Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Election 2017
- Thread starter Giraffe
- Start date
On a couple of your points...
Whatever you think of Corbyn (not a lot by the sounds of it), he has by all accounts been a pretty good and very hard-working constituency MP. To suggest that being an MP is not a full-time job (if you take it seriously at least, and he does), is an insult to many of them, and I've met a few, who work very hard indeed, doing long hours dealing with constituents' problems and difficulties, taking up local issues, as well as their duties in parliament.
He may have failed his A-levels, but so did many people who went on to have successful careers and make major contributions to society. Equally I can think of a few people with A levels, degrees, and postgraduate qualifications who are complete wasters, so I don't really see this as much of an issue. He's never hidden it or been ashamed of it.
The figures you give are correct, i just think that a lot more than 60% were represented in that audience, a lot more.
nicko31
Well-known member
Think some of this stuff wouldn't get past he's own party, especially the nationalisation. So whether it could be paid for isn't realty relevant
Based on what evidence?
From a macro-economic perspective, (re-)nationalisation doesn't add to the deficit at all, so all this argument about how to pay for it is irrelevant. In the national accounts, the cost of nationalisation is offset by the value of the asset acquired. Additionally, all the future returns to the asset then accrue to the state rather than to a private company.
Same evidence as you. You have no idea really how that audience was made up, you have your figures for how it could be made up.
I think that well over your figures were left leaning.
When you are told that the Amex crowd is 27000 and there are massive gaps.........do you believe it.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
It's about picking apples...
What a pretty tree!If we are looking at Jezza's tree,it's more likely to be this one.
Is that a fairy tree?
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Good to see the rich helping the rich.
https://www.electoralcommission.org...&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn&utm_source=Twitter
https://www.electoralcommission.org...&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn&utm_source=Twitter
GT49er
Well-known member
No. Firstly for the reason that I do not think for one minute he will be the PM after the GE.
In the unlikely event of him getting in, I would actually trust him to try and deliver Brexit, along with the no freedom of movement clause in the Labour Party manifesto which would mean leaving the single market (although I wouldn't put it past him to get sidetracked and stall the negotiations on some issue like saving the whales or something) but the PLP, being part of the Westminster bubble, are strongly pro-EU (probably most of them still dream of Blair returning and leading his people right back into the sunny uplands of the EU) and not very keen on their leader either, so they wouldn't be averse to a coup.
Can see them - or a significantly large amount of them - joining up with the LibDems, the Greens and the SNP to scupper any Brexit deal - indeed, scuppering Brexit itself - so I don't trust them.
That's why, with enormous reluctance, and hopefully for the one and only time in my life, I'm going to have to vote Tory this time. And believe me, I hate the thought of doing that!
Last edited:
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
You would do well not to so blatantly lie. Nearly all of those points are incorrect.
So, a day at a client's office today and a lunchtime election discussion. Not the partisan sort but straight up analysis of what might be. The consensus was sort of:
1) Tory majority easily for two reasons (not shy Tory). Firstly young people, even if they are registered, are still less likely to turn up on the day. See also Brexit vote. Secondly we could all see Labour increasing its share of the vote without this actually turning in to seats. Tories hold by smaller majorities, SNP hold Scotland, that sort of thing. Nevertheless...
2) Corbyn has nothing to lose. No one gave him a chance & he only has to get vaguely close to Milibands result to stay in charge of Labour. He might well too because
3) his opponent is far weaker. May has been a disaster in the campaign. Compare that to a fairly successful coalition holding a referendum in their back pocket. A decent Labour leader could have put her in trouble (but she'd never have called it in the first place). Leading to
4) a small minority - not all of us- agreeing that May will be absolutely hopeless in Brexit negotiations no matter what she says.
5) Literally no one wants to see Diane Abbott in the Cabinet.
It was a pleasant discussion that didn't resort to name calling
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1) Tory majority easily for two reasons (not shy Tory). Firstly young people, even if they are registered, are still less likely to turn up on the day. See also Brexit vote. Secondly we could all see Labour increasing its share of the vote without this actually turning in to seats. Tories hold by smaller majorities, SNP hold Scotland, that sort of thing. Nevertheless...
2) Corbyn has nothing to lose. No one gave him a chance & he only has to get vaguely close to Milibands result to stay in charge of Labour. He might well too because
3) his opponent is far weaker. May has been a disaster in the campaign. Compare that to a fairly successful coalition holding a referendum in their back pocket. A decent Labour leader could have put her in trouble (but she'd never have called it in the first place). Leading to
4) a small minority - not all of us- agreeing that May will be absolutely hopeless in Brexit negotiations no matter what she says.
5) Literally no one wants to see Diane Abbott in the Cabinet.
It was a pleasant discussion that didn't resort to name calling
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GT49er
Well-known member
Yeh, yeh - 'd' next to the 's' on a standard keyboard. Simple typo!
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
Theresa May asked about answering questions with platitudes, answers with platitudes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ference-michael-crick-channel-4-a7767246.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ference-michael-crick-channel-4-a7767246.html
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
According to the Tories comments you made years ago don't count as you can change your mind , just like you can change your hairstyle of course
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-defends-tory-candidate-rape-comments-general-election-2017-peter-cuthbertson-a7767046.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-defends-tory-candidate-rape-comments-general-election-2017-peter-cuthbertson-a7767046.html
nicko31
Well-known member
So how do we pay for it then?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
General Election - New poll added 21/05/17
Government writes a cheque for the agreed value to the current owners. The value of the asset shows up the credit side of the national accounts, completely offsetting the cost of the cheque on the debit side. The national deficit does not change. This is simple national accounting and is how it works. If you are concerned about the impact of nationalisation on the deficit, then you are missing the point. Some of this is explained in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tionalisation-rail-water-energy-cost-benefits
It doesn't mean there are no problems associated with nationalisation, just that increasing the national deficit is not one of them.
Government writes a cheque for the agreed value to the current owners. The value of the asset shows up the credit side of the national accounts, completely offsetting the cost of the cheque on the debit side. The national deficit does not change. This is simple national accounting and is how it works. If you are concerned about the impact of nationalisation on the deficit, then you are missing the point. Some of this is explained in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tionalisation-rail-water-energy-cost-benefits
It doesn't mean there are no problems associated with nationalisation, just that increasing the national deficit is not one of them.
Last edited: