Absolutely. She's a control freak. Incidentally, I like the Forward Together motto on the pedestal. You can count 48+% of the country out Ms May.
Assuming you're referring to leaving the EU that's not true. http://whatukthinks.org/eu/question...port-brexit-and-should-it-be-put-into-effect/
Ok, its fine to make massive posts about the lack of believability in Labours policies, but posting anything about the lack of believability in Conservative policies is beside the point. Good to know.
I guess the point is that, while the Conservatives do lack credibility when it comes to the deficit, if that's something you're actually concerned about then the Conservatives are still more credible than anyone else. That's also aside from the fact that May has only been prime minister for a year and has already shown that her attitude to economics is rather different to Cameron's and Osborne's.
I like curry, but now that we've got the recipe, is there any reason for them to stay.? Still incredibly accurate.
I think this is where Tim Farron's plan may backfire. He thinks all the people who voted remain do not accept the result which is not true.
So if you add the two anti-Brexit votes together you get a majority of voters who would prefer us to stay in the EU. Only that half of those have decided to cave in with the inevitability rather than stick to what they want. It's absolutely ridiculous that a country ends up doing what most people would prefer not to happen.
No, it's a dead heat. 45% in favour of leaving, 23% voted remain but accept the result, 22% want to overturn or ignore the result 22+23=45 Agreed. I thought the Lib Dems would do reasonably well using this tactic but they seem to be going backwards. Farron seems to be a liability - getting bogged down in various discussions of his religious beliefs. Lib Dem voters actually seem to be switching to Labour.
Not at all. We aren;t arguing about believability vs un-believability. We arguing about sounding credible and not sounding credible. If you want to draw it into believability then I would suggest I think the Tories/May will be able to get closer to what they say they will do than Labour/Corbyn will be able to.
Not just Tim Farron. The whole bubble and the media are constantly drawing straight lines between Brexit and voting intention assuming UKIP would have a chance in Stoke etc. There are influences from Brexit but the media and the bubble as usual just think it is as easy as remain = Labour/Green/Lib Dem and leave = UKIP/Tory when that is not the case. Brexit is having an influence but not a straight comparison. It is adding a bit to May but she will still have remainers voting for her and in Stoke they voted in a remain supporting Labour MP a few months ago.
If we use the metric that Labour do (i.e. who they voted for last time) when they say 2 thirds of Labour voters backed remain then these are now classed as Labour voters anyway seeing as they switched in 2015 to punish the Lib Dems and made Ed look like he had halted Labour's slide. With or without the religious and LGBT side of things Farron is a David Brent type full of mission statements and slogans. Lots of them. Even more than Ed Milliband came out with and he has obviously had coaching on delivery by people who have been watching Farage closely. Not on what he say but the whole dividing sentences up into syllables. IT....IS GOING.....TO BE.......BAD......FOR EACH......AND EVERY.....ONE OF YOU. It is something Farage has done for ages and I notice a few of the politicians doing it now. Farron is also someone who when he speaks he asks a question and then immediately answers his own question. He did it loads of times in last night's debate. They made a big mistake not selecting Norman Lamb and now Lamb's seat is looking in danger anyway.
You're having a laugh, surely? Corbyn is credible, and getting more credible every day compared to May, who is clearly a puppet controlled by her minders, who are terrified of her actually being asked any questions. Let's have a leaders' debate Theresa!
Given that it might bore me shi**ess can you explain in plain English what the difference between being believable and unbelievable, and sounding credible and not credible. If it is about using 'sounding' as a defining adjective, as in emitting a sound, then as far as I can see there is no difference. I would argue your comment is spin.
Labour's manifesto looks really good but I don't think they will be able to achieve much of it. I think the Tories will be able to get pretty close to what they say they will do. You can have the best manifesto in the world but if no-one really thinks you can achieve it then it is not credible. I would argue that far from being spin what I say will be shown in the election results. Lots of people that like the sound of Labour's manifesto won't vote for it because they don't believe it is realistic.
