It's going to depend on how many of them are registered to vote as well as how many turn up at the polling stations. Getting interesting.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
At the time she called the election I thought, May's decision was a master stroke. However she has since managed to do her best to destroy her career and, heaven forbid, with 5 days to go, the chances of Corbyn winning have become very realistic. It takes more than soundbites to win an election. 'Strong but stable' has been abandoned in favour of 'the magic money tree' in a renewed strategy all Tories can get behind namely "Project Fear". The most amusing aspect of the Referendum campaign was the way liars (in this Brexiteers although the word Liar is entirely synonymous of politicians of all persuasions) accused the Tory leadership around Cameron and Osborne of indulging in a negative fear campaign.
The trouble is that the electorate is past caring. 7 years of austerity with countless more to come, if only to fund the war on terror, mean that anyone who can promise ordinary people more money in their pocket at the expense of those who have done well from austerity is going to be popular. State institutions have been depopulated and Public Service has for a long time now been a dirty pair of words. If you can't turn a profit, shut it down and force the users of those services into the open arms of the private sector has been the motto for a long time.
Any prime minister who retorts to a nurse who has not had a real pay rise in 7 years that the government is investing £500 million more this year but that the nurse has to recognise that there is no magic money tree, deserves to receive the slap in the face she is going to get. No doubt there will therefore be another U-turn. The correct answer is not how much more they are currently spending but a commitment to spend what it takes to prevent the funding crises we see all the time. At some point someone I hope will make that retort. Anyone who saw that recent series on the NHS trusts in North West London will have been appalled at the amount of time each day committees of doctors, surgeons and bureaucrats spent deciding who was going to receive treatment that day based primarily on funding decisions. Would that time not be better spent actually treating people?
There is in reality a fundamental truth which no politician is willing to contemplate or put his or her name to - namely that an economy based on low taxation is inconsistent with our notion of the state we all want to live in. One where everything works and people who fall ill or lose their jobs are not forgotten and abandoned by the state they and their families have contributed to.
The trouble is that the electorate is past caring. 7 years of austerity with countless more to come, if only to fund the war on terror, mean that anyone who can promise ordinary people more money in their pocket at the expense of those who have done well from austerity is going to be popular. State institutions have been depopulated and Public Service has for a long time now been a dirty pair of words. If you can't turn a profit, shut it down and force the users of those services into the open arms of the private sector has been the motto for a long time.
Any prime minister who retorts to a nurse who has not had a real pay rise in 7 years that the government is investing £500 million more this year but that the nurse has to recognise that there is no magic money tree, deserves to receive the slap in the face she is going to get. No doubt there will therefore be another U-turn. The correct answer is not how much more they are currently spending but a commitment to spend what it takes to prevent the funding crises we see all the time. At some point someone I hope will make that retort. Anyone who saw that recent series on the NHS trusts in North West London will have been appalled at the amount of time each day committees of doctors, surgeons and bureaucrats spent deciding who was going to receive treatment that day based primarily on funding decisions. Would that time not be better spent actually treating people?
There is in reality a fundamental truth which no politician is willing to contemplate or put his or her name to - namely that an economy based on low taxation is inconsistent with our notion of the state we all want to live in. One where everything works and people who fall ill or lose their jobs are not forgotten and abandoned by the state they and their families have contributed to.
Yes. I was open-minded in 2010, willing to give them a chance, but no longer. Too many little people have been hurt in pursuing their agenda. I won't be voting UKIP, either. Greens, Lib-Dems or Labour are all possibles, but none of them have a hope of winning in my constituency.
Just seen a poll which says 63% of 18-24 year olds say they will definitely vote, compared to the turnout of 43% in 2015. And 68% of them say they will vote Labour. Perhaps the Brexit vote has woken them up.
There's a lot of truth in what you say here. However, as for your last sentence, whilst I have some sympathy with that viewpoint, people usually vote for the party that promises lower taxation.
The big problem is that it is unlikely Labour can win a clear working majority, that would really be the nightmare scenario of both the Scottish and Irish tails wagging the English dog, a truly awful prospect. At least if Labour won outright there would be an element of certainty in what was happening, throw in the other clowns and it would be anyone's guess as to what might happen...
Will make a pleasant change from old ****s voting to pull the ladder up behind them and most young people not caring.
A Grand Coalition is a possibility, whereby the Tories and Lab...........nah!
I should have thought that political debate regarding the safety of our citizens is more important than ever today. May's statement that 'enough is enough' is political in itself, implying that she will take tough action. We should be entitled to ask what that action might be, and why she hasn't taken it before.
This is politics Dipper. Though I personally have nothing new to say on the subject.
And if there's another suicide attack tomorrow by Islamic ****s celebrating Ramadan and Allah, shall we give politics a miss then too?
This butchery is becoming a norm. There are 23000 Muslim terrorist risks out there, and the three attacks on innocent civilians in 3 months will encourage them to have a go too.
Meanwhile there are mullah's in the mosques that preach that young women that don't wear a face mask deserve to be raped. It's not going to get better because Muslims use any excuse, national or international, to be victims
I belong to a leftie Facebook group that I very rarely post to, but read with interest. They had said the same as you, Dipper, but, after May's statement , the mods put up this notice, which I wholeheartedly agree with....
The admins of the group had taken the decision to suspend posts to this group in line with national campaigning, however, it seems Theresa May has taken this terror attack as an opportunity to promote herself, so we have decided that we must share this information with you. We will maintain the suspension until this evening bar this single, but important post.
Last night, London was attacked in a horribly brutal way. Our emergency services responded, as they always do, with ...tenacity, commitment and bravery, which is to be especially commended given how drastically these services have been cut by Conservatives. We have dangerously few police offices, nurses, doctors and paramedics, yet they rose to the occasion.
Instead of trying to unite the country and to show that the terrorists and their hate cannot win, May is using this moment to score cheap political points and ignoring her own significant failings in this matter.
If our country has been in any way tolerant of terrorists, this has been on her watch. Before she was Prime Minister, she was Home Secretary. It was in this role that she cut 20,000 police officers, despite warnings from the Police Federation that this would leave us open to terrorist threats. She also did not heed specific warnings about the terrorist in Manchester.
We hope you understand our anger and disappointment at this move by May and support our decision to post.
That's a "No" then? Suit yourselves, gents. I won't be playing until my anger has dropped and I can express myself more clearly.
Fair enough Dipp's, I understand your sentiment. I think we all feel the same following these type of attacks. I certainly do.