demographic, but I expected Labour to do better.

The main vote winner in my ward was a UKIP-turned-Tory flipper who obviously benefited from swapping his purple rosette for a blue one.

In Old Town it was 3 seats to Labour and 1 to Conservatives. Was within 7 votes to being all 4 seats to Labour. 

Same as Thatcher did to the NF in 79, destroyed their electoral base by coopting their language, if not (thankfully) all their policies. Although I agree May has gone further in terms of adoption of the extreme policies, not sure she's gone further than Farage, still think we're a way off a Tory leader openly backing Marine Le Pen.

By the sounds of it as well these new parish councils in Swindon had had majority of existing Councillors voted onto them so guess that means that will help SBC in the future push other things their way

A complete farce... just a way of bumping up the Council Tax, bypassing the law of the land. 

People electing Nick Martin locally says it all about people nowadays.
Labour are going to get an almighty pasting next month. That cunt Tomlinson will probably increase his majority too.  :crash:

Whilst you're probably right, remember when the whole world was saying Trump had no chance.

Cannot stand Martin, and now his wife is in on it too.

I'd imagine there'll be a whole new heap of expenses to claim....

If the locals are any indication then Labour are fucked. Gutted.

In many ways this isn't a bad election to lose.

The Tories are going to have to deliver a Brexit, which doesn't take the economy down the pan... the evidence so far suggests they haven't much of a clue how to do it.

5 more years of Tory rule... my kid starts school in 3. I'm likely to need a hospital between now and then.

I know a good few mostly young people, but not exclusively, who decided to move to the continent after last summer's referendum. Admittedly they more or less have no obligations of family, or are old enough to heve to discharged them.

Personally I've always thought the patriotic thing to do is to not let the buggers grind you down....

Poland will sort you out with cheap private healthcare....

That's not a new thing, she's been a councillor for 20+ years IIRC

I'm not quite old enough to remember pre NHS days, but certainly my parents used to talk about it

What I do recall is in the 50's, it was still a pretty primitive set up, by today's standards.

I'd imagine the Tories will start to look at the need for private healthcare insurance, for all..... not least because one of the costs of Brexit will be the need to do deals with Trump, and US insurers are very keen on the UK market.

(http://i.imgur.com/Ufbr5ej.gif)

My mum won as an Independent in Chippenham.

Ill be honest I tend to think this local bollocks should be divorced from parties politics.  It should be about whats good for the community not parroting anything about national politics.

Damn right. And congratulations to your Mum, need more indies in local politics

Quite frankly, Labour are a laughing stock and will continue to be so long as Corbyn remains at the helm.

It's a shame there is no credible alternative to the tories so we are stuck with them for the foreseeable  :no:

I bet that's music to the ears to labour supporters.

5 indies in 'Nam now.  I think they hold the casting vote.

Time to pile your cash on Corbyn winning in June then?

I'm not sure even Chang can get this one wrong. Unless the news leaks that May eats babies for breakfast

even then it would be close

Things change, people change, hairstyles change, interest rates fluctuate.

...and Theresa May continues to say..."Strong & stable government."

Shithot!! I thought we were dead and buried :)

 Things must be Ok, as the number of billionaires in the Uk has grown from 21, 15 years ago to 134.

Proof positive that money trickles up from the poor to the rich under the Tories.

But well done to Calvin Harris....don't suppose many who saw him at Lydiard 8 years ago now, would have thought he'd end up in such elevated company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9UbVdBbMFA

Who doesnt

Counting Blair and Brown as honorary Tories I see  ;)

Nice bit of propaganda on the energy cap. Actually made front page today. Same policy made headlines in 2013 ... but with a slightly different spin on things.

Labour have no chance for various reasons, one of which is the strength of the propaganda against them / in favour of the Tories.

And in 2013 ->

Looking forward to Cameron accusing May of "wanting to live in a Marxist universe" :)

No propaganda needed when Labour leadership are busy focusing on the real enemy in this election - their own members and activists, trying to get rid of one of the most despised members of the government

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/09/labour-expels-south-west-surrey-members-attempt-unseat-jeremy-hunt

they'll get reinstated on appeal, unless of course they have broken the rules.

They have broken the rules. Bloody stupid to expel them for trying to unseat the Minister for Rhyming Slang, though.

Labour have tended to blame the media for their failings, it's the political equivalent of the Tories in the past who claimed "we're not getting our message across" as the excuse for losing. Nope, the message has come across loud and clear and the electorate don't like it. Thus it's a patronising view to take regarding the voters if nothing else.

Labour are going to lose heavily (barring any unforeseen circumstances) because they have chosen an inept Marxist clown to represent them in a GE. No amount of media coverage positive or otherwise is going to change that.

A lot of evidence suggests that many people quite like policies like renationalising the railways...rent capping for private landlords, making sure the corporate sector pays its fair share of tax.

Even the Tories have lifted Milliband's thing on checking power companies for over charging.

However Corbyn and Labour fucked up badly over Europe... on such decisions are elections are won and lost.  

People who voted for Brexit want to believe the lies of the Tory right...therefore will give them a chance to deliver.

Labour should have followed the 1974 manifesto pledge, to leave the Common Market...unless there were significant reforms and hold a referendum on the outcome.

For those interested here's a run down of Labours leaked draft manifesto.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39879113

The question on everyone mind is the same. How will all this be funded. I don't believe for 1 second this can all be funded by the tax increase on the 5% highest earners.

Increase, not decrease, in corporation tax will help

There are many ways of raising extra funds, as LS mentions, even keeping Corporation Tax at its present level would help, not raising inheritance tax to a mill, rather than its present 300K or so.

Tightening up of rules on inheritance tax, whereby the Grosvenor Estate, can be left a son in a form of a Trust, and so be completely exempt, would help.

The Tory right now in government pointed out that £350 mill a week could be spent on the NHS, now we are leaving the EU.

That would greatly eclipse the top 5% thing, it's just that the top 5% is what the media are focusing on because:
a) It makes a better headline (bash the rich and all that)
b) It helps make their pre-determined case that this is silly and unrealistic, instead of actually analysing whether it might be.
Actually collecting all the tax due would help too.
And yes I'm also aware that there's a danger that if the corporation tax is too punitive, then it may be a case of diminishing returns. But given that some of the corporations most likely to be able to jump territories are also the ones that are most active at not paying any tax here anyway, that's probably a moot point.

Corporation Tax receipts are at a record high so the situation is improving. Obviously a number of factors but shows that concentrating on things other than the rate of tax can make a massive difference.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7

Removing many of the reliefs would simplify our tax system and generate more tax revenues that simply increasing percentages in many cases

Conservative.

The irony of the Tory "Strong and stable" message is that Theresa May looks weak and unstable.

She looks like a rabbit in the headlights when she isn't just reading a script she's been given.

She looks totally out of her depth,that whole One show nonsense with her twatty husband was absolutely cringeworthy.
 She has to be protected from actually meeting anyone who might ask her a question she's not prepared for.

She reminds me of the teacher at school who was easy to wind up and bring to tears and was always having time off with a nervous breakdown.

 

Shittest. First. Post. Ever.

She's a cunt. And not a nice, jokey, cunt. A horrible, poisonous one.

Did you get hurt or violated by a conservative voter in a previous life?  You post very aggressive when people post anything pro conservative..

I don't think any of my posts are aggressive toward other posters? If you mean my posts are aggressively against the tories, you're right. I'm puzzled how people can have so many blind spots when it comes to what they're doing.

By the way, I would've responded to Richants in the same way if they had posted 'Labour', or 'Lib Dem'.

Thatcher was a horrible poisonous cunt,May is more of an insipid cunt.

But definitely a cunt...

When viewed in the context of what the Tories are doing to this country,i'd say his posts show remarkable restraint.

Look at her eyes. It's all in her eyes....

You're a braver man than me ...  :)

Yeah, not towards other posters just generally :D  It wasn't a dig btw.  I have still yet to be persuaded which way I am going to vote, unfortunately I don't think there is a good option this time around, which is exactly why May has called the GE now.

Quite right. Hence why she won't do debates and doesn't allow members​ of the public near her.
Unless it's scripted she fucks up time and time again(calling terrorists tourists, not knowing where she was etc) Diane Abbott mixing up 300,000 with 300million was more newsworthy.

Apart from fox hunting( which says everything about her and her party, selfservatives) and "strong and stable" what do they actually have?
I'm staggered anyone could tick the box next to a conservative candidate. I really can't work it out?
Someone tweeted me the other day that Labour will do less for the working class than the Tories. I just don't understand how?

See, saying there is no good option makes no sense if you look at it all objectively. There are great points on a number of manifesto. The Labour one genuinely seeks to make things better for the majority of every day people, and is costed fully. To argue that it isn't a good option is nonsensical - the benefits are huge.

But then, we've all been told by huge swathes of the media that Corbyn is incompetent, so let's all believe that instead.

I know quite a few Tories... and they can have some very strange ideas seemingly completely at odds with reality. I would say though that the uniting theme, is they see life as a rat race, you get where you can by climbing over others...and devil take the hindmost.

Maybe have some sort of system like the workhouse and parish relief, for those truly down on their luck, combined with worthwhile religious charities.

In the meantime they'll look after their own...and expect the Party to work for their interests.

How long before Corbyn is blamed for the NHS cyber attack?

You have to be one sick Fcuk to hack hospital computers and then demand money otherwise you will wipe information - lets hope whoever is behind it never needs a hospital

I'd much prefer that they will need a hospital....

This. Can we just not decide the election by giving it to whoever Putin hacks on the grounds that the other guys are clearly the baddies?

As I've lived outside the UK for more than 15 years I am not allowed to vote (despite the Tories promising in their last election lie list that they would change this....), but I would definitely vote Labour. This shower of shit in charge at the moment is the worst I have seen since the days of Thatcher. Luckily for them they have the backing of almost all the media who will ensure that May romps home by constantly attacking everything that Corbyn says and does.

And the average voter, being as thick as pigshit, actually believes that the Tories will be better for them than Labour. Fuck me, what will it take for them to come to their senses?

If you vote Tory and your kids go to a state school,you rely on the NHS for your healthcare and you don't have the security of vast sums of personal wealth,then I'm afraid you are a turkey voting for Christmas.

All of this but mainly the staggered bit.  It makes no logical sense for the vast majority of people.

And all hail Reg, for squeezing some sort of rationale out of these miserable creatures and sharing it with us...you're a better man than I, as all I can ever elicit is a shrinking, squirming embarrassment out of these shy, silent cowards.

And here, on this thread - nearly neck and neck in the TEF polling - but where are you Tories?  All hiding?  All afraid to debate?  All just a little bit uncomfortable?

Unfortunately, statistically speaking, half the population is below average intelligence.

Aside from that, odd as it may seem, the majority do actually reject a lot of what the modern left fancy.

I get a lot of shit from folks at work for my leanings towards Labour, one guy in particular was quite vocal, especially about Corbyn's 'terrorist sympathiser' tag. Speaking to him yesterday, he admitted that Corbyn actually speaks a lot of sense, and he's gonna vote for Labour.

This election is purely about Brexit for the majority of the population, and that's easy to understand why. This video sums how a lot of people feel about Corbyn, and how the EU are behaving and why the conservatives will win by a landslide...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbw2QwwgJk

Yawn. Instead of watching shit YouTube videos, why don't people look at Labour policies and compare them to what the tories have done and are planning to do?

Labour are far from perfect, but the tories are infinitely worse and the majority are happy to bend over and take it up the arse from them.

There's so much ignorance and bullshit in that video on the EU that it's hard to know where to start.

Tories voters have always just kept quiet and voted.

The polls have always underestimated the "silent Tory" voter factor, never more so than the last election.  If it happens again and pollsters still haven't accounted for this then the margin of victory could be wider than anyone could imagine

Thats exactly how I feel about it. So much shit being stirred up in the press about Corbyn but ignore the press and TV and read it yourself, its not about lining their own pockets and those of their rich supporters as the Conservaties always do.

I was brought up to vote Labour and did for many years

But the labour party unfortunately, no longer represents the working class.

The labour party is full of middle-class people who prefer to tell the working class what they should want, rather than listen to them. When people are working hard to survive, they want a party that understands them, and looks after them.
Not a party that thinks Global Issues are more important than the people they claim to lookafter.

People will scoff at this, but in my opinion, the working class will be better off under a Conservative government at the moment, than a Labour government that puts all the trendy causes ahead of working man/woman

Yes, the working classes with young school age kids are going to do really well out of May's grammar school putsch... there may even be a handful who get a leg up in life.  The 11+ was/is a very strange exam...I know I passed it :)

Say what you like, but you can't call Teresa bringing back foxhunting a trendy cause. Not sure how it will help the working man/woman though. Although I can see how the NHS does. And state education. And a decent public transport system. And affordable utilities.But if you think you can do without all those, you go vote for the hunting classes, I'm sure they'll be grateful to you for it.

Let's be clear here. TM hasn't said she will bring back fox hunting, she did she was in favour of it and would let MP's decide by vote in Parliament.

I know. I was making a slightly flippant point in response to NTNIIH suggestion that the Tories are best placed to help the working man/woman whereas Labour would pursue "trendy causes"

I vote Labour whenever they offer a competent administration.  I voted for Callaghan, Blair and Brown.  I voted against Foot, Kinnoch and Milliband.  I thought long and hard about Milliband.  I didn't think for a nanosecond about Corbyn.

1. People constantly maintain that everyone supports Corbyn's policies and are amazed that they won't vote for him.  I think that a lot of swing voters disagree with significant portions of his policies, most notably wholesale re-nationalisation, but that's not the point.  Ask people if they support unlimited free education, unlimited free healthcare, unlimited benefits for the poor, the old, the sick, the disabled, larger pensions, shorter working hours and they'll  agree with all of it individually.  Bundle it up as a plan for running the country and they’ll query how you pay for it.  Not by hitting the rich who are infamously adept at avoiding tax, and anyway there aren't enough of them.

2. The left constantly fails to grasp that general election votes are simply counted, not evaluated and weighted.  An uncertain, unconvinced vote counts the same as an utterly committed one.  I can't prove it but I bet that most of Le Pen's 35% vote was enthusiastic and fervent whilst most of Macron's was simply an "anyone but Le Pen".  So what, he's still the next president.  This left wing delusion that it's somehow progress if you give half as many people five times as many reasons to vote Labour is infantile.

3. Posters on here keep blaming the expected election outcome on the right wing press and the stupid, gullible, idiot voters.  Again, I don't altogether agree but let's assume you are 100% right.  Is this an unforeseen recent development or was it just the same when Corbyn was enthusiastically elected and re-elected?  Was there any basis for anticipating that the press would get less right wing or the voters less stupid in time for the next general election?  Every day is fucking groundhog day for the left as they wake up each morning constantly re-amazed that the world is as it is rather than as they believe that it should be.

4. Another recurring theme on here is that Teresa May is a cunt.  So what?  How is this relevant?  People vote based on who they trust.  All Tory leaders are pretty much the same.  The history of the last 40 years shows that they are generally trusted for their competence and distrusted for their intentions.  Offer a competent Labour administration as an alternative and voters will enthusiastically support them.  Offer a ragbag assortment of clowns and they won’t.

5. Someone asked earlier why people keep saying that “Labour will do less for the working classes than the Tories.  I just don’t understand how?”.   Because they think that Corbyn will wreck the economy and when that happens who suffers, the rich or the poor?  Rightly or wrongly (rightly as it happens) that’s what people believe and that’s how they will vote.  Labour will “do less” because they’ll be sitting on the sidelines passing worthy conference motions and playing with themselves.

So no, I’m not “hiding”, I’m not “afraid” and I’m not “a little bit ashamed”.  I’m angry and frustrated that self-absorbed wankers with their self-satisfied “principles” have left the country with the choice between an absurd socialist dreamer and five more years of Tory government.  They are the real cunts, not Teresa May who is just the latest Tory leader to get the future of this country handed to her on a plate. 

This is a really good post and most of what you wrote is bang on. I'll still be voting Labour though, for a couple of reasons.. My political leaning is slightly left of centre; definitely not Socialist, or Marxist, but voting Lib Dems in Swindon is as pointless as STFC after a derby game. I don't trust either of the other 2 main parties, but for very different reasons. I don't trust Labour because I'm worried that their policies, most of which I agree with, will be difficult to implement due to infighting and weak people in positions of power (Not Corbin, I'm thinking of Dianne Fucking Abbott). I don't trust the tories because they are dangerous. Seriously dangerous. Their policies are self serving, they don't care about 90% of the population, they are destroying public services and they have just as many fucking loons as Labour (Boris Fucking Johnson, Jeremy Fucking Hunt?). In my view, Labour is a lesser evil and that's why I'll be voting for them.

PS. I still maintain that Theresa May is a cunt.

I'm in Pax's gang.

Bloody good post that Pax

I'm not sure how PR can describe the present Tory administration as any way competent.

 He's right though to say they are distrusted for their intentions... and as you say this current lot have some very dangerous intentions.

 

 

 Great post pax. I'm a traditional labour supporter but want out of the EU so voted ukip. This time around I'd love to vote labour but don't think I can. Can't vote tory either. Anyone who introduces the bedroom tax is not fit for government. Tax fucking Starbucks not the fucking disabled. I do, however, think there needs to be a benefits cap.
One of the things I hate about labour at the moment is the intellectual superiority of shitbags like Abbott and thornberry. It's not their fault they can't convince the voters, it's that the voters are intellectual pygmies and just don't get it. Lib dem are just a bunch of sexual deviants. It really is a choice of who is less shit.

Couldn't agree more with Pax, especially point 4.

One of the most succinct posts of read on here in a long time, which is scary in our world of 80% bollocks..

He didn't he said they were perceived as being competent and that is why people will vote for them when Labour put up a "ragbag assortment of clowns" (an excellent description of Corbyn's proposed govt in waiting) as an alternative. TBF though the description applies equally well to the party that brought us the Brexit shambles (whether you wanted Brexit or not, having the idiots Johnson and Fox who campaigned for it but didn't have a plan as to what would happen if they won, not just in govt  but in charge of Brexit is just ridiculous), the NHS hack, Austerity (and then fucked that up by spectacularly missing their own targets), Amber fucking Rudd etc etc. It's a choice between one bunch of incompetent clowns and another, not a great choice. That's not to mention May's terrifying unquestioning cosying up to the Clown in Chief Trump and all the harm he will do.

So I guess the question is do you want relatively well-meaning incompetent clowns or evil malicious incompetent clowns?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/ChuckyDoll.jpg)
The new minister in charge of implementing Tory cuts

OK let me change that...

I'm not sure how PR can describe the present Tory administration as being perceived as any way competent.

Compared to the previous Labour government under Blair/Brown it's easy to see why they are perceived to be more competent.

I don't agree.  Brown had his presentational faults but I think history will recognise that we were very fortunate to have such a competent and courageous chancellor in 2008 when we really needed one.  Imagine Norman Lamont in the same scenario.

By contrast Teresa May looks utterly clueless, the references earlier in this thread to her looking like a rabbit in the headlights seem spot on.  Yes it's great to be tough and resolute but there needs to be some intelligence and vision behind it.  Worse still the team behind her look average at best. 

In the past the Tories had brains even if they didn't have hearts.  Osborne (say) may not have been everyone's favourite human being but he was smart. 

I think a May government will be a shambles and I'm voting for them as the best available option.  If I lived 5 miles further east I'd actually have to vote for her personally and I would.  It's a fucking joke.

Somehow the Tories always seem to benefit from the label of being the party of  "economic competence". Why?

I grew up during a period of exclusively Tory rule. Not looked any of this up but my memory is of a time of massive boom-and-bust - 15%+ interest rates, negative-equity, stock market crash, 4 million unemployed, inner city riots etc.

Yet it always Labour labelled as "taking us back to the 70s" as if the 80s and early 90s are the halcyon days of lore.

Some people wouldn't be able to comprehend mortgage rates in double-figures let alone cope with them. Any significant increase in the next few years to counteract the recent inflationary pressures would see dire consequences for many.

I think I'll wait to read the manifestos, I've done the Labour draft one and that seems more radical than those before it, I'm happy about Royal Mail and the train franchises and education etc. I'd probably be better off voting Con but we'll see what they publish. I would like to see health have a higher GDP percentage spend than it does now as a priority and free bus passes at 55.
love
Ron

That I agree with, not least David Davis who doesn't understand the basic difference between an EU customs union and the EEA (Single Market). Even worse they were offered a plan (http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf) but they rejected it on the basis it contradicted their copious wealthy backers views of an "Adam Smith" type bonfire of regulations. On that basis the Tories are trying to hijack the result for their own ends.

Unfortunately the real world don't work like that, and certainly the EU doesn't. Theresa May might want to ignore the British electorate after a possible big GE victory but issues like the NI and Irish border are not going to go away.

Thanks PR for offering some insight into the mindset of potential Conservative voters.  Desperate times indeed.

Having worked within Network Rail I couldn't think of anything worst than bringing the railways back into public ownership, the inefficiencies are staggering. Still catching up with decades of underinvestment from when it was last publicly operated by BR. Having the TOC's in place at least leads to some investment and forces them to deliver due to the financial penalties for overrunning possessions and delay minutes.
Just need to look at the mess Network Rail are making of the Great Western electrification, can only imagine the chaos if they ran the trains as well!

Well it works in other countries. We're paying for it already so why not see the money stay within the public purse rather than into cunts like Richard Branson's pockets?

As Network Rail is a QUANGO and ultimately responsible to parliament is it not a national company anyway.

As for the ToC's they have hardly been a resounding success as we are subsidising them to a greater level than BR ever were in the good old days (which weren't very good!)and essentially just paying the private sector to run train services?

What Labour seem to have missed is that whilst in theory one could renationalise the ToC fairly easy and cheaply by letting the franchises cease and not renewing (although there would be a complete bun fight over the terms and conditions of the various staff which would keep the Unions busy for years) what they haven't accounted for is the rolling stock which is all in private hands, not owned by the company operating the trains, for instance I think most of the GWR stock is actually owned by Angel Trains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Trains and buying all the stock back is going to cost a small fortune.

Like so many Labour ideas looks good at first glance but can it actually be delivered and what does it actually achieve?

In 2014 NR became a public sector body so to all intents and purposes it's a National Company but that is by for by.  When you look back at the likes of British Rail, CEGB etc they were grossly inefficient, poorly managed and allowed national infrastructure to deteriorate to the extent that even today they are still undoing decades of neglect.
A lot of NR are ex British Rail and still operate in an antiquated way where they think they have access to bottomless pits of money and that just doesn't work and NR have already racked up debts in the region of £40 billion as a result.  If a company is nationalised it still needs to operate like a private company and deliver efficiencies and value for money and in my experience of the public sector this is never the case.

The cost to do it would take decades to pay back partly because as you say the rolling stock is privately owned. With all the new stock just ordered from the likes of Hitachi, Siemens and Bombardier on long term leases this isn't going to change any time soon. 

It may work in other countries but it never worked here under BR and factoring the cost/benefit I just don't see what it would actually deliver here other than a huge initial increase in our national debt.

We have finally had some bumf through the door this morning, the Tory one makes interesting reading as seems to be entirely based around Theresa May and if she is their best asset god help them and by extension us....

Couple of things caught my eye....

It is claiming explicitly that the deficit is down by almost two thirds - now I suppose by not giving a starting point that open to interpretation, but hasn't debt gone through the roof since 2010 and thus isn't this a blatant lie? They are also going to take back control of our borders, whilst various party members admit on the TV that this is not really going to happen, ensure we leave in an orderly and smooth way - again evidence suggests whatever the deal it will be neither smooth nor orderly, and finally they commit to provide as much clarity at every stage of the process which kind of contradicts the attempts to keep parliament out of the entire process.

Very telling that, if this is to be believed, the Tories conclude this election is about Theresa May and Brexit and nothing else! What it is entirely lacking in is any substance or policies..... Much like Mrs May herself really.

It's fair to say this election is about Brexit. My gut feeling is that May won't want to tank the UK economy...so some kind of Norway style deal will have to be agreed. Her problem is going to be selling this to the UKIP wing of her party

There was a programme on R4 over the weekend about the election campaigns to date, which I only caught part of, but was basically saying exactly this - May has decided she sells well but the "Nasty Party" doesn't so she's decided to conduct the most presidential campaign since Blair and ask people to vote for her, not the Tories. According to the programme (sorry can't remember what it was, but think it was on Sat morning IIRC), polling shows that people don't like her, but they do think she'll do a good job, esp around Brexit. Despite the evidence to date.

https://fullfact.org/economy/deficit-down-two-thirds/

BBC article on debt vs deficit (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653)

Another thing about the national debt, I'm sure the rise to the current level, from £1 trillion in 2010, was inevitable due to the annual interest servicing it and this was predicted to happen regardless to who was in power later in the decade.

Interestingly the leaflet has Theresa May in capitals on the front along with a picture but no mention of the Tory Party at all.

Its also completely lacking in any policies and just basically states that it will be shit if Corbyn gets in!

I would suspect the trashing of the value of the pound over the last 12 months hasn't helped much either?

Hands up who can afford to take 12 months off work unpaid?

Tim Sherwood?

Ofcourse this election is about Brexit. Can you imagine Corbyn and his racist side kick Diane Abbot getting a decent deal for Britain 😳 Not a chance in hell. Many people will vote Tory in this election and probably never vote for them again, they really are the only party that can play hardball with E.U Gestapo, who intend to play 'hardball' with us.

I've no idea how Corbyn intends to pay for the ridiculous things he's been coming out with recently. Maybe labour really do intend to pay new police officers £30 a month.....

Ive an idea.  Why not wait for the costed manifestos to come out.  Then perhaps you can make an informed decision.

The best thing about this election (in admittedly a piss poor field) is that the Grauniad have got David Squires to do a political cartoon:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/15/david-squires-on-theresa-may-meeting-voters-hip-hop-ids-and-aspirational-foxes

Panel 6 done with Sippo in mind.

It intrigues me that Diane Abbott gets under the skin of right wing voters so much, just cannot put my finger on why she irritates them so much?

 ;D

I know this is a little off topic but I find people don't properly understand "tax hikes" and this hopefully explains that it doesn't do as much damage to your (average) take home salary as many would think. There's a lot of piping up to be done when "tax rises" get mentioned. I really don't have a massive problem with it. Yes it's "your money" and "how dare they" but let's just consider a small amount of facts here.

E.g

The average full-time, tax paying worker earned c£28k in 2016[1], for this e.g we'll use £25k.

Now consider that the first £11k at present is exempt of taxation. It leaves us with a taxable £14k.

Currently 20% is the income tax for that figure. Which equates to £2800.
This leaves us with £11.2k - c£2050 in NIC's + the £11k (tax exempt) =
£20.15k after NIC or the average annual Net pay.[2]


Lets consider the government levy a 2% income tax rise across the board. Working with the average income that would be just another £280.

£280 into the Government purse pppa.
Consider that £280 pp would be deducted;
 £1.08p per working day   
 £5.39p "                 week              
 £23.33 per working month.

Now consider on average c30 million people pay tax in the UK, of which 4.4million will pay at the higher rate (not the additional rate).[3]
£280
x
30 million
=
£8,400,000,000
or £8.4bn per annum.

That is an effective way of raising funds for the public purse, whilst also not effectively a massive amount to the individual taxpayer. People don't like it but surely we must all agree that if we want more spent on our public services then we must be expected to pay a little more in tax and I really only mean, a little.

I've inserted some references for some of you fellow geeks and others who complain about sources etc. I'm sure you'll find it as compelling as I did...

[1]https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2016provisionalresults "see section 3."

[2]http://www.netsalarycalculator.co.uk/25000-after-tax/

[3]https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf "see page 8"

In the spirit of trying to present things apolitically for people who genuinely haven't made their minds up, here's a bit of information in what's in Labour's manifesto around tax and spend - which is obviously important as one of the main points against Corbyn/McDonnell is that they'd spend more than they raise.

Labour's revenue raising measures here:
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_8J3HHXkAEa39t.jpg)

The headlines are 45% income tax for those earning over 80k and 50% for over 123k, increased corporation tax and then smaller measures around VAT on private school fees, tax on soft drinks, scrapping the married persons' tax allowance and reversing cuts to capital gains and inheritance which have already been announced.

Then spending that money:
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_8K4RVUIAAFfzj.jpg)

Headlines are spending about 25% of that money scrapping University tuition fees entirely, then big chunks for increasing schools funding, the NHS, social security and public sector pay rises.

At the moment, their numbers seem to assume that renationalisations won't cost a penny to the tax payer (willing to be corrected on that) and leave out the cost of hiring 3000 prison guards committed to elsewhere.

As this is the first major manifesto to launch, it's not possibly to compare this with Tory/Lib Dem plans yet but it doesn't look completely insane on the face of it. Devil in the detail no doubt as always with manifestos.

Personally (and here I'll leave behind trying to be neutral) I don't like University tuition fees, but that seems like a lot of money to commit to one policy - I'd much rather see that money spent on Sure Start and programmes for younger people in education if the goal is social mobility - can't help but feel that by the age of 18 a lot of the damage is done.

Good work Nemo. As you say, on the surface it seems to pretty much add up. It's a fair manifesto with a little more spending than recouping (If we factor in a renationalisation cost and 3k prison guards) but a Labour Government will always invest in the state so that's nothing new or shocking. As stated in my previous post, if the Government levied a 2% income tax rise for all 30 million tax payers then that would on average raise £8.4bn per year, some £42bn per 5 year term.

Blimey, that's nearly half the Brexit bill
;)

Isn't that "disgraced and then unaccountably recalled" minister Liam Fox's nickname?

Indeed, and it just shows how little it would take to pay off in a country as wealthy as ours. ;)

The issue that any rise in basic Income Tax levels faces is that many people resent having to pay it all.  A significant proportion of the country would happily get rid of income tax because they associate the spend with things they don't see direct personal value in - at least not today!

It's like the spending argument - the majority of welfare spending (that which causes most split) is actuall Pension and Social Care for the elderly.  Everything else is swamped by it, but we'll no doubt have debates about Disability, Tax Credits and the like.

You can essentially boil it down to two very simple areas of focus to actually get finances under control - increase the retirement age (and take the flak from the older people) or increase direct taxation (and take a hit from those in their peak earning years).

I'd hazard a guess that moving the retirement age to 70 would slash the budget, or free-up resources to spent on all the smaller projects, like the NHS.

 The Tories have finessed the Social Care budget, by as in Victorian times moving it onto the Parish.

 

This is the trouble though. People want their cake and eat it. Which ok, is fine but if the government turned round and said "ok, keep all of your earnings but you have to pay for and source everything. Everything."

 Now people like keeping hold of their money, the extra greedy would spend it all on themselves and nothing would get done or it would be severely fractured indeed. Admittedly some communities would thrive, especially where all are pushing in the same direction. Majority wise though people would refuse to put in and then still complain. It's basic, in order to have even better services people must be prepared to pay. Taxation is basically insurance in a different suit.

You may think like that, just pointing out the plenty do not - coming from a perspective of thinking your view is right is why people become so flabbergasted at the opposition.  BTW, if I was still paying in, I'd be happy with both a tax rise and raising the retirement age.  Reduce VAT and quite frankly corporation tax is a joke anyway, so may as well slash it to get some positive PR.

Totally agree. It's kind of sad though. Whatever happened to "you get back what you put in".  Not necessarily thinking my view is right (I know it is ;) ) and i'm all for helping those who need it. I don't earn very much myself but i'm of the opinion that income is all relative to how you spend the Benjamins. As the saying goes..."charity doesn't start at home, it starts where it is needed."

^*Side note: Immigration; Most people have issues with immigration (generally down to media and government scaremongering) saying "it costs us too much", "we can't afford it." etc. However, according to www.unhcr.org,uk if we factored the 2016 figures of 117k refugees and c33k asylum seekers of which the asylum seekers are not allowed to work so can receive £37pw in benefits. Even if we apply that to the refugee and asylum figures combined (c150k x £37 x 52 = c£288m divide by 30mil taxpayers =£9.62 divide by 365 = £0.026p per person per day.) Less than 3p per day. I call it the "Coffee cup change" statistic. Being many people throw their 5p or less change back to the tax avoiding Starbucks (ironic huh?) once they've received their coffee/tea/frappe/whatever. When people say we "can't afford it" I do have to laugh. Remember the <3p is an over estimated figure by nearly five times the amount so we could easily divide 3p by 5 and the asylum seeker actual cost per person is 0.5p per day.

Apologies for my ramble on.

Funny you mention that as there was talk the lib dems would impose a 5p coffee cup charge like the plastic bag charge

Oh really, that passed me by so total coincidence.

This makes rather chilling reading for democracy in this country....

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

As I did this yesterday for Labour, the Lib Dem manifesto has been launched today.

Key headlines are:

Tax

• 1p on all income tax bands to go to the NHS directly
• Legalise and tax cannabis to raise £1bn a year
• Reverse reduction in corporation tax and higher threshold for inheritance tax and remove married persons tax allowance altogether

Spending

• £7.5bn for education, focusing largely on early years e.g. tripling pupil premium
• Reverse benefit freeze (actually going further the Labour here, it seems)
• Government to build homes directly, targeting 300k new homes a year from private + govt housebuilding
• Free home insulation for 4m homes to reduce energy bills/help the environment

Other

• Second EU referendum on terms of final Brexit deal
• Offer asylum to 50,000 Syrians and 3,000 unaccompanied children
• Proportional representation in Westminster elections, votes for 16 & 17 year olds

Overall it's fairly close to Labour's effort, with a clearer (and remain-er) outlook on Europe and nothing on nationalisation. Oh, and (in my opinion anyway) better targeted spending of the increase in education.

I watched BBC Breakfast this morning and was embarrassed for the stupidity of the presenter, who couldn't get her head around how the better paid would pay more income tax than those on a lesser salary under the Lib Dem's plan. The Lib Dem spokesman kept saying that it was 1p in the pound increase across the board, but she just couldn't get it. Cringing.

Its almost as bizarre as the fact (as the Tories have realised) very few of the population appear to have a clue what inflation actually means (or leads to)?

Absolutely. What is inflation, except for when i've eaten too much...

On the other hand, on BBC5 Live this morning, Rachel Burden gave Phil Hammond a right mauling (I'm guessing she was similar with McDonnell yesterday?).  It was most impressive listening as her voice quivered with emotion and anger - after all, who'd have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be muddled and vague struggling through the difference between debt and deficit?

Jeremy Hunt is on BBC Breakfast. What a smarmy cunt. I'm getting really fed up with listening to politicians side-stepping, or totally ignoring, questions put to them.

Check out @chunkymark on Twitter. He's great

The old adage of "don't believe what you read in newspapers" applies here, and applies in spades.  The referendum wasn't won by so-called "big data", especially with claims by Cummings and Matthew Elliot of Vote Leave who are trying to rewrite history yet have a long history of being less than candid about their use of data.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/11/vote-leave-campaign-wasn-t-clever-it-thinks-it-was

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86470

Although from the same magazine we get:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/10/arron-banks-man-who-bought-brexit

http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/03/populists-can-be-beaten-heres-how

which backs this view, with rather more substance than the "I tried it and it was shit" view of one man. Cummings may well be a bullshitter, no surprise there, just look at Farage, Johnson, Fox et al and it seems to be a requirement for being prominent in the Leave campaign. But nonetheless there is clearly if not an alliance, certainly a communion of interest between the US hard right figures behind Trump and the European/UK hard right populists, such as Banks and Farage over here. It's no surprise that they'd look to boost each other's intrerests by sharing tactics and resources. And a big part of that is manipulating public opinion via social media, Bannon and Mercer deployed it to great effect in the US, why wouldn't their allies and friends over here use the same?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_3NOZHWsAAVKJZ.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DABezQ0XcAAIXXt.jpg)
https://twitter.com/Tory__Jesus @Tory__Jesus

Anyone care to summarise the Tory manifesto?

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/05/19/video-will-facepalming-next-week/

Christ on a bike.

The Conservative party are proposing to abandon the Leveson reforms which they agreed on a cross-party basis in 2011, and to cancel Part 2 of the inquiry which would investigate police corruption and the cover-ups of criminality at newspapers.

Their manifesto pledges to repeal the “Section 40” low cost arbitration incentive and, some might say, deny ordinary people affected by illegal press abuse access to justice.

I was actually rather pleasantly surprised by the tory manifesto.  Perhaps less bad than I feared would be more accurate.  Also it pandered to one of my pet hates, universal winter fuel allowance.

What staggers me is that her campaign is managing to get even more presidential.  That such a mediocre person believes, quite possibly correctly, that focussing solely on her personal attributes is an election winning strategy is just so depressing.

And people wonder why the Mail, Express Sun and others pander to them so much!

Can somebody put me straight on something in the Tory manifesto. If I own a home jointly with my wife say worth £300k and one of us goes into a home or has home help. They stay there for a while and the bills rack up. Their £150k equity becomes £100k. The survivor would then have to stump up £50k or sell the house. Is this right?

No, you won't be forced to sell, but the local authority may take a legal charge over the property under a 'deferred payment' arrangement.

The Tories should introduce voluntary euthanasia as part of their policy....although the Mail would probably veto it on the grounds that it's got EU in the word.

OK ta. I'd imagine equity release schemes will do well out of this as will care homes etc unless they regulate it and even then.....

Indeed...

Their headline tomorrow is 'Terrorists. Brown skin. So even we'd prefer EU than Asia'

Has anyone seen my coat?

HIdden away in the Tory manifesto small print is that they'll be restricting funding for non-chemotherapy cancer treatments. Which will include additional drugs needed to cope with chemotherapy.

But people will still vote for them because they'll raise the income tax limit and save people £600 a year

Phillip May is CEO of a company with a 30% market share in house equity insurance.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/05/21/is-the-dementia-tax-a-plan-to-make-money-for-theresa-may-and-her-husband/

Retirement planning is a key part of the Tory manifesto. Mainly Theresa May's planning for her own very comfortable retirement.

He will be very peeved as she has now contradicted everything that was said over the weekend and suggested that a cap will be imposed....

So that's what strong and stable looks like.

In other news she has also suggested this morning that one should vote for her as a new government would not have time to be prepared for the negotiations with the EU, they are getting evermore rattled....

The section of the manifesto dealing with data collection, protection and the way the internet will be regulated directly by a Tory government contradict each other.

As if being able to monitor our browsing history and pass it over to practically every central agency the government could think of wasn't enough, they would now like to censor what we can read or view.

Part of the Tory Brexit negotiating team will be Boris Johnson, the same bloke who was heavily involved in West Ham getting use of the Olympic stadium from the state for barely anything. Alongside him will be Liam Fox, and David Davis.

Labour on the other hand will have ex QC and barrister Keir Starmer.

I know who I would prefer to have negotiating on our behalf.

May:  You don't know what you're doing

1   The Social Care with a "cap" on contributions-approach is suddenly replaced by a "base" for what you're left with and then equally days later suddenly reversed to a "base" and "cap" combo approach.
2   Probate (so called) fees are CONFIRMED to increase from a flat GBP155 to up to GBP 20,000 on the day the election is called and the next day the confirmation is withdrawn
3   National Insurance contributions are introduced for the self employed in the Budget, defended and then withdrawn 7 days later
4   May supports Remaining in the EU and then adopts Leave rhetoric

She is a very silly and secretive opportunist who coins policies as she goes along, often with inner cliques to the surprise of other ministers and MPs, and who is then forced to back down when they are not workable and repels even her own voters.

Stable she is not and she has done more U turns in a few months than tory role model Maggie Thatcher did in a decade.  She is neither strong, nor stable and hasn't an original idea in her head - even the Energy policy was Milliband's.

Polls can be funny old things, but really??

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-wales-general-election-2017-16-point-shift-swing-a7749786.html

PM is on BBC now getting interviewed by Andrew Neil

Did he give her a tough time, or was it a snow job?

He gave her a tough time.  She was shit.

Yep

May is proving to be anything but strong and stable. I'm loving it as this is developing nicely.

Next interview for Andrew Neil is Eddie Hitler / Paul Nuttall.

That should be entertaining.

Yep, Ade Edmondson must hate Nuttall

From unbeatable to unelectable in 3 weeks. That is impressive.

But guys, Nothing has changed!

Its very clear why she didn't want to do any live debates.

Can you imagine her going up against Juncker and Merkel? It'd be David Brentesque to watch.

Still very much undecided. Unsure where Labour will pull the money from to offset all the freebies on offer but also I despise the idea of using my home to pay for my future health care. There doesn't seem to be any credible options, I'll just hit the pub instead.  :pint:

The Labour manifesto includes a break down of where the money will be raised from, obviously its highly unlikely to be entirely accurate but goes somewhat further than the Tories/Theresa's which makes few promises and suggests that details will only be provided after you have voted her into power...

Come on horlock that's not fair. We know where the money will come from to pay for what the Tories want to do, it will come from the old, the sick and the vulnerable like it always does.

That's a dreadful slur, you ignore all the good work Theresa is doing for the old, the sick and the vulnerable like trying to facilitate the return of fox hunting and removing the ban on the ivory trade. They really are the party for the working classes....

Dont forget about taking their houses and savings a well

My postal vote has arrived but I am torn between a principled or tactical one at the moment, with principled currently swaying it.

The local standings here are something like 47% Lib Dem, 35% Tory and 14% Labour. A vote for my desired Labour is pretty much wasted, but not sure I can bring myself to go Lib Dem after their capitulation and u-turns on fundamental policy in the coalition.

Unless Labour have a chance of really swinging it (and after the last few days who knows) if you don't want to help the Tory steam roller I think that's a bit of a no brainer...

In light of the coalition, just sit back and think what the Tories would have done for 5 additional years without someone to reign them in a bit?

I've been one of the biggest Labour cheerleaders and in that situation I would definitely vote Lib Dem. No point chancing it.

Indeed, got to play the system that we have.

The Lib Dems receive way too much flak for the compromises they made in coalition.  Other democracies that are more used to the realities of coalition would accept these compromises with far less fuss.  The Lib Dems gave ground in some policy areas and shaped policy in others.  Criticism feels overblown to me.  I'd give them your vote.

I think it's become a handy excuse for closet Tories to vote Tory. I have at least one friend who we all know votes Tory and always has done but always makes a huge fuss that he hates what the Tories stand for, would never vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge and cannot trust the lib Dems so unfortunately he just has to vote Tory....

There is a lot of it about.

I don't agree, not raising tuition fees was an absolutely key reason I voted for them.

Last election I spoiled my paper as I couldn't find anyone representing enough of my views. You don't HAVE to vote for someone.

Frankly anyone not voting labour because "they don't like Corbyn" is a bit simple. Don't like his policies, fair enough.

I think it's quite reasonable to not vote for a party because you don't like/trust the leader. I know we're electing a government not a president but the PM does have considerable power and if you think the PM is likely to be a bit shit, that seems to me to be a reasonable grounds to change your vote. My problem in this election is that none of the 3 look like credible leaders to me.

You might want to remind Theresa of that?

Not trusting is different from liking. Though I did have it in my head Horlock said his mate didn't like Corbyn. Which he didn't .

Not sure how anybody could trust May, whose (party's) arrogance was staggering and reflected in the manifesto and U-turn equally so.

Oh I agree, although it's the incompetence that worries me more than the arrogance. But I also understand why lots of people feel equal misgivings about Corbyn, arguably because of a sustained hatchet job in the press, but even if you don't think it's well founded, he was always going to face that and doesn't seem to have the charisma or decisiveness to be able to overcome that handicap.

Not making excuses for the Lib Dems, but parties have been breaking election and manifesto promises every parliament since year dot (for instance http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-reveals-21-broken-promises-6537411 ), its just the case that this seems to be used as a stick to hit them with and a reason not to vote for them considerably more than with other parties?

Whilst the conspiracy theories accusing May of being behind the attacks in Manchester are nothing short of ridiculous, I do feel that it will cause some of the " yet undecided" voters to distance themselves from Corbyns slightly more relaxed immigration policy.

I can't stand Corbyn, however the policies Labour have put forward are the best option. He along with Abbott and Mcdonald are stopping me voting labour.

I haven't seen the theories but human beings love a conspiracy don't they!

I must confess my cynical nature does think that this will help the Tories, being spun as the party to control such matters despite it happening on their watch..... People will link immigration to EU immigration which is totally irrelevant in this case.

Which highlights how stupid people are. The same sort who think Corbyn is an IRA supporter.

I have no doubt whatsoever that our old friend Dosser will think it's a conspiracy.

Corbyn has brought the IRA issue on himself, could have been swiftly dealt with

in security terms, a failure to reach an agreement would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened

Theresa May making a link between getting a trade agreement with the EU and co-operation on terrorism in her Article 50 letter to the EU. 

Perhaps she would care to explain what she meant?

You're right.  This holy trinity are effective political operators (and share some decent values) but they are rooted in 70s thinking and their superannuated political baggage is a joke making them a sitting target for the Tory press as well as the tiresome but effective "May" election campaign.

Apologies but couldn't resist the correction.

Tbh, Abbott made one error on figures on TV. How many errors has May/Hunt/Boris/etc made? Labour make one error and every cunt jumps on it.

Whilst I understand where you're coming from, Theresa May is as tight as 1/20 on to be Prime Minister.  So unless you live in their constituencies, Corbyn and co will not be troubling you. 

The difference between a terrifying, unchecked huge Tory majority, and a much smaller one will be significant...I'd be advocating any decent local candidate best placed to dent that majority.

One thing that gets me is this "an I.D was found"  This seems to happen all the time. The Berlin attack, they "found" an I.D card. The same in Manchester. Now i'm not being funny but, if we were to blow ourselves up, there's little chance of your i.D surviving and then even more greatly, why would you take your I.D with you anyway? What if you got foiled and were arrested? What if you survived the impact (re:Berlin) and fled? It's nonsensical, people who say "They wanted to be known" bullshit. They aren't thinking "oh i'll just put my I.D down over here conveniently for someone to find, because after all i'm a member of a small terrorist group. They'll write a wonderful obituary."

Sorry, those things always give me red flag and that's where questions need to be asked. Damage limitation and all that but it wouldn't surprise me if their were higher power working to control the masses. These things always happen when the powers are starting to lose their grip on control and another "manufactured bad thing" happens.

Of course it is absolutely terrible for all the people involved directly that have lost lives. Whether a generated act of terror or a manufactured plot by something else, the targeting of a group of people whose demographic was mainly children is a very big low.

If the so called guy was known to security services, why weren't they monitoring him and tracking his every move? This makes me feel like a broken record because the same questions get asked every single time. You don't wait for something terrible to happen then make the capture. Yes it's difficult to arrest but if you are a top end authority with higher powers than the police and you suspect a terror plot then you detain them. Furthermore you keep them under 24/7 surveillance and put them into a new society where the temptations are not as strong. i.e not a fucking big city. You have them limited to travel curfews and other restrictions until they can prove that they have been "unradicalised" if you must.

That is of course if it isn't a cover up.

F**k me, it's Katie Hopkins :) Can't believe you're seriously suggesting this but, leaving aside the dismantling of democracy/rule of law that would involve, it just won't work. Because there's 1000s of perfectly innocent people who have strayed across the radar of the police and security services, because they went to a meeting out of curiosity, or had a mate who was radicalised (but weren't themselves), or attended a mosque that unwittingly played host to a radical cleric. You can't arrest/restrict all of these people, unless you're seriously advocating mass internment of 1000s of innocent people? Even if you do want to abandon the whole concept of rule of law in a free society (which would utterly delight ISIS/AQ), you only need to look at how badly the much smaller scale internment of Republicans backfired in N Ireland in the 70s to see it's just plain counter productive.

ID is carried for allowing access to the afterlife and the virgins that are waiting for them.
On the radio today they said there are 600+ people on the watch list, how do we monitor that many people movements 24/7?
I'm not a trump supporter but don't you think his comments "if a bag of skittles had one poisonous one that would kill you in it, would you buy the bag" have any sort of reasoning? Who are we allowing across our border?

As he was born here that's not really relevant in this case,too many seem to think that leaving the EU will reduce immigration from the Asian sub-continent but the two are entirely unrelated. You will have to remind me who was the long serving Home Secretary recently who singularly failed to make any impact upon immigration levels, yet we are supposed to believe what she says now?

I'm not fully up on the doctrine, but I'm pretty sure they don't do ID checks at the gates of the afterlife :)
More like 6000 but your point is still (all the more) valid

Is that how they identified in Manchester, not seen it reported? It does seem odd that they knew so quickly who did it, yet nearly 2 days after the event potential victims are still missing, despite the police having spoken to all the relatives of both the deceased and those in hospital?

US media reporting (thanks to US intel leaking like a sieve) that he had a bank card in his pocket. Which unless you've gone out of your way to clean yourself of ID, most of us would.

And survived despite being immediately adjacent to a bomb going off?

In terms of monitoring those on the list, the fact that a lad popping back and forth to Libya and Syria doesn't seem to be getting much surveillance does worry, and its not going to get any better http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/police-cuts-policy-amber-rudd-tories-conservatives-election-2017-labour-officers-a7712646.html

Yes. People always assume that anything immediately adjacent to an explosion is obliterated but it's rarely the case. People will be killed by the blast and objects broken up obviously but they're not obliterated. There's shit loads of examples/data about it.

Watch it, with that level of knowledge you will have MI5 round...

For the record I am not a conspiracy theorist, although I know of at least one case in the UK where the public account given by the government is bollocks and the conspiracy theorists are not a million miles away.

Oh I'm quite sure there's loads but there's also far more examples of bollocks conspiracy theories, usually put out by people with their own agenda to push (not you/anyone here btw). I tend to the view of going for least complex/most likely explanation first.

Think I read it in the Telegraph initially IIRC. So it was probably them that put that in there in the 1st place :)

One can easily imagine how a card would get little to no damage.

A body would provide resistance to the energy of a blast and absorb a lot of that energy. A card could just get blown away. I expect our resident fireman would know more.

Whilst  I agree an I.D card may not necessarily blow into tiny pieces on impact, the heat generated from the blast would be enough to melt the card seeing as molten metal from shrapnel was found at the scene (nails, nuts, bolts etc) but hey, i'm not getting into ballistics and hydrodynamics here.

The point that seems to be being missed altogether is "Why would you take I.D to an organised terror attempt?" especially as you would be given a heads up likely some time before the date. I hardly think they organise these things in a way that goes something like;

  "Hey Jonny, in 2hrs can you do me a favour?"
"yes mate, what's that?"
  "Suicide job mate"
"Oh yeah no probs. Got to nip to Dominos first and pay on my card, then i'll nip down."
  "Cool beans. Don't forget your Driving licence, they sometimes ask for I.D"
"Oh cheers man. Thanks for the heads up. You're too good to me"

That's the point, why on earth would you. While a "trademark" may be left, similarly with say murderers but they never leave their I.D at the scene...

....unless they're completely stupid or ridiculously narcissistic but even then.


PaulD, anyone but Katie Hopkins man. ;) FWIW i'm very pro immigration and tbh democracy is  being dismantled by the Tories as we speak  :soapy tit wank: :pint:

Why would they not carry ID? It's not as though they have to worry about being caught. I expect in some countries being stopped and not having idea could really fuck up a suicide bomber's plans. They're going to be identified one way or another before long anyway.

In this case it wasn't even actual ID, but a bank card from which he could be identified.

These aren't typical murderers, they're happy to be named and shamed after the event. It's two fingers to the establishment who didn't track them or know the plan.

I'd go further and suggest they might want to be identified. They think they're martyrs. Heros, even.

Very much so. If the plot is foiled, they don't go through with it or a malfunction. Being nation specific re: ID. It's not obligatory to carry I.D with you in the U.K. By I.D I mean anything with your name on. Fuck me, we going to find out he'd has his Gala Bingo card on him and won £250 the night before (i'm being a tit). It's not obligatory here, so that is the point i'm making.

Granted they may be identified at some point but even dental records probably wouldn't help as many people aren't even registered. They know who it is more so because the services knew that this guy was going to do it. That's the saddest thing in this all.

Granted; and while there is evidence in cases to suggest this. I also think it's is more glamourised than the actual reality of it. Some films and dramas don't really help this.

Whilst I hate to add to the conspiracy, if there is a network as Mrs Rudd suggests would it not lesson the chance of the wider group being quickly rumbled if the bomber does not make himself readily identifiable?

It's being suggested that various members of the community had reported their fears in the past directly to the police which doesn't say much for the monitoring, although will piss off a lot of those who like to roll out the line that the community are involved if they don't report radicalisation?

Who knows, although on a related issue I do wonder whether seeing armed troops in downing Street has rather more to do with Mrs Mays authoritarian fantasy than an operational need?

Sent from my Hudl 2

If they don't go through with it, having ID is not a problem. If the plot is foiled, then having ID is the last of their problems. The ID will be on their person, the only way the authorities will see it is if they're nicked. In which case they're fucked regardless.

He...wasn't...carrying...ID.

He was carrying bank card. You can be identified by a bank card.

I think there is a case to round up all of those on the watch lists and set up a British Guantanemo Bay.

I think you need to re-read my previous post you just quoted....for the purposes of I.D....I.D shall be known as...ANYTHING with your NAME on. Come on  :pint:

A bank card is not for the purpose if ID though. It's for the purpose of getting money out.

It's not a great leap in logic to realise that he may have just wanted it to get money. It's what they're for. I think you're trying to read into something that just isn't there. Had he been deliberately carrying some completely unnecessary form of ID then there might be something to ponder. He wasn't though, it was just a bank card.

This isn't even a good conspiracy theory, and I love conspiracy theories.

I am sure that there are cheaper ways for us to recruit on behalf of ISIS?

It seems pretty cheap at the moment

No it's not for the purpose of I.D in the everyday sense (although I can collect my parcels from the P.O and collect tickets with it). I think we're going round in circles here....I'm saying why the fuck would you have anything with your name on if your sole purpose is to blow people up. It's not like they're going to do their weekly shop in tescos (or Lidl) beforehand or even draw out £50 because that would be totally logical...

Btw, it isn't a conspiracy theory. I didn't infer that. There are much better things to make conspiracies out of.

When I say "why would he have anything with his name on?" He may well have all the I.D bank cards and documents at home, but not on the person on the day that you are going to execute terror.

I give up.

Yeah I fucking give up too. Anyway, is our new manager here yet?!

100% This

Fucking right, spot on!

No, anyone associated with the use of terror should be interned indefinitely, fuck human rights they lost that right many moons ago

Martyrdom that's why they carry it. Afterlife riches and easy passage to sit at the side of Allah

Here here

There's 1000s being "watched" in some way or another, most have done nothing wrong, by the very nature of it - the police will look at someone they think is dangerous and then look at his family, friends. associates etc. They'll all get looked at, they'll all be on a list. Which makes good policing sense, and no harm done until you start presuming guilt purely on that basis. What you're proposing is locking up without trial (or even much evidence) 1000s of people, most of whom will be innocent

"Hear, hear", it's "hear, hear" albeit "shame, shame" would be my choice of response

The Muslim community are doing their bit. They are bringing these nutters to the attention of the authorities but there are too many to keep a proper eye on. If it means thousands then so be it. If they are innocent then they go.

You're missing the point, it's not just people who are actively under suspicion who get on a watch list. Friends/family/associates/work colleagues all get looked at, that's why there's thousands there. Which, as I say, makes sense from a policing/intelligence-gathering perspective, very different matter if you're proposing internment without trial on that basis (leaving aside the implications for any concept of a free society of doing so)

But you have the person of interest. These are the ones I would lock up....and yes without trial initially. I wouldn't have any qualms about it at all. You can still be a free and tolerant society.

Well, that's just a case of arresting them and charging them with something. It's called being on remand.

Get them off the street. Keep them away from their mates. There are too many of these fucking wankers sticking 2 fingers up at us. Take them out of action. I would do the same for IRA, unionists, animal liberation etc. The burden of proof would be significantly lower than now. These people have no respect for others. I have no respect for their rights.

We did it for the IRA, or people the police or army said might be IRA, in the 1970s. Of course most weren't but hundreds of young Catholics were interned and a whole generation of youth was radicalised as a result. It was widely described by both the IRA leadership and, later, British politicians as "the best recruiting sergeant the IRA ever had"

They don't seem to have a problem with recruitment

Here here,whoops hear hear

I don't think too many people would object to the general principle of locking up proper wrong 'uns. The problem is that you have to trust both the police and government to a) be competent enough to get the right people and b) moral enough not to misuse the powers

As basically no government in history has been both psychic and without corruption, having to actyally charge someone with a crime to lock them up beyond an initial term is a sensible check and balance against a totalitarian state. The police already have significant powers under various terrorism acts to detain people without trial and keep them under surveillance that go beyond what is available in most western countries.

Ultimately these kind of attacks are fucking awful, but a huge part of why we find them so shocking is that they are very, very rare. Our police and security services for the most part do an excellent job, and whilst it's basically impossible to stop anyone slipping through the net, instituting a draconian police state is probably not going to help (I wouldn't have used the qualifier, but it's hard to judge) and, if we accept that in the main these attacks are done as much to scare the populace (hence terrorism) as they are to kill and maim the direct victims, then a sign that these attacks are successful. I can't imagine that would do anything other than encourage more absolute pricks.

Agreed.  There is a real risk of "Dangerous Dogs" syndrome here.

With a bit of luck UKIP will ride to the rescue.  Apparently their manifesto (sic) is due out today.  It will doubtless be so revolting in it's extreme excesses that it will help the rest of us to pause and reflect whether we really want to play the terrorist's game for them.

Hopefully UKIP's last contribution to the country they love so much before they disappear down the toilet.

Absolutely.

UKIP are a symptom. Until the mainstream political parties address the issues that make UKIP appeal to a substantial part of the electorate, those problems will not go away. They may well get flushed but they will just be replaced, probably by Farage/Banks' UKIP 2.0 (Patriotic Alliance, IIRC, was their working title) which will be slicker, better funded and well rehearsed having had one to go to practice. So it won't be the end if UKIP ends, v 2 could be even more dangerous if anything. If mainstream politics wants to see the back of hard right populism, mainstream politicians need to stop ignoring the people who are voting for them and understand why they are voting for them

To be fair Bluekip are having a darn good go as per Mrs May and Rudds conference speeches...

I thought that was Jeremy Corbyn - according to the Sun, and via a known fantasist within the IRA....

Can someone summarise the UKIP manifesto like all the others, I have scan read it so far and generally seems to be along the lines of them stopping and solving everything that the Mail and Express say is wrong with the UK.

You're being far too simplistic as usual.  It's the Mail, Express and the Star

I must confess I haven't read the Star in years, I though it was all just tits now?

Is it still going. You're probably thinking of The Sport, or was it just Sunday Sport  :hmmm:

Definitely still going, think it's part of the dirty Desmond stable. When I commuted into Manchester every morning a suited very respectable guy always used to buy the star and times each day tits and respectability!

Sent from my Hudl 2

That's not addressing the root causes, that's pandering to the symptoms and the worst instincts of their own hard right factions.

Had a closer look at the ukip manifesto, delighted to see them opening the door and explicitly providing the mechanism for a second EU referendum, common sense finally prevails.

Sent from my Hudl 2

Q.  Is Corbyn right that embarking on foreign military adventures with simplistic goals to remove dictators without thinking through what you put in their place creates a power vacuum that causes untold misery for the people of that country and on balance is more likely than not to encourage Uk-based terrorism?
A.  Yes

Q.  Will the right-wing media provide an in depth analysis of that viewpoint or instead gleefully go for a "Corbyn undermines our lads in the armed forces and supports terrorists" headline?
A.  Oooh, tough one.

Q.  Will the average British swing voter read and consider Corbyn's speech in detail or simply glance at a lurid headline and make a snap judgement?
A.  Ooh, even tougher.

Q  Is it a good idea for Corbyn to make such a speech 2 weeks before a general election or instead should he stick to expressing the outrage and sympathy for the victims that he feels (like all of us) in order to increase his chances of leading the next government when he would actually be able to determine those military decisions in future?
A.  Depends on your point of view I guess.

So Mrs May's lead is cut to 5 points in the polls now which would give her a working majority of 2, things are getting very interesting (and highly amusing!)

don't believe the polls... have we learned nothing.

I don't believe it in the slightest, although the fact it comes via the notoriously Tory biased YouGov will be setting some alarm bells ringing in Blukip HQ which is pleasing whatever the true position.

true true

racist

I won't be better off under the tories and I'm not a cunt who wants to punish others; I'm not going to vote for them.

sound reasoning

It's all a plan to make sure that Tory voters still get out and vote and don't think it's okay for them not to bother

I fear you may be right.....

In other news, Shirley some mistake....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...e-ayman-asfari-petrofac-serious-a7751521.html

Shadow home secretary at it again.
This woman is a fucking liability and should not be involved in British politics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40076195

she really is a fucking idiot

Abbott​, thornberry and chakrabati - three true abominations of people. The first two, sneering at us the latter no morals. I'm warming to corbyn though.

she must have hidden talents because Abbott comes across as plain thick.

I'm still voting labour, Boris is after all equally as dangerous for other reasons

She's a fucking car crash. Even the staunchest Corbyn fan can't possibly defend her.

Abbott is a fuckwit. But the Tories have more than their own share - Johnson, Fox, Fallon, Hammond et al, not to mention the stumbling rabbit in headlights act the Dear Leader does every time she's actually asked any real questions by anyone a bit tougher than the bloody One Show  - but their gaffes don't seem to get quite the same prominence. Almost like the press have an agenda, isn't it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4547198/Tory-Defence-Secretary-accidentally-slams-Boris-Johnson.html

She always looks as though she's just woken from a nap.

You forgot Amber "£40,000 a year average salary for coppers" Rudd

Or her interview suggesting that many of the problems with social media could be solved with a hash tag....

Everyone rallies against Abbott but this incompetent horror gets away Scot free time and time again....

https://medium.com/brexit-britain/that-theresa-may-article-and-its-significance-be2ffb91ad97

Is Paxman always a massive cunt?

He's an idiot, he wouldnt let Corbyn answer the questions and then repeated himself

I mean the best thing that you can say for him is that he's an absolute horror to all sides. Not really what I want to see to inform me on anything but it does reveal how politicians react under pressure.

To be fair he is on University challenge too

Paxman let May answer his questions for a lot longer than he did Corbyn before butting in or talking over them... he was tough on both though.

I liked the fact that May got longer. It showed how fucking clueless she is. Sound bite after sound bite...

I didn't watch (and wouldn't) but when I accidentally catch May on TV I love how she comes across a nasty, clueless, lying old bag.

It seems no matter what she says she resents being asked (almost as though it's beneath her), hates having to answer and doesn't believe a word she's saying.

Oh well, if that cunt wins, then maybe the country can descend into chaos sooner and positive change can be affected.

And Paxman is one of the only people who's great at interviewing politicians. I love how he tries to make them crack and doesn't give a fuck.

Watched the interview yesterday, Corbyn came across as Corbyn, May came across a May, the only real loser was actually Paxman who came across as a busted flush and I suggest added further fuel to the fire that he is pointless in introducing such events these days as he has just become a self absorbed caricature of his former perceived self.

Can we just vote tomorrow and stop wasting time on this charade, after the fact that despite the dire damage being done to schools, the NHS, the disabled and unhealthy and the financial position of the elderly the Tory vote will remain as it is and people just obviously don't care about such matters so the other parties are just piddling in the wind. Its getting boring now - sadly.

Those that are pro Labour thought May came across bad, and vice versa.  I am still undecided and from what I have seen no performance has helped me get closer to a decision.  They both came across as full of shit on different subjects..

I still think they should spend more time talking about what they can bring to the people rather than slagging the opposition off.

Maybe that's because they haven't got much to offer?

Had another Tory leaflet drop today and again its all vote for us or you will get Corbyn and vote for me, I am Theresa Mays candidate, it barely mentions the Tories just May and if she is their most valuable canvassing asset we are more fucked than I ever believed as she is a useless conniving bitch (in my opinion of course).

What makes it most bizarre round here is that its solely a Tory v. Lib Dem race (its Farrons seat) as Labour don't get a sniff (as shown by the fact they seem to have put up a 12 year old boy as their candidate http://www.southlakeslabour.org.uk/ge2017 ), yet all the Tory stuff just bangs on about Corbyn!

Seen Corbyn getting a bit of roasting for not knowing the cost of Labour's childcare policy, and trying to use his iPad to find out. What's actually wrong with that? Not as if he would have to cost everything off the top of his head if he does come into power? Better to check so that he doesn't get it wrong.

Meanwhile, the Tory manifesto (which is not costed like Labours is) doesn't get any questions?

I can entirely understand the bias shown by the print media, the main stream papers and their proprietors tend to historically have been very right wing in their outlook and now with the Tories proposing to drop Leveson 2 plus other proposed controls on them it makes entire sense for them to back May to the hilt.

What I struggle to really get my head round is why the BBC are giving the Tories such an easy ride, although the writing has been on the wall since they failed to report anything regarding Spanker John.

The BBC, save for perhaps a short period in the early 70's has always been the mouthpiece of the establishment, which is always likely to mean a Tory bias.

You're more likely to find decent questioning journalism on ITV.  Someone like John Pilger would prove the point

Probably raising the spectre that a vote for the Lib Dems will actually risk you getting a Labour government.  A few will adjust their voting to avoid that, so they target those people.

I think we've reached a new low in politics. I've watched a lot of the debates, questions etc and its depressing. May's main selling point appears to be "vote for me, I'm less shit than Corbyn", which is actually questionable. To use football parlance, she's playing the man, not the ball. The press appear to be giving her quite an easy ride and helping dig up everything about Corbyn.
It looks like this is turning the British public, much like project fear in the Brexit vote.

Indeed its becoming an entirely pointless campaign as the Tories don't seem to be bothering with policies, and when they do try they majorly fuck it up!

Project Fear obviously didn't turn voters as they all voted to leave but I see where you are coming from with the statement, the funny thing is that from personal experience those who made a big deal about project fear being plain wrong are the self same lapping up the Tory campaign...

Its a funny old world.

That's a bold statement, and obviously untrue, well the last bit anyway..

Its been like this since day 1. The tories have never tried to sell their own policies they have just tried to pick faults with Labour's policies. And when they can't do that they just make shit up knowing their supporters will eat it all up.

Admittedly Labour have bee drawn into the petty school yard squabbling but i don't think they had a choice.

Probably worded badly, should have noted it was all the brexiteers who whinged to me about 'project Fear' at great length before the referendum all still voted to leave and now see no problem with Mrs Mays election campaign approach.

Its still a funny old world though.

Corbyn has now agreed to take part in tonight's debate, having originally said he wouldn't unless May did (Amber Rudd is representing the Tories, which is an interesting choice as probably the most prominent remaining Tory remainer).

A very interesting move with the polls closing, admire the bravery of it. I'm impressed with how Labour have handled the election campaign so far, and Corbyn's definitely improving as a media presence, although it may just be in comparison with how the Conserv...sorry, Theresa May's team have made a truly spectacular hash of it at every step.

Still think Labour will lose seats mind, mostly because of the significant UKIP vote going to the Tories.

Jeremy had to cancel his Swindon appearance at the last minute in order to get to Cambridge. Angela Rayner stepped in.