It's Another Cracker From The Religion...
News1 min ago
Amber Rudd Vs ???
It would appear Ms Rudd is to represent the torrid at the next televised debate. Who should Labour nominate? Could be fun if it's Ms Abbot
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ric.ror. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, I’m not nervous, just mystified by the thought processes of people who say they are wavering because the Conservative campaign has failed to impress them. That suggests that so influenced are they by pre-election rhetoric and spin that they have forgotten that a vote against the Conservatives means a greater likelihood of getting something they really wouldn’t want.
Oh let me have my fun, JD. I'm still fairly sure it's a panic over nothing.
As for Naomi, I know you personally aren't nervous. The rest of your post is interesting. What is spin, if not this meaningless cry about needing a "strong and stable" platform that May already had? And what if the Tories aren't going to provide what I want? Whom should I vote for then?
I'm not enamoured by the prospects of a Labour government, really. But I've had experience of the last two years of Tory government and in that time they managed to screw up rather a lot, from my perspective, so why should I not want to hold them to account for that? And the only way to do that is to try and, at the very least, keep the Tory majority as small as possible, or vote them out altogether.
As for Naomi, I know you personally aren't nervous. The rest of your post is interesting. What is spin, if not this meaningless cry about needing a "strong and stable" platform that May already had? And what if the Tories aren't going to provide what I want? Whom should I vote for then?
I'm not enamoured by the prospects of a Labour government, really. But I've had experience of the last two years of Tory government and in that time they managed to screw up rather a lot, from my perspective, so why should I not want to hold them to account for that? And the only way to do that is to try and, at the very least, keep the Tory majority as small as possible, or vote them out altogether.
Jim, I don’t think she did have a ‘strong and stable platform’, at least not insofar as her detractors who complained that she was ‘unelected’ were concerned. I believe she called a General Election in order to obtain from the British public a positive and unassailable mandate to do what has to be done – and I sincerely hope she gets it.
If holding the Tories to account for your dissatisfaction over the past two years means handing the reins to Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, et al, then rather than focussing on your discontent, it would be far wiser to remember the disastrous future for the country that Labour is proposing – and that’s something that the waverers aren’t doing. Voting ‘against’ means you’re likely to get something you like even less, metaphorically shooting yourself and the rest of us in the foot – and all to ‘get your own back’. Not smart.
If holding the Tories to account for your dissatisfaction over the past two years means handing the reins to Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, et al, then rather than focussing on your discontent, it would be far wiser to remember the disastrous future for the country that Labour is proposing – and that’s something that the waverers aren’t doing. Voting ‘against’ means you’re likely to get something you like even less, metaphorically shooting yourself and the rest of us in the foot – and all to ‘get your own back’. Not smart.
Thing is that quite apart from national concerns I'm in a seat that provides a second reason to vote Labour: stop the SNP from holding so many Scottish seats.
So there it is. Two parties to vote against, both of which imply that I should probably vote Labour. If they end up winning a majority... well, maybe Theresa May could have reflected on the fact that not a single vote in the lower house went against her plans for Brexit, so she had already the ability to do what she wanted. And if she loses, she's thrown that stable position away for no good reason at all.
And as I say -- I've already seen the Tories do damage enough, as I see it. What's the point of democracy if we can't hold the governing party to account for the mistakes they *have* made? I'm not sure they are necessarily any worse than the mistakes Labour undoubtedly *will* make.
So there it is. Two parties to vote against, both of which imply that I should probably vote Labour. If they end up winning a majority... well, maybe Theresa May could have reflected on the fact that not a single vote in the lower house went against her plans for Brexit, so she had already the ability to do what she wanted. And if she loses, she's thrown that stable position away for no good reason at all.
And as I say -- I've already seen the Tories do damage enough, as I see it. What's the point of democracy if we can't hold the governing party to account for the mistakes they *have* made? I'm not sure they are necessarily any worse than the mistakes Labour undoubtedly *will* make.
The current state of the railways (and large parts of the NHS) just transfers public money directly into the pockets of private companies though. That's not a good model. I'd rather have a nationalised rail along the lines of the continental model than have one where the costs are all nationalised but the profits are privatised. I really don't see how that's pie-in-the-sky or "foolish".
As for "fleecing" business... corporation tax if Labour gets in will be lower than it was in 2010 and about the EU avg... I think you're over reacting to some really pretty tepid policy proposals.
As for "fleecing" business... corporation tax if Labour gets in will be lower than it was in 2010 and about the EU avg... I think you're over reacting to some really pretty tepid policy proposals.
Oh, I don't know -- perhaps allowing internal party divisions to spill over into a referendum that they ended up making a massive mess of, before deciding that the best way to handle it was to be about as UKIP as possible in the aftermath?
I'm sure I can think of many other ideas if I put my mind to it, but that's the main one. I don't want to support May's vision of Brexit.
I'm sure I can think of many other ideas if I put my mind to it, but that's the main one. I don't want to support May's vision of Brexit.
Krom, I don’t see them as ‘tepid’ policy proposals at all. Labour doesn’t understand money, it doesn’t understand aspiration and ambition, it doesn’t understand business, and it doesn’t understand enterprise. Its mantra ‘For the many not the few’ is an idealistic and unworkable philosophy typical of socialist/communist regimes that simply do not work, which is why those regimes eventually collapse.
Jim, I think the government was as surprised as everyone else at the outcome of the EU referendum – there’s no doubt they weren’t prepared – and there’s no doubt there was and still is a lot of opposition to Brexit, but Brexit is happening and the government will do as it deems best. What they do remains to be seen – it might not suit me either – but whining and digging your heels in is futile. You don’t want Brexit at all so whatever they do won’t suit you. Perhaps it’s time to accept reality and get over it.
Jim, I think the government was as surprised as everyone else at the outcome of the EU referendum – there’s no doubt they weren’t prepared – and there’s no doubt there was and still is a lot of opposition to Brexit, but Brexit is happening and the government will do as it deems best. What they do remains to be seen – it might not suit me either – but whining and digging your heels in is futile. You don’t want Brexit at all so whatever they do won’t suit you. Perhaps it’s time to accept reality and get over it.
"‘For the many not the few’ is an idealistic and unworkable philosophy typical of socialist/communist regimes that simply do not work, which is why those regimes eventually collapse. "
Sorry, have Labour promised to set up a command economy? Or to abolish rule of law? Because if they haven't, they're not proposing a communist dictatorship.
Naomi, that is hysterical nonsense. You need to stop crying "wolf" every time someone with even slightly centre-left views comes up. State-owned railways run just fine on the continent without causing the whole economy to lapse into five year plans and production by quota.
Sorry, have Labour promised to set up a command economy? Or to abolish rule of law? Because if they haven't, they're not proposing a communist dictatorship.
Naomi, that is hysterical nonsense. You need to stop crying "wolf" every time someone with even slightly centre-left views comes up. State-owned railways run just fine on the continent without causing the whole economy to lapse into five year plans and production by quota.
-- answer removed --
