Why won't the Tories talk about policies?

[silentP]

Your stance on Europe is to behave like an obnoxious spoiled brat?

Sorry, I'd had you pegged as relatively reasonable. Must have you confused with somebody else.

 

Or you're not the judge of character you think yourself to be, for it's clear you know nothing about me, if you did you'd realise how wrong you are.

[Anna B]

There's pointing out weaknesses in the opposition's position, and then there's out and out personal abuse and name calling.

 

Unfortunately, Jeremy Corbyn won't stoop to these levels, which put him at a distinct disadvantage in this media headline grabbing world, but I'd rather have a leader with a moral compass I can respect, and who puts policy before all, than a party who rely on their media chums and purile character assassination.

 

Of course if Jeremy complains (and I think he should - it has been continuous, vicious, and quite outside acceptable campaigning rules) that will be used for further character assassination in the press.

I really don't want the Prime Minister of this country decided by the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun.

[Hairyloon]

Your stance on Europe is to behave like ?

Sorry, I'd had you pegged as relatively reasonable. Must have you confused with somebody else.

Or you're not the judge of character you think yourself to be, for it's clear you know nothing about me, if you did you'd realise how wrong you are.

 

If, as you say:

I'm probably duty bound to vote for them given my stance on Europe...

Then that suggests you are voting for the stance on Europe most closely aligned to your own. The logical extrapolation of that is that your stance on Europe is akin to that which you are voting for, i.e. that of an obnoxious spoiled brat.

[Anna B]

The only difference between Labour and Tory stances on Europe is that Labour are willing to negotiate on the terms of exit whereas the Tories want to have their demands met before they approach the negotiation table.

 

Brexit was voted for by over 50% of the British public and both parties have promised to respect that result. The Tories are being bullish and are being goaded into that position by the right wing of their party and the main stream media. The Labour Party have no pre-conditions to negotiation.

 

Jeremy Corbyn has spent most of his adult life negotiating with some very difficult characters. If he says he will do the job, he will do it, and do it well. He has been a lifelong EU sceptic, but went with the majority decision of his party, as that's the way he does things. He's no pushover, he will ensure we get good deals for the UK, without upsetting everyone in sight and turning friends into enemies.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Anna B

[silentP]

If, as you say:

 

Then that suggests you are voting for the stance on Europe most closely aligned to your own. The logical extrapolation of that is that your stance on Europe is akin to that which you are voting for, i.e. that of an obnoxious spoiled brat.

 

Ah! (I think) Still not sure how you draw your conclusion.

 

Do you mean it as a direct insult (that's how I took it initially) only I'm confused as to how to respond to be honest?

[TimmyR]

Two sides to every story I guess

 

You mean:

 

Two sides to every tory I guess

[Titanic99]

Because they want to make them up later. And then do whatever they like claiming that May has a huge mandate for it.

 

That is why the fact that Labour, LibDem, Greens etc.. providing detailed pledges is so important because it makes this election one where there is a choice.

 

Unfortunately it's too much choice!

 

On one side you have the Tories who will always promote spending less, on the other everyone else saying we need to spend more.

 

Example NHS spending

 

Labour, Libdems, UKIP, Greens and SNP all want to spend more, whereas the Tories will keep it at current levels.

 

Result

 

If you want to improve the NHS you have numerous choices, if you wnat to keep minimum service you have one.

 

So the mandate in the country would be to spend more, yet we'll end up with a Tory government spending less as the opposition is so diluted.

 

I think we'd be better off with a French style election with a straight run-off between two candidates.

[Anna B]

Unfortunately it's too much choice!

 

On one side you have the Tories who will always promote spending less, on the other everyone else saying we need to spend more.

 

Example NHS spending

 

Labour, Libdems, UKIP, Greens and SNP all want to spend more, whereas the Tories will keep it at current levels.

 

Result

 

If you want to improve the NHS you have numerous choices, if you wnat to keep minimum service you have one.

 

So the mandate in the country would be to spend more, yet we'll end up with a Tory government spending less as the opposition is so diluted.

 

I think we'd be better off with a French style election with a straight run-off between two candidates.

 

Mmmm, actually I think this election is simpler than many. You have a Tory party that favours the rich, and always will, no matter what Mrs May says, and a Labour party who are really trying to do the best for everybody.

[tinfoilhat]

Mmmm, actually I think this election is simpler than many. You have a Tory party that favours the rich, and always will, no matter what Mrs May says, and a Labour party who are really trying to do the best for everybody.

 

If that was the case, surely the Labour Party would win all the time? If that was the case why did so many die hard working class constituencies vote against corbyn wishes and are now thinking of voting Tory for the first time in decades?

 

You might think labour are the party for everyone else, but white working class voters haven't got the memo!

[L00b]

I think we'd be better off with a French style election with a straight run-off between two candidates.

Bear in mind that the French president can't do much of anything, unless he enjoys a Prime Minister with a Parliamentary majority like over here: it's not a symbolic appointment in the sense of e.g. the Irish (Republic) President, but the actual political power of the sitting president (in terms of getting things voted through and done) is directly proportional to the parliamentary majority which his Prime Minister enjoys.

 

Whenever a coalition has occurred (think "Tory president, Labour majority in the House Commons" - or reciprocally ), which has been a few times during the Vth Republic, relatively little got done. Similarly with e.g. Obama in the US, snookered for a long time by the GOP majority in Congress.

 

It's not as ideal as it sounds, nor a panacea. Still, I suppose it's a tad more democratic (than the UK's FPTP system).