The end of the Labour party

[Mister M]

Then again you could say Jeremy has done a U turn

 

"Jeremy Corbyn has said he will not take part in any head-to-head TV election debates without Theresa May."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39725148

 

Nonsense - it's not like he U turned on a manifesto policy, like Theresa May.

 

It's worth asking though, if Corbyn has outmanoeuvred May by saying he'll take part in the debate, what on earth would the EU negotiating team do to her? Strong and stable my eye!

Rather than Corbyn been caught without clothes, in the European negotiations as May tastelessly said yesterday, it's May that has been caught with no clothes on.

Serves her right for running a relentlessly negative campaign against Corbyn.

[truman]

I have always been uneasy with the thought of our most precious and necessary infrastructure / resources being in the hands of big business and overseas competitors who have no affiliation to Britain.

 

It should never have been sold off in the first place, and the promised benefits have not been forthcoming. Profits have been taken and a few people have got very rich out of it, but real investment has not gone in. So yes, I think it should be taken back into public ownership.

 

As for the cost, what happened to the money when it was sold? Serious question, I have no idea where it all went. It will be expensive to buy it back, but I think it's the right thing to do. Incidently, it was discussed on Newsnight a few days ago, and it was said that it comes out of an entirely different source, so did not need to be added to the Labour Budget.

 

So which magic pot does it come out of?

Edited May 31, 2017 by truman

[Mister M]

I have never been any better off under a Labour government, my pay rises and my taxes have been equally as good if not better under the Tories, I am working class and have been employed in industry for 40 years, what's left of it.

It was quite laughable to see the Labour political broadcast focus somewhat on lost industry last night because I have never seen a Labour government capable of encouraging industry back, it's lost forever, regardless of the distant Thatcher regime we can't compete with foreign and Asian industry costs, even some of the newer service industry employment has gone to India and the far east where labour costs are cheaper, there are no job guarantees there never will be and we can't afford to continually bloat the costly public sector to fill the gaps and squeeze our taxes.

The sad state of British politics is there for all to see, it has to be the weakest bunch of party leaders ever, the result of a spineless generation obsessed with soft fluffy deluded pc nonsense that has buckled everyone's backbone, I look at the likes of May and Corbyn and really think we are well up the creek.

 

...............

Edited May 31, 2017 by Mister M

[Anna B]

Well truman, Presumably the same magic pot it went into...

 

There was a name for it but I can't remember what it was called.

 

It's going to be a lot, and yes, that could be a problem.

 

But to be honest, money has lost its real meaning to me. The figures are so huge as to be way outside my frame of reference, I can't even imagine them.

But however hard up we are we always seem to be able to find it to fight wars, and they aren't cheap. And we can conjure it up out of thin air by the billions to support banks. In fact banks themselves just conjure it up too. Fiat money. It's a long time since money was backed up by gold.

[dutch]

I still remember that old Clint Eastwood movie where the sniper demands ten thousand dollars and the san Francisco mayor breaks down in tears saying oh my god where am I going to get ten thousand dollars from. Tja money is money isn't it.

[Robin-H]

Well truman, Presumably the same magic pot it went into...

 

There was a name for it but I can't remember what it was called.

 

It's going to be a lot, and yes, that could be a problem.

 

But to be honest, money has lost its real meaning to me. The figures are so huge as to be way outside my frame of reference, I can't even imagine them.

But however hard up we are we always seem to be able to find it to fight wars, and they aren't cheap. And we can conjure it up out of thin air by the billions to support banks. In fact banks themselves just conjure it up too. Fiat money. It's a long time since money was backed up by gold.

 

Calling them different pots of money as a way of making people think that taking money from one (borrowing) won't risk damaging the economy is I think rather duplicitous (of politicians).

 

There isn't a magic pot of money that governments can take money from without any consequences. Otherwise they'd be taking from it to cover everything. Why don't they take £69,000,000,000 and give it too the NHS instead if it was that simple?

 

The answer is that is that there is 'day to day' spending with is funded from tax revenues etc, and capital spending, which is often funded by borrowing as it doesn't need to be renewed each year.

 

Both (if the 'day to day spending is in deficit) impact on the country's debt levels, and the amounts of interest that we pay on that debt.

[area 51]

Sheffield has several constituencies. They aren't all Labour. I don't know where you live, but some are marginals, where the vote could go either way.

 

And the actual vote count which is always read out at elections is an important indicator of which way people's thinking is moving, and this alone can keep the politicians on their toes. In theory anywhere can become a marginal, and then the candidates have to fight damned hard to keep it or win/lose it.

 

As for Blair, he was just a Tory in a different coloured coat. Now with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, for the first time in years you have a real choice of two different ideologies. Already Mrs May has had to moderate her stance to appear 'more caring' so even without winning, Corbyn's influence is already making a difference.

I do not want to vote labour, conservative or lib dem so who am i left with that could possibly beat those three.None,i am not going to vote for a party i do not like just for the sake of it.

 

---------- Post added 31-05-2017 at 18:13 ----------

 

This is the single worst attitude you can have in an election.

 

Why,who do you suggest i vote for that could win bearing in mind i despise labour ,the tories and the lib dems.

[ECCOnoob]

I do not want to vote labour, conservative or lib dem so who am i left with that could possibly beat those three.None,i am not going to vote for a party i do not like just for the sake of it.

 

---------- Post added 31-05-2017 at 18:13 ----------

 

 

Why,who do you suggest i vote for that could win bearing in mind i despise labour ,the tories and the lib dems.

 

How about actually voting for the MP in your local constituency whom you deem will best represent your views in parliament and do the best for your community.

 

That's what we all should be taking care to consider instead of always focusing on the same primary faces.

 

There is more to government than just the party leaders and those local MPs whether we choose to vote for them or not will be the ones who vote on everything happens in Parliament. They are all entitled to a say and they will all be part of the daily debates

 

That is what we should be focused on and that it's a choice we should be making.

 

It's unfortunate that the circus sideshow always gets in the way and is fuelled even more by the stupid glorified beauty contests and 8 way shouting matches which broadcasters loves to produce to hit their ratings and make money without actually benefiting or informing the viewers whatsoever.

 

Hours and hours of tit for tat meaningless waffle followed by endless performance reviews and criticism by the media as if it's some football match.

 

Politics should be a serious business and unfortunately for many it's just not looked at that way. It's dumbed down to be treated like a state funded game show.

Edited May 31, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[area 51]

How about actually voting for the MP in your local constituency whom you deem will best represent your views in parliament and do the best for your community.

 

That's what we all should be taking care to consider instead of always focusing on the same primary faces.

 

There is more to government than just the party leaders and those local MPs whether we choose to vote for them or not will be the ones who vote on everything happens in Parliament. They are all entitled to a say and they will all be part of the daily debates

 

That is what we should be focused on and that it's a choice we should be making.

 

It's unfortunate that the circus sideshow always gets in the way and is fuelled even more by the stupid glorified beauty contests and 8 way shouting matches which broadcasters loves to produce to hit their ratings and make money without actually benefiting or informing the viewers whatsoever.

 

Hours and hours of tit for tat meaningless waffle followed by endless performance reviews and criticism by the media as if it's some football match.

 

Politics should be a serious business and unfortunately for many it's just not looked at that way. It's dumbed down to be treated like a state funded game show.

These are the two main contenders in my constituency.They dont tell you much about themselves do they.One doesnt like people who voted leave or fox hunting and the other owns a local steel industry.Not a lot to go on.www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/Prospective_Parliamentary_Candidates/Wilson_Nicola .http://labourclp283.nationbuilder.com/

[Hairyloon]

A very bad decision by May.

 

What's she afraid of?

 

It is a very smart decision: she is afraid of being made to look like the Former Home Secretary who seeks stability through enough U-turns to give a gyroscopic effect*.

 

{* Sorry, that joke is probably getting tired by now}