Still undecided. Lib Dems have a slight chance in Watford where I'm still registered despite a shocking result in 2015. Might go tactically with Labour, probably prefer LDs or might just go Green if I can't decide. Probably Labour.
Just switched over and saw about the last minute of that, which consisted entirely of Neil talking over Farron and not allowing him to speak.
If you'd watched it all you'd have seen that it was, in fact, the complete opposite for most of the half hour. Farron came across as an arrogant, know it all twat.
I had my back to the TV and all I could hear was a high pitched yapping, no actual words at all. He's very irritating, talking over the questions just like he did with the participants in the debate last night. Corbyn et al are just letting the criticism which they've been getting since 2015 roll over them, it's all factored in now - we all knew about the links with terrorists, his position on nuclear weapons etc. They've only shot themselves in the foot when it comes to remembering numbers. But if May loses it will be all her own work, you can blame her for all the havoc Labour may bring on us.
He's actually got a look resembling Ken Livingstone added to his awful accent, an absolute vote-loser...
The Tories have run a terrible campaign and deserve all they get, but I'll still blame all you wanna be Karl Marx out there for leaving the unholy trinity of Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell in charge of this great Nation.
No mate. All I've heard is how fantastic Labour and Corbyn are (even allowing presumably for the historic support of terrorists and wanting to abolish MI5 and Special Branch. Plus all the bullying of female labour party members and MPs by Momentum supporters. Plus all the anti-jew stuff.). All I've heard is that the Tories have got everything wrong and that Labour are right about everything. Just say the word "Tory" and all hell is unleashed from everyone supporting Labour. It's been a brilliantly coordinated campaign, especially on social media where Momentum et al have suppressed all debate and completely rubbished May and the Tories (they've done a good job of this themselves too). Well, let's see what happens if you all get what you wish for.
Sigh, John Pilger. Makes Michael Moore look professional and objective. He's done some great work in the past, and perhaps there is some truth to this but it's impossible to filter from his agenda. Big fan of Gaddafi clearly.
She will still win, although I've enjoyed her coronation being derailed. I really thought we had a grown up when she saw off boris and gove; but she's just as much a chancer as those two clowns.
It's mostly fact as far as I can tell, it's the linking of the facts that may be problematic. It seems to me that the Manchester bomber should have been stopped and that there were serious failures, or miscalculations perhaps, that led to a terrible tragedy. I wonder if we will get to find out.
Well on QT Clegg has just given Davies the official Treasury figures of what Brexit will cost with a Canada type deal (£36bn a year) and with no deal (£45bn a year). The response was 'our economy grew rapidly after the referendum'. Unfortunately now we have the lowest growth rate in the G7, as was also pointed out. Earlier Davies said he couldn't promise that the 'tens of thousands' immigration target would be met during the next parliament, while earlier his boss had promised that it would. Fiasco. Who is the Labour bloke? It comes to something when Clegg starts to look statesmanlike. Lot of stuff about the cost of Labours manifesto pledges and tax plans. What has struck me is that in 1945, with the worst austerity this country has ever known, the Labour government managed to nationalise 20% of the economy, set up the NHS (and increase spending on it by 80% in 1949 alone) and embark on a massive house building and reconstruction programme. Lot of investment in education too. Life was extremely hard with rationing etc, but did we go bankrupt? We are constantly told that our economy is very strong, low unemployment etc etc. Labours programme is far less ambitious than the 1945 version, why shouldn't we be able to afford it? Lack of will and obsessions with clearing an unclearable deficit I suppose.
