Theresa May calls General Election for June 8

[Space Commander Travis]

 

 

46 minutes ago, bee said:

THERESA May has warned voters that putting Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street will lead to a coalition of chaos with "Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and Nicola Sturgeon pulling the strings”.

Pri Minister Theresa May is very proud of that slogan, isn't she. It's all she actually seems to say.

One could very much reply that Ms. May's record herself as Home Secretary is not exactly one to be overwhelmingly proud of, and, if Ms. Abbott is the unattractive face of Labour, how about these clowns, who unaccountably have risen to important positions* for the unattractive, or at least risible, face of Ms. May's Cabinet? 

* well, we know why Boris has, of course, to keep him contented so he'll be less likely to challenge her for the position of Supreme Leader. The other one, in case you weren't sure, is Mr. Fallon, the current "Defence" Secretary. (beg pardon, Sir Michael (pause to salute).) He may not be as immediately obviously a Tory Twerp as his colleague, but just look up some of his idiotic blusterings about Russia and particularly when Putin's Nuke Fleet swept down the Channel, like the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau in '42, for some prize examples of his vapid blusterings.

  

[Duke Wellington]

There are people criticising Teresa May for not trying harder at campaigning, for avoiding television debates and for using too many slogans instead of substance. But she has already won so she can only ruin it by doing these things. She just needs to sit tight and collect this easy victory.

[LV-426]

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You can, however, find some Labour policies to attack. On the other hand, Ms. May's policies seem to be;

• Brexit (possibly)
• After that... Well, Brexit! Everyone'll be happy after that! We won't need any actual policies! 

Do you know what the post-Brexit policies of the forthcoming Conservative administration will be? 

But look! you'll say. Jezzer Corbyn will leave the country defenceless by refusing to use nuclear weapons even as the Russian hordes are massing on the French channel coast!  (How did they get to the channel coast in the first place? Has America gone back to the pre-1941 position and looked the other way while Putin's armoured hordes sweep across Europe? That would seem likely considering how there's not been a single word of criticism of Russia's Tyrant Putin that's been voiced on the other side of the Atlantic for years, it really is disgraceful  ) So.. well, that's have a look on the news to see how successful Ms. May and the current Conservative administration has been in defending the country against rather more realistic and plausible threats .... Well, I find on looking at the news that there seem to have been several terrorist incidents recently in which numerous people have been killed, and in every case the perpetrators were known to the Security services - look! here's one of them who was in a TV documentary about ISIS! But Ms. May has protected the nation by putting Armed Police and SAS Ultimate Warriors on the streets! That makes everyone feel reassured and safe, because Armed Police and SAS Ultimate Warriors aren't at all intimidating in any way, no,.   And at the same time they're not at all completely useless in preventing someone driving a van into a crowd, are they, no.  And the public will also feel so much safer when members of Ms. May's regime recite meaningless platitudes like 'We must never let the terrorists believe that they can disrupt the democratic processes which lie at the heart of our society', won't we. Blustering meaningless words of defiance are always a handy fallback when you have no actual idea what to do.  

So when Ms. May is returned to power I'm not going to be joining in the Minute's Silence and the Candlelit Vigil next time, I'm going to be blaming who should be blamed. Ms. May and her failed, some might say non-existent, policies in combating extremism. 

I'm getting a little concerned that the MvD we know and love from the Brexit threads has been replaced Invasion of the Body Snatchers style

Firstly, you're preaching to the converted as far as the Tories go. I don't like many of their policies, some of which have personally hit me harder than I care to discuss on a public forum. Then there are May's draconian plans for the Internet, in which she has crazy ideas such as banning encryption, something that would crush privacy and security for the vast majority of citizens, while doing next to nothing to counter criminal activity.

It's this simple for me; the damage that the Tories could do in the next five years is less than Labour could do.

For example, on May's Internet plans from New Scientist:

Theresa May’s repeated calls to ban encryption still won’t work

"The arguments against banning encryption are well rehearsed, but worth repeating. Encryption is not just a tool used by terrorists. Anyone who uses the internet uses encryption. Messaging  apps, online banking, e-commerce, government websites, or your local hospital all use encryption.

A ban on encryption would make it impossible to do anything online that relies on keeping things private, like sending your credit card details or messaging your doctor.

Even if governments were willing to sacrifice their citizen’s online privacy, any sort of ban would be futile anyway. Anyone with a little technical know-how could write their own code to encrypt and decrypt data."

Concerns about Tories trying to privatize the NHS? It won't happen. You'd see rioting on the streets that make the poll taxt riots look like a minor tiff. Not something any government wants to see with the precarious mood of the country after the terrorist attacks.

Labour on the other hand, as I've outlined in previous posts, I believe could do irreversible, long-term damage to the nation, whether through a one way plan to abandon our nuclear deterrent, or through wanting to implement a hard-line socialist corporation tax policy while we're bargaining our way out of the EU.

I don't understand why you keep making posts about "Russkies", as though we're all creating imaginary scenarios in our heads. You don't plan your defence strategies around exclusively known threats. You plan for the unknown, whether that is a potential threat ten or twenty years from now, or a sudden turn of events - which is the way global conflicts usually start, with some random event starting a chain reaction, with countries suddenly making land grabs amidst the chaos. You know... events like religious extremism destabilizing populations...

As to May increasing armed police on the streets, what exactly do you think she should do? We've already gone over this in the Manchester thread, but to add to those comments, had the One Love event gone ahead with normal event security, i.e. unarmed or lightly armed private security firms, and there had been another terrorist attack, she'd have been crucified for inaction. She's doing pretty much all she can do within current parameters.

The bottom line is that while the main parties have this crass debate on police numbers, doubling or trebling the force would have little impact unless they change the policy on dealing with people with known extremist sympathies, and sadly none of them will commit to that in this politically correct country in which we live.

[bee]

 

They're all turning on each other now - 

Corbyn was launching his universal childcare policy on Woman's Hour but couldn't tell the interviewer how
much it would cost - so she had to tell him -

whoops

http://uk.businessinsider.com/general-election-jeremy-corbyn-womens-hour-childcare-costs-excruciating-interview-2017-5

Corbyn was asked on Radio 4's Woman's Hour about Labour plans to provide universal free childcare for three million children.

The Labour leader was forced to search in vain on his Ipad for the details of the policy, which he had apparently come on the programme to announce.

[snip]

"Jeremy Corbyn has had two 'brain fades' in two days. It seems he's been borrowing Diane Abbott's calculator," Liberal Democrat shadow first secretary of state Alistair Carmichael said.

"Jeremy Corbyn's Labour let people down by voting with Theresa May on Brexit and now is failing to say whether they will help those struggling families who stand to be most affected."

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, bee said:

 

They're all turning on each other now - 

Corbyn was launching his universal childcare policy on Woman's Hour but couldn't tell the interviewer how
much it would cost - so she had to tell him -

whoops

http://uk.businessinsider.com/general-election-jeremy-corbyn-womens-hour-childcare-costs-excruciating-interview-2017-5

 

 

Abbott at 8:40 am. Tube station. Oxford Circus. 20 mins before woman's hour starts.

 

https://order-order.com/2017/06/06/diane-pulls-womans-hour/

Edited June 6, 2017 by stevewinn

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Labour on the other hand, as I've outlined in previous posts, I believe could do irreversible, long-term damage to the nation, whether through a one way plan to abandon our nuclear deterrent,

why is everyone so obsessively concerned about that? Could someone please construct some remotely plausible scenario where it could cause irresistible long term harm to the nation? 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Concerns about Tories trying to privatize the NHS? It won't happen.

simply pouring more and more billions into it as they all fall over themselves to promise wouldn't seem likely to make it more efficient. (Unless we mean efficient in politician-speak, when it means "saving us money through cuts"). If any of them was brave enough to have any plan for a complete rethink of it from the bottom up they might well be worth considering,

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, LV-426 said:

You don't plan your defence strategies around exclusively known threats.

I'm feeling the chilly ghost of Rumsfeld wafting through.  Anyway, planning for possible contingencies is of course what any Governments should be doing, and of course they should consider all possible scenarios. But planning for this particular contingency costs such as astronomical amount that it would surely never pass any cost-benefit analysis in business that compares the cost with probability. The whole business of having a "nuclear deterrent" takes up such a large portion of the defence budget that it simply creams off the amount that can be spent on more practical things like prevention of terrorism (not 'fighting' it, preventing it) and having a navy capable of meeting worldwide commitments. 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, this'll please Steve (or perhaps disappoint him): Diane Abbott to step aside 'for the period of her ill health', Corbyn says

 

Meanwhile, Ms. May is once again promising to crack down on terrorism. 

[bee]

 

On the Sky News I saw last night - they didn't have Corbyn on screen once - which was a bit errr strange as we
are so close to election day - and when they had the journalists discussing the papers Diane Abbott came up briefly but
it was as if they were told not to even mention Corbyn's gaff on Woman's Hour --- 

But Sky News (like the BBC) supports the EU so they are craftily supporting Corbyn in little ways hoping he can help to scupper Brexit - 

IMO

.

[Grey Area]

On ‎06‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 9:46 AM, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

The question though is what happens after that? Ms. May seems to have no idea beyond some vague idea that having told Frau Merkel to stick her EU up her Bundestag  , everything else will fall into place because everyone will be happy and Free.  

Presumably then, the plan should be for May to create a new cabinet position, lets call it the minister for unforeseeable affairs, hire Mystic Meg as the minister, and then form a detailed plan based on the ministers predictions of Brexit negotiations.

I have heard this line a lot recently, most notably from Mr sell out himself, Nick Clegg.  In my opinion it is a very cheap shot, aimed at the average not very switched on voter.  It annoys me for 2 reasons:

1:  Any plan for post Brexit Britain will have to be in line with the outcome of Brexit negotiations, which obviously have not started yet.

2.  Any plans that were drawn up would essentially give away any advantage in negotiations that we hold with the EU, it would basically say 'this is what we are prepared to accept' before the negotiations have begun.

[Unusual Tournament]

I told you people that this election would cleave the electorate along the brexit lines of leave and remain.

[Mr.United_Nations]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Well, this'll please Steve (or perhaps disappoint him): Diane Abbott to step aside 'for the period of her ill health', Corbyn says

 

Meanwhile, Ms. May is once again promising to crack down on terrorism. 

So why is she still an MP? If she is ill then she's not fit to boil in a future government

[LV-426]

18 minutes ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

So why is she still an MP? If she is ill then she's not fit to boil in a future government

She's not fit to boil a Pot Noodle.

I suspect Labour have realized, rather too late, that she's a liability, and she's doing their campaign a lot of harm.

Expect her to miraculously spring back to life if Labour, equally miraculously, take power.

[LV-426]

So... one day left.

Let's get some predictions in, for bragging rights and humble pie

I jest. I'm a little sad that some posters left after Brexit. Even though I didn't agree with many of their views, it's always good to have a variety of opinions.

I'm going to say Tory win, but by a narrower margin than May hoped for.

A poor showing for Lib Dems, slightly better than expected result for UKIP after recent events, but poor overall. SNP suffering a few losses to Labour in Scotland.

[Setton]

2 hours ago, LV-426 said:

So... one day left.

Let's get some predictions in, for bragging rights and humble pie

I jest. I'm a little sad that some posters left after Brexit. Even though I didn't agree with many of their views, it's always good to have a variety of opinions.

I'm going to say Tory win, but by a narrower margin than May hoped for.

A poor showing for Lib Dems, slightly better than expected result for UKIP after recent events, but poor overall. SNP suffering a few losses to Labour in Scotland.

Almost exactly what I'd predict. Labour's made a lot of gains but I don't see them pulling off a victory. I'm getting more and more convinced the whole thing will be a massive waste of time with the tories coming out still with a slim majority.

[keithisco]

Predictions! Now we are talking...

1. Tories 380

2. Labour 202

3. SNP 46

4. Lib Dems 4

5. Greens 0

6. Others: 18

What is the prize?

 

[LV-426]

11 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Predictions! Now we are talking...

1. Tories 380

2. Labour 202

3. SNP 46

4. Lib Dems 4

5. Greens 0

6. Others: 18

Wow, that's some pretty specific predictions!

 

11 minutes ago, keithisco said:

What is the prize?

A date with bee or Manfred von Dreidecker at a restaurant of your choice

[cyclopes500]

 

 I'm over 50 and this is the worst Conservative campaign I've seen since I was able to vote. Had Corbyn and his lot not been like they are then no way would I have bet on May winning. She's now got the elderly house owners and their carers their kids against her.  I see it like this. It takes 1 person to sit in a wheelchair, one son or daughter to push it, one to drive the car to the polling station. Say the grandchild. Thats potentially at least 3 votes against May per elderly home owning household. Toss in the 48%, remainers voting tactility and in my eyes you could see a Labour win yet. Personally I think May did it to punish the older people for voting Brexit. She was in the Remain camp remember and so were many other Conservatives. They want to loose the election not win it. Its either that or politically to them the revolting equivalent of washing UKIPs dirty underwear by hand. There's little soap, no hot water, the water's salty and Tessa May is the p***** off grey haird posh woman chained to the Conservative club kitchen sink. Unlike a carer she can resign from the job if the party looses the election, but not so should the party "SUFFER" a landslide "WIN."

 

 

[keithisco]

4 minutes ago, cyclopes500 said:

 

 I'm over 50 and this is the worst Conservative campaign I've seen since I was able to vote. Had Corbyn and his lot not been like they are then no way would I have bet on May winning. She's now got the elderly house owners and their carers their kids against her.  I see it like this. It takes 1 person to sit in a wheelchair, one son or daughter to push it, one to drive the car to the polling station. Say the grandchild. Thats potentially at least 3 votes against May per elderly home owning household. Toss in the 48%, remainers voting tactility and in my eyes you could see a Labour win yet. Personally I think May did it to punish the older people for voting Brexit. She was in the Remain camp remember and so were many other Conservatives. They want to loose the election not win it. Its either that or politically to them the revolting equivalent of washing UKIPs dirty underwear by hand. There's little soap, no hot water, the water's salty and Tessa May is the p***** off grey haird posh woman chained to the Conservative club kitchen sink. Unlike a carer she can resign from the job if the party looses the election, but not so should the party "SUFFER" a landslide "WIN."

 

 

You are protesting far too much... Every houseowner still gets to leave 100,000 UKP no matter how long they need to be in a nursing home - the house does not get sold during the lifetime of the owner OR the spouse. I am in that position myself, but I sure expect to pay towards my nursing home costs if the need ever arises. I have absolutely no problem with that and neither do my kids who get AT LEAST 100,000 UKP split between them. They do not feel "entitled" to a huge payout on my death simply because of my life-choices that, after years of struggling, means that I am now comfortable.

...and yes, I am of that generation when self-dependency rather than state handouts was considered the norm. and getting money for doing nothing was considered poor form. I have worked hard all of my life and feel a certain pride in being able to support myself even if it means a Nursing Home in later life.

With a fast ageing population certain hard facts have to be faced, and this is one of them.

[keithisco]

48 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Wow, that's some pretty specific predictions!

 

A date with bee or Manfred von Dreidecker at a restaurant of your choice

Get your money out Lady bee and Count von Dreidecker... we're going to The Royal Oak in Fritham (New Forest), home brewed cider and cask ales and "proper" food  It could even tempt me to give up my Tee-Totalism

Royal Oak

[Space Commander Travis]

I'd be quite content for Ms. May to win, since we all know that the media would go after Mr. Corbyn like the US Media have with mr. Trump, and frankly it would be deeply unpleasant to see a decent man such as he be torn to shreds by those jackals. So let Ms. May take it all upon herself. She, and no one else, will have to take all the responsibility for her lack of any tangible policies beyond the word "Brexit", for her domineering authoritarian arrogance, for the complete absence of any idea at all in the minds of herself or any of her Cabinet how to tackle the real most important current issue, fundamentalist Sunni Islamic extremism, and let her Crack Down on Terrorism as much as she likes, let her put Challenger tanks patrolling the streets of London, let her have helicopter gunships patrolling the skies of London, and let's see if it makes the slightest difference in preventing the next attack, and the one after that, and the one after that. Let's see how long it takes for it to dawn on her and the more intelligent members of her Cabinet, if there are any, that perhaps addressing the causes of extremism might be more productive than a endless cycle of reacting to the last one. Let her be the one that's on the receiving end, deservedly, for when pubic patience finally snaps with her endlessly repeated slogan that "We are pouring more money into the NHS than ever before", but they still see emergency units close and people being expected to travel 40 miles to the nearest emergency unit. Let her be the one that people ask, after she's come back from Brussels waving a piece of paper declaring "Freedom from the Tyrants of Europe", "well, what now?". And let's see if she has any answers. This is where your ambition has got you, Ms. May, so let you, and no one else, have to face up to the public when your plans are shown to be non-existent and your promises a hollow sham. 

[Space Commander Travis]

I'll say one thing for her; at least you can't accuse her of hypocritically hiding her authoritarianism behind a smiling face, can you. 

[spud the mackem]

16 minutes ago, keithisco said:

You are protesting far too much... Every houseowner still gets to leave 100,000 UKP no matter how long they need to be in a nursing home - the house does not get sold during the lifetime of the owner OR the spouse. I am in that position myself, but I sure expect to pay towards my nursing home costs if the need ever arises. I have absolutely no problem with that and neither do my kids who get AT LEAST 100,000 UKP split between them. They do not feel "entitled" to a huge payout on my death simply because of my life-choices that, after years of struggling, means that I am now comfortable.

...and yes, I am of that generation when self-dependency rather than state handouts was considered the norm. and getting money for doing nothing was considered poor form. I have worked hard all of my life and feel a certain pride in being able to support myself even if it means a Nursing Home in later life.

With a fast ageing population certain hard facts have to be faced, and this is one of them.

Nursing homes are NOT pleasant places to visit never mind having to live in one, they have a peculiar odor as you walk through the door and you can never find staff when they are needed. I have visited 4 different ones and they all smell the same, so not for me thankyou, apart from the cost which is exorbitant.

[Space Commander Travis]

* Wait, you say, I'm showing favoritism and bias? Does this mean I'm a secret Labour supporter, and possibly even a pro-Europe quisling, since any rational right thinking person realises that Ms. May is our only hope for Brexit? Well, Mr. Corbyn does seem, as I said, to be a decent man, who comes across as a decent human and nowhere near as authoritarian and humorless as Ms. May, but his expressed desires and policies - essentially a return to the 1970s, bringing back British Rail and giving power back to the unions - seem more an exercise in Labour Party nostalgia than any real policies for a go-ahead post-Brexi Britain. And whether he even has any plans for Brexit seems far from clear. So essentially, Ms. May seems to have no real policies and be humorless and authoritarian, Mr. Corbyn seems a decent fellow but with hopelessly outdated policies. So the choice is yours!