UK General Election 2017 Thread

[Muscular-mouse]

First topic message reminder :

Ok guys what are your predictions, how will you be voting and who do you want to win.

[Muscular-mouse]

My family brought me up in a way whereby I don't leach off the state because I have nothing, i'd hate to live a life where i'm not comfortable.

If I end up in that situation then I only have myself to blame and won't be complaining about my lot one bit, it's highly doubtful I do but i'll deal with the consequences if they arise.

Our education system is in not part socialist, there being an independent alternative is the very definition of capitalism.

but you don't use the private education system, you leach off the public and send your kids to the state education system paid for by me.

[Pr4wn]

So you've never used the NHS and you'll forego your state pension?

[Hammersmith harrier]

That's not actually true though is it considering I contribute myself to state education, if I didn't then your comment may have some validity.

[Muscular-mouse]

That's not actually true though is it considering I contribute myself to state education, if I didn't then your comment may have some validity.

Yes but we established that your tax contributions do not cover the full costs of sending your kid to state school.

[Hammersmith harrier]

That's not actually true though is it considering I contribute myself to state education, if I didn't then your comment may have some validity.

Yes but we established that your tax contributions do not cover the full costs of sending your kid to state school.

Did we establish that or did you assume that?

[Muscular-mouse]

So you've never used the NHS and you'll forego your state pension?

Of course he won't, he is just a greedy individual so he will take what he can get and complain when the state asks him to help others.

[Muscular-mouse]

That's not actually true though is it considering I contribute myself to state education, if I didn't then your comment may have some validity.

Yes but we established that your tax contributions do not cover the full costs of sending your kid to state school.

Did we establish that or did you assume that?

It was established.

[Hammersmith harrier]

That's not actually true though is it considering I contribute myself to state education, if I didn't then your comment may have some validity.

Yes but we established that your tax contributions do not cover the full costs of sending your kid to state school.

Did we establish that or did you assume that?

It was established.

I don't think it was, you don't have a clue of what my yearly income is, you're just assuming what it is.

[Muscular-mouse]

That's not actually true though is it considering I contribute myself to state education, if I didn't then your comment may have some validity.

Yes but we established that your tax contributions do not cover the full costs of sending your kid to state school.

Did we establish that or did you assume that?

It was established.

I don't think it was, you don't have a clue of what my yearly income is, you're just assuming what it is.

We both know you don't but you can continue to pretend you do

[GSC]

May vs Corbyn, bringing the douche or turd meme to life

[GSC]

Mays saving grace might be this is opposite BGT

[Pr4wn]

May throws Boris under the bus.

[Hammersmith harrier]

I see it as Jeremy Corbyn continuing to be an empty vessel saying whatever he can to fool the electorate, he cannot and will not justify his pledges but he talks in a sincere manner so it's ok.

May is more willing to accept things are far from perfect but really is not an adequate public speaker.

[TRUSSMAN66]

I don't think tonight changed much...If you think he is an unpatriotic so and so living in do dah land you have ammunition...If you think she is stiff and uncaring and wobbly rather than stable you have ammunition....As you were is better for May.

Like watching lower league sport..

[Muscular-mouse]

I don't think tonight changed much...If you think he is an unpatriotic so and so living in do dah land you have ammunition...If you think she is stiff and uncaring and wobbly rather than stable you have ammunition....As you were is better for May.

Like watching lower league sport..

Looking at the comments on the youtube video of the debate and comments on bbc news it seems 95% of comments are praising Corbyn for his performance and saying May looked weak. This is a massive difference from 4 weeks ago when comment sections were of people saying May is the strong leader this country needs.

[GSC]

I suspect that wouldve been true regardless given Corbyns key demographic

[Samo]

I see it as Jeremy Corbyn continuing to be an empty vessel saying whatever he can to fool the electorate, he cannot and will not justify his pledges but he talks in a sincere manner so it's ok.

May is more willing to accept things are far from perfect but really is not an adequate public speaker.

Im struggling to understand how you believe Jeremy Corbyn is lying to the public when he's preaching the same message he has since the early 80's and Theresa May has had atleast 10 majorly significant U-Turns in the 11 months or so she has been Prime Minister.

Cant believe anyone trusts a word that comes out her mouth, and her manifesto has been shown not to be worth the paper its written on.

But socialism bad grrrrr

[Hammersmith harrier]

He can preach it for the next 30 years but that doesn't mean he'll ever fulfil his promises, his manifesto is in cloud cuckoo land.

[Crimey]

Thats more than a bit selfish.

Call it selfish if you want but I personally don't feel anyone is entitled to anything for free.

Why not?

Why would you expect to be given anything for free when others work hard for it?

Because that helping hand may be what I need to get me a job or get me educated etc. By helping others we increase social mobility.

Would you like the streets of the UK to look like India where homelessness is everywhere and poverty is everywhere and children die from malnutrition and if you are born into a poor family you will always stay poor eg no social mobility.

I will not be extending my hand to help you at all, to be honest I despise socialism and everything it stands for. My family worked hard to enable themselves the luxury of bringing up a child, providing me with everything I needed, not wanting hand outs and teaching me the importance of hard work and achieving in life. If your parents didn't have that foresight you should probably look no further to why you're in the situation you are, further education is a basic human right we're all entitled to, it's something you have to pay for.

And YOU have leached off the results of your family working hard. I can only assume you have paid your parents back for the money they spent raising you? And that you have never asked your family for help and that they didn't give you the best start in life? You only take out of the system what you put back in? So I hope you use private medical care, send your kids to private schools etc. I can only assume that your parents also never required any help in raising you? 

You admit that you're only in the position you are in now because of the way you were brought up, because of the SACRIFICES that your parents made to ensure that you could give yourself the foundation to have a good life. And yet you have the tenacity to look down on others who didn't have that option, who didn't have parents who could provide, or didn't have parents who taught those lessons. You would blame children for the sins of their parents?

Your parents failed to raise you properly. To be so brazenly selfish is incredible. I hope you find yourself in the position where you have to rely on the help of others and they turn and tell you to do it yourself because you don't deserve it. I've always just assumed you were stupid, but it turns out you're actually just unashamedly cruel.

[Hammersmith harrier]

Yes I am cruel and incredibly selfish.

[CaledonianCraig]

Yes I am cruel and incredibly selfish.

Well that explains why you have affinity with the Tories.

[GSC]

If we can all back off the personal insults before this section gets closed again, that'd be lovely

[superflyweight]

Have you never used a public service, Hammer? Never been to see your doctor? Never been to a hospital? Never had free dental care as a child? Do you take your own bins to the tip? Do you have your own sewage system?

Chances are that it was subsidised by the government to a point which is proportionally greater than the amount which you have contributed towards those services. In which case, you have benefited from the central tenet of socialism - "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs".

If government abandoned that principle entirely, it's probable that you'd be dead at 42 and lying unburied and decaying in a gutter with a mouth full of rotten teeth.

You may not like socialism as a political doctrine, but you can't deny that it has had positive benefits for anyone who isn't part of the landed gentry.

[CaledonianCraig]

And are many of The Beatles leeches for example. If memory serves at least two of them came from impoverished families who used NHS went to public schools etc etc and look at the contribution they went on to make to this world. Just like you could pluck a well-to-do person from history out of the air who never used public funds but was evil. My point is that benefitting from public funding or state benefits does not mark you down in any way as a human being just as being born into rich family makes you a better human being - just a far luckier one.

[Hammersmith harrier]

Have you never used a public service, Hammer? Never been to see your doctor? Never been to a hospital? Never had free dental care as a child?  Do you take your own bins to the tip?  Do you have your own sewage system?  

Chances are that it was subsidised by the government to a point which is proportionally greater than the amount which you have contributed towards those services.  In which case, you have benefited from the central tenet of socialism - "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs".  

If government abandoned that principle entirely, it's probable that you'd be dead at 42 and lying unburied and decaying in a gutter with a mouth full of rotten teeth.

You may not like socialism as a political doctrine, but you can't deny that it has had positive benefits for anyone who isn't part of the landed gentry.  

If you use an extreme viewpoint you can force out people true feelings into admitting that not everyone should benefit from the system equally.

I've always used private healthcare and will continue to do so. The NHS is a wonderful thing but it is the abuse of our benefit system that I despise, families or rather parents wanting the world but contributing nothing to it. In reality as long as you pay your dues I want people to benefit from that whether they're on minimum wage or earning £100k, Healthcare and education up to the age of 18 should be afforded to everyone. It is the actual leeches I want to see clamped down on and that goes for big businesses too but with the latter you end up affecting the workers at the bottom more than you do those at the top.

I'm also very pro immigration again as long as they contribute to society in a positive way, I had an Iranian consultant and a surgeon from Nigeria without whom I'd be said rotting corpse.

[Ent]

So were you just trolling or is this a May style u-turn?

[GSC]

Sounds like Jezzas done an Abbott on the radio this morning.

May might have hit gold by having it uncosted, nobody seems to care much while Labour can't remember their own figures.

[navyblueshorts]

I'm perfectly fine with them passing the bill if they get voted in because it's what they're there for, not sure why I'd be against it. Your opinion and random assertions would make an ounce of sense if you showed some evidence instead of plucking out random numbers.

Polls are out there on fox hunting and they all measure up roughly 80-20 against it. That is a big portion not wanting it but what the heck the Tories love a good old rip a fox to f*** pastime in the name of sport so they will push it through because THEY want it regardless of the British public. Okay you may want to dismiss the odd random poll but these are consistent big no's to it and all can't be wrong.

Cite them please.

You reveal your thinking perfectly with "Tories love a good old rip a fox to f*** pastime in the name of sport" - you simply don't like the idea of the traditional Tarquins and Henriettas being involved.

Here you go:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-boxing-day-poll-opposition-all-time-high-theresa-may-hunting-ban-act-vote-a7495336.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-poll-reveals-74-6066347

http://www.countryfile.com/explore-

Thank-you; much appreciated. Seems you're right. I was curious how the urban/rural breakdown would come out, but seems rural support has fallen off. Still, I'm not sure how much better it is to have Farmer Giles wound a fox with his shotgun, which then crawls off to die, as opposed to having it ripped to pieces fairly quickly by a pack of hounds. Too much stupid nonsense re. 'class' bound up in this issue.

[navyblueshorts]

Where did I say that's why people are voting for them?

You come across like a spoilt immature brat, it's quite simply if you're that against fox hunting vote for someone else.

It's not me throwing insults around and I am proud to say I have never voted Tory in my life and I never will.

You're a fool then to extrapolate so far into the future...

[navyblueshorts]

Where did I say that's why people are voting for them?

You come across like a spoilt immature brat, it's quite simply if you're that against fox hunting vote for someone else.

It's not me throwing insults around and I am proud to say I have never voted Tory in my life and I never will.

You'll find you do throw insults around all the time but it's just hidden within nonsense.

I'm proud to say I do vote Tory and always will, could be worse I could vote SNP.

Proud to vote for a party that kills disabled people?  Different strokes I suppose.

Exaggerating much?

[navyblueshorts]

The SNP vote is baffling as is Craigs logic.

More people voted no in the independence referendum than voted for the SNP in the last westminster election.

The breakdown by council area shows only 4 areas in which the Yes vote was larger than the No vote.

http://www.electionsscotland.info/info/13/referendum/42/scottish_independence_referendum_2014_-_vote_breakdown

If the SNP support was falling because of tactical unionist voting/mobilising the unionist vote they would be losing a lot more seats.

Not everyone votes for the SNP to back independence, they have run on the ticket for a second referendum and have falling support and are likely to lose seats in the election - they've no traction at all to ask for another referendum.

That still goes nowhere to answering why the SNP will win three quarters of all seats in Scotland though does it? The answer is there but whichever it is I think people here can't bear to say it.

Is there an echo around here? I notice you see fit to ignore the FT and Huffington articles I posted/linked. There's a thing...

[navyblueshorts]

In return they got a vote changing how governments are elected among other things I assume.

This is how often how negotiations go, you have to compromise sometimes.

Exactly, they sold off their soul in exchange for a referendum on getting rid of first past the post. If they had any backbone and any credibility they would have refused the offer of getting the referendum on proportunality and stick to their main election promise for the past 2 elections of voting aganst tuition fee increases

In the real world would you rather get something you want or nothing

Well they could have not voted for trebling tuition fees and then they would have got something that they wanted which was to not have tuition fees increased.

You cant spend 6 years campaigning against tuition fees and then 3 months after getting into power vote in favour of trebling them. Of course the public will never back lib dems again after that massive lie.

it would be the equivalent  of labour who have spent the past year campaigning for an increase in minimum wage to then get in power and reduce minimum wage. It was political suicide and the lib dems have lost 50 mps and scores of European mps and local councillors because of that lie.

More fool them then. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. People voted Labour back in after Bliar/Iraq. People voted the Tories in after the Poll Tax. Etc etc.

Youre calling the british public fools for not voting lib dem because they lost credibility and trust? You can vote for a party that lied to you just to stay in power but me and the majority will never trust them again.

No. What I'm calling foolish is letting a single issue apparently make you never vote for them again. Your selective vision on this is quite funny, given the behaviours of every other party ever to take part in politics.

Edit: As a followup, are you planning to vote Labour?

I listed 5 things that they did that lost the public support. Tuition fees is the biggest because they spent years campaigning against them and they trebled them. They lost credibility and lost public trust.

but don't worry you are free to vote for a party that lied about its main policy for 6 years

You listed 4 more? Missed that given your blatant obsession with the fees issue. Slating a particular party for an issue like the fees is, basically, hypocrisy as they're all either at it or have done exactly the same in the past. Directly affected by the £3k to £9k change were you? I can understand it, but to say you'll under no circumstances ever vote for them again because of that one issue is short sighted. If you're planning on voting Labour, which would be my guess, how can you live with yourself after Iraq? Inconvenient things, single issues.

It was their main policy for the past 6 years. They got so many votes based on their support for free education and then they lied and trebled tuition fees.

Like I said you can vote for them but that's your vote. I wont vote for a bunch of liars and the public agree.

I'll ask you again - who will you be voting for? Let's get any hypocrisy out in the open...

[navyblueshorts]

There's no other right wing option so I'm unlikely to ever change, UKIP have too many policies I disagree with.

So you only vote for a party if they are right wing?

Well yes I'm against left wing politics.

Me too, I prefer it when disabled people are too poor to live.

[Hammersmith harrier]

Sounds like Jezzas done an Abbott on the radio this morning.

May might have hit gold by having it uncosted, nobody seems to care much while Labour can't remember their own figures.

Therein lies my problem with Jeremy Corbyn.

We know Theresa May and the Tories are going to screw us with higher taxes but they're just staying quiet about but many seem in denial that Corbyn and Labour will do likewise.

[superflyweight]

The SNP vote is baffling as is Craigs logic.

More people voted no in the independence referendum than voted for the SNP in the last westminster election.

The breakdown by council area shows only 4 areas in which the Yes vote was larger than the No vote.

http://www.electionsscotland.info/info/13/referendum/42/scottish_independence_referendum_2014_-_vote_breakdown

If the SNP support was falling because of tactical unionist voting/mobilising the unionist vote they would be losing a lot more seats.

Not everyone votes for the SNP to back independence, they have run on the ticket for a second referendum and have falling support and are likely to lose seats in the election - they've no traction at all to ask for another referendum.

That still goes nowhere to answering why the SNP will win three quarters of all seats in Scotland though does it? The answer is there but whichever it is I think people here can't bear to say it.

Is there an echo around here? I notice you see fit to ignore the FT and Huffington articles I posted/linked. There's a thing...

I can guess at what you are implying but you're not correct. There's only one serious party for independence supporters to vote for, so SNP gather vast majority of the independence vote regardless of whether or not those people agree with any of their policies (outside of independence). The votes of those who oppose independence are spread around three other parties. The effects are compounded by the fact that the independence supporters are more motivated and their turnout is generally greater.

At the peak of their popularity, SNP gathered half of the electorate (not half of the population). Very impressive, but not indicative of a majority of support for independence. They won't achieve the same numbers in this election.

[Ent]

The SNP vote is baffling as is Craigs logic.

More people voted no in the independence referendum than voted for the SNP in the last westminster election.

The breakdown by council area shows only 4 areas in which the Yes vote was larger than the No vote.

http://www.electionsscotland.info/info/13/referendum/42/scottish_independence_referendum_2014_-_vote_breakdown

If the SNP support was falling because of tactical unionist voting/mobilising the unionist vote they would be losing a lot more seats.

Not everyone votes for the SNP to back independence, they have run on the ticket for a second referendum and have falling support and are likely to lose seats in the election - they've no traction at all to ask for another referendum.

That still goes nowhere to answering why the SNP will win three quarters of all seats in Scotland though does it? The answer is there but whichever it is I think people here can't bear to say it.

Is there an echo around here? I notice you see fit to ignore the FT and Huffington articles I posted/linked. There's a thing...

I can guess at what you are implying but you're not correct.  There's only one serious party for independence supporters to vote for, so SNP gather vast majority of the independence vote regardless of whether or not those people agree with any of their policies (outside of independence).  The votes of those who oppose independence are spread around three other parties.  The effects are compounded by the fact that the independence supporters are more motivated and their turnout is generally greater.  

At the peak of their popularity, SNP gathered half of the electorate (not half of the population).  Very impressive, but not indicative of a majority of support for independence.  They won't achieve the same numbers in this election.    

They ran on a scotland first ticket in 2015 and nearly swept it, the independence stick this time round isn't as popular and they are likely to lose seats.

Yet any sort pf majority will be used by Sturgeon to suggest their is appetite for another referendum.

[CaledonianCraig]

The SNP vote is baffling as is Craigs logic.

More people voted no in the independence referendum than voted for the SNP in the last westminster election.

The breakdown by council area shows only 4 areas in which the Yes vote was larger than the No vote.

http://www.electionsscotland.info/info/13/referendum/42/scottish_independence_referendum_2014_-_vote_breakdown

If the SNP support was falling because of tactical unionist voting/mobilising the unionist vote they would be losing a lot more seats.

Not everyone votes for the SNP to back independence, they have run on the ticket for a second referendum and have falling support and are likely to lose seats in the election - they've no traction at all to ask for another referendum.

That still goes nowhere to answering why the SNP will win three quarters of all seats in Scotland though does it? The answer is there but whichever it is I think people here can't bear to say it.

Is there an echo around here? I notice you see fit to ignore the FT and Huffington articles I posted/linked. There's a thing...

Newspaper reports from varying sources offer varying verdict. Some truth in some and some fabrication as well.

They still don't tell us why the SNP is so popular. I mean why are they by some way the most popular party in Scotland IF as everyone bar me (on this forum) think they are incompetent in government and most people on this forum claim appetite for a referendum isn't there. If that is the case, at a time when the Tories are ignoring policies at this election in Scotland and are merely prostituting themselves as the party to vote for to keep the SNP out, then I'd expect a far bigger loss in terms of seats ie SNP losing half the seats they have now. That will not happen though so that tells me one of two things - the people of Scotland are happy with the job the SNP have done in government or that their is still strong support for independence.

[Ent]

Spin it how you like we all know why the SNP are doing well.

[CaledonianCraig]

Spin it how you like we all know why the SNP are doing well.

Well tell me then.

[Hammersmith harrier]

UKIP were/are a bunch of incompetent scumbags but they too became vaguely popular off the back of one policy.

[Ent]

The SNP vote is baffling as is Craigs logic.

More people voted no in the independence referendum than voted for the SNP in the last westminster election.

The breakdown by council area shows only 4 areas in which the Yes vote was larger than the No vote.

http://www.electionsscotland.info/info/13/referendum/42/scottish_independence_referendum_2014_-_vote_breakdown

If the SNP support was falling because of tactical unionist voting/mobilising the unionist vote they would be losing a lot more seats.

Not everyone votes for the SNP to back independence, they have run on the ticket for a second referendum and have falling support and are likely to lose seats in the election - they've no traction at all to ask for another referendum.

That still goes nowhere to answering why the SNP will win three quarters of all seats in Scotland though does it? The answer is there but whichever it is I think people here can't bear to say it.

Is there an echo around here? I notice you see fit to ignore the FT and Huffington articles I posted/linked. There's a thing...

I can guess at what you are implying but you're not correct.  There's only one serious party for independence supporters to vote for, so SNP gather vast majority of the independence vote regardless of whether or not those people agree with any of their policies (outside of independence).  The votes of those who oppose independence are spread around three other parties.  The effects are compounded by the fact that the independence supporters are more motivated and their turnout is generally greater.  

At the peak of their popularity, SNP gathered half of the electorate (not half of the population).  Very impressive, but not indicative of a majority of support for independence.  They won't achieve the same numbers in this election.    

See above Craig.

[superflyweight]

Just spotted a mistake in my post - should have said "half the turnout (not half of the electorate)".

[Ent]

UKIP were/are a bunch of incompetent scumbags but they too became vaguely popular off the back of one policy.

More than double the SNPs votes.

[GSC]

They also stood for a lot more seats.

[GSC]

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Car crash.

[Ent]

They also stood for a lot more seats.

True.

[Crimey]

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Car crash.

I get that it's stupid to go on the radio show and announce a policy without knowing the costs, but surely there isn't actually anything wrong with Corbyn saying he wants to look it up before he says it on the radio? I genuinely don't see the problem with that. It's not like his memory being fantastic is part of the policy. The costing was there, he just wanted to make sure it was correct before announcing it. Completely different situation to the one with Dianne Abbott where she stupidly announced the price. 

I have no problem with politicians simply explaining that they want to look it up to check or that they don't have the answer to hand. It's better than them lying or making stupid mistakes.

[Ent]

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Car crash.

Pretty awful but it just sums up the pedantry of modern times were it is the fact he can't remember some numbers and wants to check them that is the issue rather than any actual debate about the policy.

I get the main issue is the credibility on the economy and given that he really should have known the numbers.

[Crimey]

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Car crash.

Pretty awful but it just sums up the pedantry of modern times were it is the fact he can't remember some numbers and wants to check them that is the issue rather than any actual debate about the policy.

I get the main issue is the credibility on the economy and given that he really should have known the numbers.

Exactly.

[GSC]

They're launching it as a major policy this morning, expecting him to remember that rather than a random set of numbers isn't a big ask

[Sponsored content]