General Election 2017

[portslade seagull]

I see 28% of those responding to this poll stated they will vote Tory.

Possibly against my better judgement, I voted Tory in 2015 (good local candidate...Lib Dem bloke new on the scene, and not particularly dynamic). This time round I cannot imagine in a million years voting Tory, and it amazes me how anyone thinks it's a sensible idea. It would be great to hear from a few of the 28% why they are voting for Mrs May. If you are, then I assume you do NOT (a) work in the public services; (b) want quality health and social care; (c) want fair taxation; (d) want a strong police force; (e) value costed economic policies; (f) want anything other than a hard Brexit.... I could go on.

If you're a pensioner you're going to lose the Triple Lock, and be subject to the vagaries of the Dementia Tax (it will happen under the Tories - it's just at what level);
If you earn anything less than £80k pa you could end up paying more tax (at least Corbyn has guaranteed that 95% of people will NOT pay more tax - Theresa May is rather evasive when it comes to taxation);
If you work in, or use, the public sector you have another 5 years of austerity and cuts to look forward to;
If you work for a company which exports to the EU, or has any sort of relationship with the EU, your job is seriously at risk (the "No Deal" scenario which Theresa May is happy to contemplate basically means no right to export or trade with the EU - a mere 50% of our trade);
If you like going on holiday to the EU, you could be stuffed come April 2019 ("No Deal" means no rights to fly to the EU).

However, if you like fox hunting, and earn over £80k pa, then I can definitely see why you might vote Tory.

If you believe that only people earning more than 80k will be hit shows how out of touch you are. It will hit everybody including you when the sums just don't add up. The fantasy world being spouted bt Corbyn will soon disperse when reality sets in and we head towards another Labour bankruptcy as they try to meet all these pie in the sky money for nothing promises

 

[Jim in the West]

Interesting to see what Corbynites have to say ?

I'm no Corbynite, but a couple of quick points:

1. These are nominal numbers - to validly compare them, you need to make them real (i.e., adjust for inflation) - 2017 prices are around 25% higher than 2010 (in other words, the comparable 2010 NHS Budget (in 2017 prices) is £140bn.
2. The Annual Deficit under the last three labour governments (from 1997 - 2010) was on average around £20bn a year - with the exception of 2009 and 2010, when the government had to respond to the Global Financial Crisis. The crazy thing is - our national debt has continued to soar, despite 7 years of austerity under the Tories. Total National Debt, by the way, is now around £1.7tn, compared to less than £1tn in 2010.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The evidence is right there in front of you. Police have come out and warned about this again and again, you can't seriously be trying to excuse it? Police are overstretched, which makes the 8 minute response time even more incredible. A lack of police and social workers on the ground has been cited as one of the big problems of tackling terrorism at Street level.

And I don't want to get into a he said she said back and forth, not least because I feel like I'm arguing for a bloke I'm not even voting for, but when talking about nefarious activities, take a look at just what this government, with may having a big hand in it, have been doing in regards to Saudi Arabia. There are HUGE, uncomfortable questions there.

Like I said, I'm not a labour voter, but what I don't like is a few on here that seem to think this tory government cannot be criticised. It's like all the cuts to disability benefits, put your fingers in your ears, or point at the other guy and it all goes away.

Cited by who? The Home Secretary (Boooo) asked the Head of Counter Terrorism if this was about resources the answer was no. I would imagine the best way to stop these attacks would be through better intelligence not having more Police on the streets although that may be desirable for other reasons.

Yes the Tories have many faults too and should be criticised but Corbyn and McDonnell's (plus others) past associations and comments are on a different level making them unfit and untrustworthy when it comes to our nations defence.

 

[Jim in the West]

If you believe that only people earning more than 80k will be hit shows how out of touch you are. It will hit everybody including you when the sums just don't add up. The fantasy world being spouted bt Corbyn will soon disperse when reality sets in and we head towards another Labour bankruptcy as they try to meet all these pie in the sky money for nothing promises

The bankruptcy will come much sooner with May, for the simple reason that she will deliver the hardest of hard Brexits. And at least the Labour Party had the decency to cost their manifesto promises. You (or I) might not believe that they will stick to them, but remember that Theresa May changes her mind just about daily, so can you rely on her?

 

[Ernest]

Whilst not Mrs May's biggest fan I do wonder how Jeremy Corbyn would have conducted himself as Primeminister in the last 18 hours or so?

A lot better

 

[Ernest]

At least she won't slash police numbers by 20,000

Or drive around in stupid vans with immigrants go home on them

 

[Titanic]

The bankruptcy will come much sooner with May, for the simple reason that she will deliver the hardest of hard Brexits. And at least the Labour Party had the decency to cost their manifesto promises. You (or I) might not believe that they will stick to them, but remember that Theresa May changes her mind just about daily, so can you rely on her?

As opposed to all sitting round, drinking a nice cup of tea and talking... and delivery a supersoft, money-no-object BrExit, that means everything is lovely for everyone?

 

[Scotchegg]

Cited by who? The Home Secretary (Boooo) asked the Head of Counter Terrorism if this was about resources the answer was no. I would imagine the best way to stop these attacks would be through better intelligence not having more Police on the streets although that may be desirable for other reasons.

Yes the Tories have many faults too and should be criticised but Corbyn and McDonnell's (plus others) past associations and comments are on a different level making them unfit and untrustworthy when it comes to our nations defence.

1. Having police on the streets provides intelligence.

2. You can't seriously be going down this path? You want sources? Just Google it, I'd be here all day posting links for you otherwise.

3. Saying their past associations are on a different level proves that you don't know or care to understand the situation with the Saudis and their role in regards to isis. Here's a link to get you started: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ublish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html

 

[portslade seagull]

The bankruptcy will come much sooner with May, for the simple reason that she will deliver the hardest of hard Brexits. And at least the Labour Party had the decency to cost their manifesto promises. You (or I) might not believe that they will stick to them, but remember that Theresa May changes her mind just about daily, so can you rely on her?

Labour will cost you and me far more than Brexit ever will with their fantasy spending plans. Their costings have a slot been roundly underestimated. Let's hope you don't own a house or have a mortgage as the rates will spiral under Corbyn as spending rules out of control hitting all the young families

 

[Deleted member 2719]

...

 

[Scotchegg]

...

Oh for goodness sake.... This is trump level of nonsense. His full quote, Sans fake news bullshit:

"It is a reality I'm afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things," he said.

"That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but also it means exchanging ideas and best practice."

 

[JC Footy Genius]

1. Having police on the streets provides intelligence.

2. You can't seriously be going down this path? You want sources? Just Google it, I'd be here all day posting links for you otherwise.

3. Saying their past associations are on a different level proves that you don't know or care to understand the situation with the Saudis and their role in regards to isis. Here's a link to get you started: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ublish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html

1.) Intelligence about possible terrorist activity? I doubt many people walk up to a Policeman in the street voicing their concerns. There are numerous hotline phone numbers for reporting suspicious activity/persons. The chances of an officer stumbling on plotters up to no good is quite small i would imagine.

2) I provide sources to back up my opinions arguments if required. Just one credible one will do.

3) Ah so you can provide links after all. I know about their funding/exporting of Wahhabism around the world and find it extremely worrying. I also find most things about Saudi Arabia distasteful and abhorrent but I realise there are numerous unpleasant regimes around the world we have to deal with for security and economic reasons.

 

[ManOfSussex]

or you can vote for Diane Abbott as Home Secretary, in charge of policing and national security?

Or you can vote for Amber Rudd as Home Secretary - no guarantee on not making further police cuts and dropping a pledge on army numbers and reducing it by a further 17,000.

Or not, if you live in Hastings & Rye.

 

[Scotchegg]

1.) Intelligence about possible terrorist activity? I doubt many people walk up to a Policeman in the street voicing their concerns. There are numerous hotline phone numbers for reporting suspicious activity/persons. The chances of an officer stumbling on plotters up to no good is quite small i would imagine.

2) I provide sources to back up my opinions arguments if required. Just one credible one will do.

3) Ah so you can provide links after all. I know about their funding/exporting of Wahhabism around the world and find it extremely worrying. I also find most things about Saudi Arabia distasteful and abhorrent but I realise there are numerous unpleasant regimes around the world we have to deal with for security and economic reasons.

I agree that isn't very likely, but it's about community policing in my eyes. Popping a guy on a watchlist isn't much good if there's no one there to watch them. I just think without the cuts to policing and social workers, there would be more support to counter extremism at a fundamental level. Here is one link, though it's two years old that mentions this idea: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ts-severely-impact-uk-ability-fight-terrorism

Sadiq khan in January: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-warns-government

Another: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...and-yard-faces-vast-budget-cuts-a3090246.html

I'm just skimming these to be honest, as I said, this isn't anything radical, it's been the narrative coming from the police for several years now.

Fair play about the Saudi issue, but we'll have to agree to disagree on having to deal with these guys.

 

[seagulls4ever]

I'm no Corbynite, but a couple of quick points:

1. These are nominal numbers - to validly compare them, you need to make them real (i.e., adjust for inflation) - 2017 prices are around 25% higher than 2010 (in other words, the comparable 2010 NHS Budget (in 2017 prices) is £140bn.
2. The Annual Deficit under the last three labour governments (from 1997 - 2010) was on average around £20bn a year - with the exception of 2009 and 2010, when the government had to respond to the Global Financial Crisis. The crazy thing is - our national debt has continued to soar, despite 7 years of austerity under the Tories. Total National Debt, by the way, is now around £1.7tn, compared to less than £1tn in 2010.

That's ignoring a number of those raw figures are factually incorrect anyway.

Let's have a look at police funding for example (see below). Given the large and well documented cuts, to suggest it's increased is laughable. Their figures are completely incorrect. Either a failure to understand how police bodies are funded and using the wrong data, or deliberately using the wrong data.





https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Financial-sustainability-of-police-forces.pdf
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7279/CBP-7279.pdf

 

[happypig]

Q: "will you raise income tax ?"
A: "No" or "Hopefully not" or "Maybe" or "Can't say but please vote for us anyway"

Strong and Stable

 

[vegster]

I think anyone with half a brain would choose the option of a costed manifesto against a completely uncosted manifesto.
How can people claim Labour will ruin us financially when the Tories have clearly shown they have not got a clue how to finance any of their policies?[/QUOTE]

Plus they have kicked so many troublesome little things well in to the future, such as the social care costs and how we are going to cope with being OUT of the single market and having to employ 10's of thousands of Customs and Excise staff to check everything coming in and out of the country. Mrs May, for it is her manifesto,has deliberately not referenced any of the real hard decisions financially that she will clobber us with when she gets her majority.

 

[Ernest]

Who will lose their winter fuel allowance ? Not telling you
What is the cap on the dementia tax ? Not telling you
How are you going to fund the extra police and security forces needed to protect us ? Not telling you
Will you give tax cuts to the richest 5% ? Of course we will

Vote Tory

 

[Titanic]

I think anyone with half a brain would choose the option of a costed manifesto against a completely uncosted manifesto.
How can people claim Labour will ruin us financially when the Tories have clearly shown they have not got a clue how to finance any of their policies?

What a ridiculous assertion - the Tories have been running a very successful economy (despite the mess left by the Labour government) for the last 7 years - and would clearly continue in a similar vein.

 

[Titanic]

You only have to imagine the absolute pilloring Corbyn would get in the press if he gave these answers to his manifesto to see how blatantly biased the media is.

We don't have to imagine it, with all those bleating leftards going on about it all the time