I don't mind coalitions, but if we had PR it would probably be two parties in power (right wing tories and left wing tories or social democrats and left wing labour). They'd be much more balanced than relying on fringe parties like we have here. It's still not right that one party can get 40% of the vote and have 60 seat majority- doesn't matter which party, it's not representative. Even if 60% of the country votes them out, they are still there and unstoppable.
As opposed to being run by terrorist sympathisers? In the space of a few days Jezza was spending in excess of £10 billion more than their manifesto promises on abolishing student loans, then bringing forward the starting point of that and then promising to write off all student loan debts. I wonder why the teenagers suddenly emerged from their swamps to vote? We are stuck between a rock and a hard place with both alternatives but the Labour version would make £1.5 billion look like petty cash...
Teenagers from their swamps? Typical language that influences a teenager to vote away from a party or a voter of a party that would use such phrases. Of course they would vote for someone who promises to help them. Isn't that what we all do?
Thing with politics is that they make all sorts of promises in manifestos to gain the votes. Once In power the majority of the manifesto is disreguarded. We all vote for liars and we all fall for it time and time again. We had it with brexit and 350m a week for the nhs. People vote for these blatant lies and someone really should be held accountable for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052 Corberk (instructed by his bosses at Momentum) attempts to launch a 'test case' against austerity. I assume he means the austerity measures that were brought in as a direct result of the Blair/Brown economic **** up. You couldn't write it!!!! ****ing hilarious.
Sorry - are people trying to say that there shouldn't have been any measures taken in the wake of the financial crisis? That 'business as usual' would have been fine? Crazy...
Not business as usual, but decimating the public sector whilst reducing taxes for corporations and the richest in society hasn't achieved much, other than leaving us with dangerously underfunded public services and increasing the divisions in society. The rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer - it's the unfairness that people are tired of. We can find money to bribe the DUP, refurbish Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Westminster and bomb whoever the Americans tell us we should, but we can't pay public servants what they deserve. Time for a change of emphasis.
In 2010, there was a massive swing away from Labour to the Tories. When compared to 2005, the Tories gained 108 seats, with Labour losing 97 (there had been twelve constituency wins for the tories in between). There were only two reasons for this. Firstly, the anti-war feeling hanging over, as we now knew that we'd been duped into a pretty much unwinnable war by Blair. This was probably only a sideshow, and doesn't explain the shift to the right, as the Conservatives also supported the action. The only other element in play was the economy. It was very clear that the public did not trust Labour over the economy, preferring to go with the Tories who stood on an Austerity platform. Fast forward five years, and they get an overall majority, despite five years of cutbacks. Given the EU vote was so close, that wouldn't have been the biggest factor in people's minds. Clearly they STILL didn't trust Labour. And a few weeks ago, despite Theresa May running possibly the worst campaign possible, Labour were still not deemed wise enough to be handed the country back. I'm not saying by any means that there isn't room for improvement, as there clearly is. But the country does not think a Labour government under Corbyn is the answer.
£1bn bribe to cling on to power, then this... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rantee-local-government-budgets-a7809216.html Utterly corrupt and shameful.
SNP to dispute the DUP bribe... http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...mally-dispute-dup-conservative-deal-1-4487833
A superb article revealing just how left-wing biased the BBC are: www.thesun.co.uk/news/3898725/the-bbcs-love-in-with-jeremy-corbyn-has-major-implications-for-britain-and-needs-to-stop/
I think their true bias lies more in their coverage building up to the election than a light-hearted tweet from Radio 1, a station mostly listened to by young people who will get the joke (not a great one) that presumably the author of this piece hasn't. As you tell me, Col, do some research.
Brought to us by the newspaper owned by the Australian-born American who also owns TV companies. And written by a writer from The Spectator. It's just his opinion, Col, and he's (and his oligarch master) as biased as the rest of us.
The BBC needs to be split up and the licence fee removed. Let the arts components compete with Sky, ITV, Channel 4 etc on a level playing field, by subscription if necessary. If BBC News wants to push a hard left agenda, fine, just so long as people aren't being imprisoned for refusing to pay for it.
