General Election 2017

[Neville's Breakfast]

The first part of that post is ill informed gibberish.

As for the second part: it behoothes all parties to take a calm approach. This is no time for bluff and bluster. There simply isn't the time for starters.

Perhaps in a perfect world you are right. However there has already been much bluff and bluster both from our Government and in particular from the EU Commission. That's my point really, neither can make concessions until the negotiations begin. TM is being straightforward about what's ahead although I do think that JC also understands what is required but is currently playing to the gallery. He is a shrewd political activist so understands tactical negotiation. I think the calculation he is currently making is to make the right noises to attract Remain voters from the Lib Dems. If anything though he is personally more committed to leaving the EU than TM...perhaps I am talking myself back to voting Labour.

 

[Ernest]

Jeremy Corbyn doesn't know cost of his childcare policy

https://audioboom.com/posts/5967846...byn-doesn-t-know-cost-of-his-childcare-policy

Did you miss the Chancellor himself getting the cost of HS2 wrong by £20billion ? Can you put up that transcript so we know what he said and the mistakes the man in actual charge of the figures and finance made

Thanks

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Oh the drama!!

If someone can afford to smoke, run a car, go on holiday, have sky tv, then I would suggest that they do not need the services of a food bank. After all, if I spent my wages on luxuries like a car, sky sports, 50 inch TV's, would it be okay for me to nip out to the food bank? Of course not, so that is why we need a detailed research into why so many people are using them.

It's just another stick the left are using to beat the Tories with. A bit boring really, and luckily most people see through it.

You do realise that people can't just rock up at a food bank and get stuff don't you ? They have to prove real hardship or a risk of their children not eating BEFORE being referred by the 'authorities' ( DWP, doctor, police etc ) to then be given ONLY 3 days food. A walk in the park it isn't. Like any system I'm sure there is a minority that have managed to abuse it but a vast majority don't. It's utterly disgusting that in one of the richest countries of the world that people need food banks in the 21st century.

I agree with you that investigations need to take place into why people need food banks but you've condemned almost everyone using them with no knowledge of the circumstances what so ever.

 

[Bozza]

General Election - New poll added 21/05/17

Jeremy Corbyn doesn't know cost of his childcare policy

https://audioboom.com/posts/5967846...byn-doesn-t-know-cost-of-his-childcare-policy

Nothing wrong with someone wanting to make sure they have a correct figure, given the way some line up to ridicule those who make a genuine mistake.

With numerous policies and associated costs, I don't think someone having a photographic memory (or not) is a factor in deciding who I am going to vote for.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You do realise that people can't just rock up at a food bank and get stuff don't you ? They have to prove real hardship or a risk of their children not eating BEFORE being referred by the 'authorities' ( DWP, doctor, police etc ) to then be given ONLY 3 days food. A walk in the park it isn't. Like any system I'm sure there is a minority that have managed to abuse it but a vast majority don't. It's utterly disgusting that in one of the richest countries of the world that people need food banks in the 21st century.

I agree with you that investigations need to take place into why people need food banks but you've condemned almost everyone using them with no knowledge of the circumstances what so ever.

As aside I'm guessing my bet with you is safe

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I'm sorry but if you people want to bandy around the myth that Corbyn supports the IRA it needs to be pointed out how utterly hypocritical this is when a SERVING Tory councillor was in the IRA. And you don't even need massive leaps of the imagination to attempt to pove it ala Corbyn. It seems you fear context and being pointed out how utterly hypocritical the right is

If it's just a 'myth' why did Seasmus Mallon say Corbyn did support the IRA and was irrelevant to the peace process, why did Sean O' Callaghan say he did support them and was a hindrance to the peace process, why did he go to a meeting and commemorate 8 IRA terrorists killed by the SAS?

Isn't the only myth being peddled (by his devoted followers) the one where he was supposedly a pioneer of or significant to peace in NI?

'Man of principle' Corbyn shared platforms with terrorists, voted against every new bit of anti terrorist legislation since 1983, wanted out of Nato, wanted to cut our armed forces, wanted to unillaterally disarm, a bit wooly on drone strikes and shoot to kill re terrorists/suicide bombers.

First duty of government is to protect the country .. PM Corbyn

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As aside I'm guessing my bet with you is safe

I'll always honour a bet but a lot has happened since we spoke about it so you'll need to remind me what it was !

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'll always honour a bet but a lot has happened since we spoke about it so you'll need to remind me what it was !

I said it take you out for dinner, restaurant of your choice, if you ever voted Labour again. This bet is from about 6 years ago!

 

[beorhthelm]

.... It's utterly disgusting that in one of the richest countries of the world that people need food banks in the 21st century.

it is poor show and we have to be careful with caricatures of those using them. however there is a question about how much they are used, if so many on benefits aren't using them. and whats the alternative, an extra £20 p/w for those in need? maybe we need to adopt food stamps for part of benefits?

 

[pb21]

Incorrect. As I said, the odds have shortened on Betfair over the last half hour (or maybe a shade longer)

By way of nothing more than coincidence*, I had the next PM market open on Betfair around 9:15. May for next PM was 1.14 to back, 1.15 to lay.

Now May is 1.13 to back and 1.14 to lay.

(* - the reason I was looking at this, is May is 1.17 with Bill Hill and I was contemplating tying up some money for the next 10 days or so. For example £5000 backing May at 1.17 with WH and immediately layed off on Betfair for 1.14 will yield a guaranteed profit of c£100 regardless of the outcome. That's a 2% return on capital. Try getting that from a bank.)

Just saw this and thought of your post.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...ge-to-lowest-level-since-election-was-called/

On Betfair the chances of a CON majority edges to lowest level since election was called

Was a 95% chance – now 84%

During tonight’s Channel 4/Sky News Corbyn/May event I monitored the Betfair overall majority market to see if there was any movement. Half a million pounds is being traded on it every day and the liquidity is there.

The answer was that there was a bit of movement but it is hard to attribute this to the programme. The question now is whether the event and the coverage of it will have any impact on voting intentions.

Admittedly this is the odds for majority Tory government and not the next PM, but they are more or less the same, aren't they?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Nothing wrong with someone wanting to make sure they have a correct figure, given the way some line up to ridicule those who make a genuine mistake.

With numerous policies and associated costs, I don't think someone having a photographic memory (or not) is a factor in deciding who I am going to vote for.

Well said. It is too easy to lose sight of what really matters.

I want to know how a policy will be effective and why it is, in general terms, a good use of limited public funds.

The Brexit deal will have little to do with the "performance" of one individual (for which we should all be particularly grateful if the Tories win the election...).

 

[BigGully]

You do realise that people can't just rock up at a food bank and get stuff don't you ? They have to prove real hardship or a risk of their children not eating BEFORE being referred by the 'authorities' ( DWP, doctor, police etc ) to then be given ONLY 3 days food. A walk in the park it isn't. Like any system I'm sure there is a minority that have managed to abuse it but a vast majority don't. It's utterly disgusting that in one of the richest countries of the world that people need food banks in the 21st century.

I agree with you that investigations need to take place into why people need food banks but you've condemned almost everyone using them with no knowledge of the circumstances what so ever.

I have some problem with the referral criteria that is regularly cited as if this somehow qualifies the need for them.

My view is if indeed there is a need for them that food-banks should be accessible to those that are hungry irrespective of any applicants financial status, otherwise it just becomes a commodity that can offset/increase their overall income and isn't necessarily a reflection on poverty/hunger at all.

If a father who earns £600.00 a week yet gambles/drinks/smokes/etc leaving him or his family hungry then he should have as much access as those doing similar with their benefits, there should only be one essential criteria and that is need, but I suspect there is some leeway on the decision of access.

Away from the obvious vulnerability of homelessness which is far more complex than finance and I would support any initiative that might help them, I too wonder how one of the richest countries in world might need food-banks and I am convinced that it is driven mainly by dysfunctionality if there is genuine need and opportunity rather than poverty, which of course doesn't help the political narrative.

If we accept that any applicant is more likely to be in receipt of benefits, then which example of an individual or family mostly reflects the reason why food banks continue to grow.

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator/startcalc.aspx?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I said it take you out for dinner, restaurant of your choice, if you ever voted Labour again. This bet is from about 6 years ago!

Ha ha - it seems almost like taking candy from a baby given I'm 99% sure I'll be voting for Kyle this time round.

EDIT - it would also seem highly inappropriate to take the meal given the topic this thread is currently discussing !

 

[Billy the Fish]

I still think the remarkable thing about the vote was that places that receive huge subsidies and grants from the EU voted to leave...very odd.

The logical answer is that EU subsidies and grants aren't helping the man on the street. If you're unemployed and live in South Wales or the North East why would you give a sh*t that the EU granted the local council £X's to piss up the wall on a scheme that didn't help you, or toll roads that you can't afford to use (applicable on the continent)

 

[Bozza]

Just saw this and thought of your post.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...ge-to-lowest-level-since-election-was-called/

View attachment 85860



Admittedly this is the odds for majority Tory government and not the next PM, but they are more or less the same, aren't they?

Not quite but similar.

I went to back May to be next PM with WH to the tune of £5,000 but they only allowed me to place £360, which is slightly annoying. Still, laid off at 1.14 overnight so £8 profit regardless of the election result.

The curious one for me is this:

May to be next PM: 1.15
Tories to win most seats: 1.07

So you could back May to be next PM and lay Tories to win most seats for around £60 profit per £1000 backed. The risk is, of course, Tories do win most seats but fail to secure a majority and either an alternative coalition is formed or May falls on her sword (or is ousted) for overseeing the most dramatic of election failures. I don't see how the Tories won't secure a majority though, so I'm tempted...

 

[Titanic]

Nothing wrong with someone wanting to make sure they have a correct figure, given the way some line up to ridicule those who make a genuine mistake.

With numerous policies and associated costs, I don't think someone having a photographic memory (or not) is a factor in deciding who I am going to vote for.

It is a key policy, which Labour are specifically campaigning on today. You might have expected him to have done his homework.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Not quite but similar.

I went to back May to be next PM with WH to the tune of £5,000 but they only allowed me to place £360, which is slightly annoying. Still, laid off at 1.14 overnight so £8 profit regardless of the election result.

The curious one for me is this:

May to be next PM: 1.15
Tories to win most seats: 1.07

So you could back May to be next PM and lay Tories to win most seats for around £60 profit per £1000 backed. The risk is, of course, Tories do win most seats but fail to secure a majority and either an alternative coalition is formed or May falls on her sword (or is ousted) for overseeing the most dramatic of election failures. I don't see how the Tories won't secure a majority though, so I'm tempted...

If you take that view wouldnt it be better to just back the Tories to win the most seats ? For the hedge the risk seems to outweigh the potential reward.

 

[CHAPPERS]

[tweet]869264070649708544[/tweet]

Urgh.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Ha ha - it seems almost like taking candy from a baby given I'm 99% sure I'll be voting for Kyle this time round.

EDIT - it would also seem highly inappropriate to take the meal given the topic this thread is currently discussing !

Oh ****. Should have kept quiet.

I see your point about having dinner though. Let's wait until you have voted and we can discuss.

 

[nigeyb]

Still seems pretty obvious that the Tories will win a substantial majority but not nearly as much as they thought when they called the election. Their stated aim then was to crush the Labour Party. Now it seems that they might have given them an unexpected shot in the arm.

The Tories campaign must be one of the most mismanaged of all time. The Dementia Tax being their biggest own goal.

The longer it goes on the less decisive and the more #weakandwobbly May appears. Here's hoping the **** ups continue.

Meanwhile it makes me wonder what this means for the Brexit negotiations? The most troubling aspect of the campaign is how May is completely responsible for her own errors - entirely self-created - because of her control freakery and lack of any consultation with her colleagues.

Add in manifesto winners like fox hunting, free school meal changes, school funding reductions, scrapping a total ban on the ivory trade, + her dodging TV debates, etc etc - I mean why? Does she want to remind the electorate about what a bunch of c**nts her party is?

It's a ****ing shambles and I shudder at her being responsible for the trickiest negotiations imaginable.

Most unbelievably she's rehabilitated Jeremy Corbyn's reputation.

If you didn't think we were headed for a Brexit induced **** up before, then this election campaign must give everyone pause for thought.

What say you?