The government would have you believe that the reason for the election and the reason that you should vote Tory is to give them a mandate and strengthen the UK’s position in the Brexit negotiations. Like many others I’m not convinced. I think the real reason is simple political opportunism. The Tories believe that they will never have a better chance to win a general election with a huge majority and secure a further five years in power which will allow them to do pursue their real agenda.

The mantra “We need a strong mandate to negotiate the best possible Brexit deal” is a smokescreen to appeal to the Brexit camp. Returning the Tories with an overwhelming majority will give them carte blanche to continue their slash and burn policies with regard to the NHS, schools, pensions and other public services whilst simultaneously reducing taxes for big business and the better off.

Put Brexit to one side, look at their policies and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Are you happy with the current state of our schools?
2. Are you happy with the current state of our NHS?
3. Are you happy with the current state of welfare provision, e.g. care of the elderly and disabled.
4. Do you trust a Tory party with a huge majority to protect and improve the above?

Don’t be fooled into thinking this is just about Brexit, it’s way deeper than that. The Tories are hoping that if they dress it up as Brexit they can pull the wool over your eyes when it comes to their domestic policies.

You can't blame the Tories for the state of the NHS, nor for all the issues with schools.
The welfare system is knackered too.

All 3 of those things are used for political football instead of being dealt with properly.

Good try though

I agree with you Cryssys, it is not just about Brexit. It is about who is best placed and most trusted to lead the Country over the next five years..

When Mrs May took over as Prime Minister, there were calls from both Labour and the Lib-Dems for her to call an election, as she had " little democratic legitimacy " and had not won an Election. Now she has done so, something Gordon Brown lacked the courage to do in 2009, and that Callaghan failed to do in the Autumn of 1978..

Putting Brexit to one side as you suggest, I think people will be asking themselves these questions:

1. Who do I think will make the best PM, Mrs May or Jeremy Corbyn ?
2. Which of the main parties do I most trust with the economy ?
3. Do I want Diane Abbott as Home Secretary or Emily Thornberry as Foreign Secretary ?
4. Which of the main parties do I trust on Defence ?

I'm an ex-Labour member, but couldn't bring myself to vote Labour as it is now, I'm afraid !!

Nah, its about Brexit.

You can't be voting for a party that wants to enter the most important negotiations in our recent history; who constantly make a very public phrase of saying "we want to stay in your market at all costs". Hardly going to going to get a good deal with that level of public desperation, are you? Fact is we need a massive Tory win, then perhaps in 5 years we can look at the alternatives.

Crssyss you got 4 yes'

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Nah, its about Brexit.

You can't be voting for a party that wants to enter the most important negotiations in our recent history; who constantly make a very public phrase of saying "we want to stay in your market at all costs". Hardly going to going to get a good deal with that level of public desperation, are you? Fact is we need a massive Tory win, then perhaps in 5 years we can look at the alternatives.

So you think Germany & France are going to be worried if the Conservatives get a big majority?

How will that make a difference to negotiations as no-one seems to have provided an answer?

Spijed wrote:So you think Germany & France are going to be worried if the Conservatives get a big majority?

How will that make a difference to negotiations as no-one seems to have provided an answer?

Thats obvious.

Right now the EU are hoping the country is still divided, or having doubts about the process they have undertaken. If May gets undoubted, mass support in an election, it will show that she has public support for her tactics. Therefore she will be less susceptible to political pressures from her electorate if things start to get tough. Its one less potential outlet for them to exploit during negotiations.

Clarets4me wrote:I agree with you Cryssys, it is not just about Brexit. It is about who is best place and most trusted to lead the Country over the next five years..

When Mrs May took over as Prime Minister, there were calls from both Labour and the Lib-Dems for her to call an election, as she had " little democratic legitimacy " and had not won an Election. Now she has done so, something Gordon Brown lacked the courage to do in 2009, and that Callaghan failed to do in the Autumn of 1978..

Putting Brexit to one side as you suggest, I think people will be asking themselves these questions:

1. Who do I think will make the best PM, Mrs May or Jeremy Corbyn ?
2. Which of the main parties do I most trust with the economy ?
3. Do I want Diane Abbott as Home Secretary or Emily Thornberry as Foreign Secretary ?
4. Which of the main parties do I trust on Defence ?

I'm an ex-Labour member, but couldn't bring myself to vote Labour as it is now, I'm afraid !!

As an alternative, do you want people like Zac Goldsmith being an MP with his openly racist views?

.

If it be your will wrote:It is different this time. Just like 1945 and 1979, history will regard this election as truly pivotal. For the first time in over 30 years we have a leader of a major political party openly saying he will tax the wealthy to pay for upgrades of our public services. Every other leader has been too terrified of the media to take this position. I have absolutely no doubt there will be a clear, noticeable improvement in all the areas mentioned under a Labour government this time. (And the beauty of it: the overwhelming majority won't have to pay a penny towards it.)

Corbyn has lost the press, of course. This was always inevitable considering it's almost exclusively owned by billionaires:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... ed_Kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As such, this is the first election I can remember where I give the remotest c*** about the result.

You're going to be disappointed.

Sidney1st wrote:You can't blame the Tories for the state of the NHS, nor for all the issues with schools.
The welfare system is knackered too.

All 3 of those things are used for political football instead of being dealt with properly.

Good try though

they've been in since 2010, so who the feck should we blame?
creeps like Gove and Hunt who have done nothing positive for their respective portfolios. Thank god May had the balls to can Gove. Shame she didn't show Hunt the door at the same time.

No matter who wins it will be yet another argument for proportional representation because 100% of the power will go to a party that gets a minority of the vote. Again.

Yet apparently we shouldn't listen to the 48% that voted to remain when it comes to the kind of Brexit we have, because they're a minority

Cryssys wrote:The government would have you believe that the reason for the election and the reason that you should vote Tory is to give them a mandate and strengthen the UK’s position in the Brexit negotiations. Like many others I’m not convinced. I think the real reason is simple political opportunism. The Tories believe that they will never have a better chance to win a general election with a huge majority and secure a further five years in power which will allow them to do pursue their real agenda.

The mantra “We need a strong mandate to negotiate the best possible Brexit deal” is a smokescreen to appeal to the Brexit camp. Returning the Tories with an overwhelming majority will give them carte blanche to continue their slash and burn policies with regard to the NHS, schools, pensions and other public services whilst simultaneously reducing taxes for big business and the better off.

Put Brexit to one side, look at their policies and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Are you happy with the current state of our schools?
2. Are you happy with the current state of our NHS?
3. Are you happy with the current state of welfare provision, e.g. care of the elderly and disabled.
4. Do you trust a Tory party with a huge majority to protect and improve the above?

Don’t be fooled into thinking this is just about Brexit, it’s way deeper than that. The Tories are hoping that if they dress it up as Brexit they can pull the wool over your eyes when it comes to their domestic policies.

But what has the mutton headed old Mugwump got to offer?.

bartons baggage wrote:But what has the mutton headed old Mugwump got to offer?.

May I suggest to " barton's baggage " that Mr Corbyn has " more baggage than Barton " ....

.

.

Spijed wrote:As an alternative, do you want people like Zac Goldsmith being an MP with his openly racist views?

I wouldn't vote for Goldsmith, but then again I wouldn't vote for Diane Abbott ( Jamaican Mums love their kids more than white mothers, Blue eyed Blonde Finnish Nurses shouldn't be allowed to work here, as they'd never have met a black person etc ) or Emily Thornberry, with her open sneering at people flying the St Georges flag. Abbott and Shami Chakrabarti sent their Children to Public schools, & the latter was sent to the Lords after her perfunctary report into "Anti Semitism " in the Labour party. Add in Peter Mandelsson, Ken Livingstone, the odious Keith Vaz, and Naz " Israel should be moved to America " Shah and that's before we get on to the still suspended Simon Danczuk and Mr Blair....

In summary, I don't think the Conservatives have a monopoly on flawed Candidates ....

Clarets4me wrote:I wouldn't vote for Goldsmith, but then again I wouldn't vote for Diane Abbott ( Jamaican Mums love their kids more than white mothers, Blue eyed Blonde Finnish Nurses shouldn't be allowed to work here, as they'd never have met a black person etc ) or Emily Thornberry, with her open sneering at people flying the St Georges flag. Abbott and Shami Chakrabarti sent their Children to Public schools, & the latter was sent to the Lords after her perfunctary report into "Anti Semitism " in the Labour party. Add in Peter Mandelsson, Ken Livingstone, the odious Keith Vaz, and Naz " Israel should be moved to America " Shah and that's before we get on to the still suspended Simon Danczuk and Mr Blair....

In summary, I don't think the Conservatives have a monopoly on flawed Candidates ....

That's certainly true. Every party has its share of idiots.

.

minnieclaret wrote:they've been in since 2010, so who the feck should we blame?
creeps like Gove and Hunt who have done nothing positive for their respective portfolios. Thank god May had the balls to can Gove. Shame she didn't show Hunt the door at the same time.

Successive governments continue to kick these things around instead of dealing with the issues.

Yes that means Labour too.

So if they've got worse in the last few years who's fault is it?

A steady decline that hasn't been halted is both parties fault for not dealing with the issues.

I know some people are absolutely desperate to pin everything on those horrible Tories, but you can't I'm afraid.

No general election should be about one issue.
But it seems fairly clear at present that the Tories and their leader in particular
see it that way and want the voting public to do so.

'Strong and stable' leadership is what May is continually harping on about
against 'chaos' if Labour is elected.

And the only person to be able to provide that 'strong and stable' leadership is May,
or Kim Jong-May as John Grace of the Guardian has described her.

Our Surpreme Leader. The one who is going to deliver us a deal with the EU
that is going to see us all better off.

Long live Theresa
Long live our Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-May

PS. Please all bow now.

So presumably cutting funding for social care isn't what has made it worse? It's just a natural progression due to both parties?

1 million houses

Just.like.that.

Corybn as least is learning, you don't actually have to mean all this gumpf, you just have to say it.

Still, he's gone a long way to go to have a chance, but there is always a slight chance, especially if the Conservatives keep May completely sheltered.

A resounding Tory victory would definitely place us in a stronger negotiating position regards the EU.

As for domestic policies it's a choice between a competent Tory party, that doesn't give a **** about schools, hospitals or the working classes.
OR a Labour party that does care about those issues, but is completely incompetent.
Pie in the sky has never filled a stomach, and Jeremy is already making promises towards extra holidays, which cost employers, increasing the wages of health staff. All of which is very good, but unless you can say where the money is coming from to pay for it is meaningless. If the answer, as is usual with Old Labour, is tax the rich, well there is a downside to that. The rich just stop producing and everyone pays the price, increasing unemployment isn't going to help the poor.
Having a defence policy of supplication to every despot and extremist out there, is no way to defend this country

As a life long socialist I've hated everything the Tories have done, or tried to do to this country, but come the election I will vote for Theresa May, not because I've changed my opinions, but because as bad as she is, she is better than the alternatives.

If it be your will wrote: Substantial increase in minimum wage.
Removal of profit-making from the NHS, and end the NHS pay freeze
Four extra paid holidays
Build 1m houses
End tuition fees
Return ownership of the railways to us (for free, once franchises expire)
Abolition of zero-hours contracts
A free, lifelong National Education Service
A commitment to reduce inequality of wealth

Forgive me but won't this cost an absolute fortune. How we going to pay for it ??

Lancasterclaret wrote:he's gone a long way to go to have a chance, but there is always a slight chance, especially if the Conservatives keep May completely sheltered.

They are not keen on putting her up in front of proper questions are they. At least until someone works how to retune her so she doesn't say "strong and stable"

If it be your will wrote:So far:

Substantial increase in minimum wage.
Removal of profit-making from the NHS, and end the NHS pay freeze
Four extra paid holidays
Build 1m houses
End tuition fees
Return ownership of the railways to us (for free, once franchises expire)
Abolition of zero-hours contracts
A free, lifelong National Education Service
A commitment to reduce inequality of wealth

And like I say, for most people, it will effectively be free. And the Conservatives? Besides colourful descriptions of the opposition leader, what - precisely - are they offering?

Interesting series of promises, if it be your will.

One thing missing, I suspect, bankrupt the UK economy - and need bale out by IMF, just like Wilson/Callaghan achieved in 1977 (or was it 76).

The ONS released their annual report this week: "Effects of taxes and benefits on UK household income: financial year ending 2016." (i.e. 5-April-2016). Interesting information on the reduction of inequality that was achieved in the first year of a Conservative (majority) Government.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ending2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bordeauxclaret wrote:They are not keen on putting her up in front of proper questions are they. At least until someone works how to retune her so she doesn't say "strong and stable"

How do you think it would work, Theresa May v Jeremy Corbyn?

Thing is with all these "minority, we will never be big enough to form a government, parties" is that if they are all on a debating platform it stops being a debate.

I'd be pleased if we could organise what has been done before, face-to-face with the each party leader and the public alone. But, to be fair, there needs to be some way of allocating time in proportion to party support.

It's not just the debate, they don't seem keen on people putting questions to her at all.

The party of government who's leader wanted to stay in Europe but then quit because we voted to leave and was then replaced by another leader who wanted to stay but now wants to have a strong mandate to be able to leave everything and have all benefits of not leaving at all but none of the awkward stuff (such as immigration).

Just how the hell are this lot getting away with all this without being exposed for being the one of the most inept governments ever?

Bordeauxclaret wrote:It's not just the debate, they don't seem keen on people putting questions to her at all.

As above, I'd be happy is she did - and same for JC.

A lot of "colourful" characters in politics, I don't think TM is one of them, just as JC isn't. We've not had a lot of success with the Tony Blairs and David Camerons of UK politics: "you must be sincere, and if your can fake sincerity you've got it made."

Agree with if it be your will, more "love" less "hate" is what we all need.

Cirrus_Minor wrote:The party of government who's leader wanted to stay in Europe but then quit because we voted to leave and was then replaced by another leader who wanted to stay but now wants to have a strong mandate to be able to leave everything and have all benefits of not leaving at all but none of the awkward stuff (such as immigration).

Just how the hell are this lot getting away with all this without being exposed for being the one of the most inept governments ever?

Because unbelievably the opposition have chosen the last few years to be more inept.

O.P. muckment...

They seem genuinely sure that they can say nothing at all, and still win a landslide.

And do you know what is worse, they are correct.

I'm not one to call the electorate thick, but surely masses of us must question the relentless lack of anything other than "strong and stable" coming out of Complacency HQ?

Brexit is THE main issue of the election.

It's not the only issue but it is the BIG issue.

Cryssys wrote:1. Are you happy with the current state of our schools?

No, I certainly am not. Which is a very powerful reason to vote Conservative, because Labour's policy on schools for the last 50 yuears has been twofold:
1. Close the good schools.
2. Make sure the bad schools do not close.

Why would I vote for that?

Lancasterclaret wrote:They seem genuinely sure that they can say nothing at all, and still win a landslide.

And do you know what is worse, they are correct.

I'm not one to call the electorate thick, but surely masses of us must question the relentless lack of anything other than "strong and stable" coming out of Complacency HQ?

Their rationale is probably a twist on the old phrase "better to remain silent and be thought a fool (or in this case incompetent) than to speak and to remove all doubt". As you say it will probably work, the Labour Party tearing itself apart for the past 2 years combined with the Daily Mail and The Sun's weekly butchering of Corbyn has set the Tories up perfectly for this election. For what it's worth I think they will get a solid majority but not a landslide.

.

.

If it be your will wrote:Yes, the inequality thing. This is one where you can choose between wealth inequality and income inequality depending on your political persuasion.

The correct conclusion to draw during those periods where income inequality narrowed is this: 'The rich became richer at a slightly slower pace than usual in those years, that's all.' If you earned 10x more than me one year, but only 9x more the next, you actually increased your wealth over mine in both years, despite the narrowing of incomes.

(Really good article. I liked the bit comparing the effects of direct and indirect taxes.)

Did you read the Office of National Statistics report? There's a lot of information in there.

The narrowing of the income inequality isn't about the rich becoming richer "at a slightly slower pace..." - the gap narrowed because of government tax and benefit policies that transfers a significant amount of the income of the top 1/5th to the bottom 1/5th - and this occurred during the period of David Cameron's Conservative Gov't (and a few weeks at the beginning of the period of the coalition).

I don't think we should concern ourselves with "wealth inequality" - to build wealth you need to have sufficient income to be able to save/invest some of it. At the bottom of the scale, whether we look at UK on it's own, or look at the global population, the issue is people having sufficient income to live on. We are a long way from being in the happy situation of everyone having a surplus income and therefore being able to accumulate wealth.

Of course, there are wealth taxes and these can reduce wealth, but these taxes only add to the income that is redistributed, they don't - and they shouldn't - result in the recipients having surplus income and the ability to build their own wealth. (If the taxes did do that, then, presumably, the "less well off" themselves will be paying more taxes and moving from the receiving to the giving side of the redistribution).

Building a million homes will inject a lot of cash into the economy and create jobs. The initial outlay is an investment and pay itself back over time. Certainly better than the current system of subsidising private landlords. Likewise free tuition will pay itself back through the many benefits of having a better educated population.

When it comes to wealth inequality, there's a level of wealth at which you have to question whether it's really any good for the country. Can a billionaire work as hard as a thousand millionaires? Would a billionaire's life suddenly become difficult, or empty and meaningless if they only had a quarter of their wealth?

The simple fact is that there is no alternative to the tories. I dress to the left of middle, with spasmodic sorties into Marxist. I will vote, as it is one of the few ways that I can register my belief in democracy, but it is with heavy heart that my vote will be blue. Fortunately this is the very instance where the tories can actually help their country. Make no mistake, Brexit is of utmost importance & the media will make sure that we all know it. Their 'in built' selfishness & bullingdonience is ideal for the upcoming scenario with Europe. It will dumbfound & bludgeon the Eurocrats, who are much more engrossed with their crisp designer suits & waspish femme fatale.

Apart from that, who do you think would come out on top? Theresa in her 'Mr Burns' character - Homer Corbyn or Nelson UKIP Muntz? For the Scots amongst you - Nicola 'Maggie' Sturgeon.

Colburn_Claret wrote:A resounding Tory victory would definitely place us in a stronger negotiating position regards the EU.

No it wouldn't. It won't make a blind bit of difference.

JohnMcGreal wrote:No it wouldn't. It won't make a blind bit of difference.

That's what I can't understand either. If TM is correct in saying the other 27 EU countries are against Britain then how will a bigger majority help?

They will still be negotiating against Britain whether the Conservatives have a majority of 1 or a majority of 100 seats.

No it wouldn't. It won't make a blind bit of difference.

This.

The whole strategy on Europe from the Tories seem fixated on the idea that if the Tories get a large majority with our FPTP system, that somehow means the whole country is behind them.

Even in the wildest wet dreams of our Tory friends, you are going to have at most 40% of the population not thinking you are a raving loon.

I bet Europe are trembling in their boots.

Spijed wrote:That's what I can't understand either. If TM is correct in saying the other 27 EU countries are against Britain then how will a bigger majority help?

They will still be negotiating against Britain whether the Conservatives have a majority of 1 or a majority of 100 seats.

I think her reasoning is that at the moment, the Conservatives, with DUP help have a small but workable majority in the House of Commons.
As things stand, if the negotiations lead to a " softer " style of Brexit, ie: the UK paying for access to the single market, a sizable exit fee and other concessions, then some of the hard-line Brexiteers within her own parties may vote against this, if and when it comes to a Commons vote
With a bigger majority, she would have more flexibility as new MP's would be more likely to back her and enable her to pass a softer style BRexit, albeit with cross-party support..

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that it seems to be her train of thought. It is also timed well, as Labour, the principal party of opposition appears to be in disarray, trying to placate large numbers of Brexit voters in their traditional Midlands & Northern heartlands as well as appealing to largely Remain supporters in London, Manchester, Liverpool & the University towns...

If it be your will wrote:I actually said in an earlier post, but to answer your question directly:

Unless you earn more than about £70,000/year, it looks like you won't have to pay a penny for all these great things. If you do earn more than that, then yes, you'll probably get stung under Labour. But if that's the case, you have to remember, at the moment you are paying a lower percentage of your income in tax than the poorest are:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/t ... 1439451423" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Noting particularly:
The bottom 10 per cent of households paid an average of 45.1 per cent of their gross income in taxes – by far the most of any income group.
The top 10 per cent of households paid an average of 34 per cent of their gross income in taxes.

(Note- these are not the wrong way up)

So please tell me and cut through the stats(that can be made to read how you want) . How much actual taxes do the bottom 10 and top 10 percent actually pay?
I wont even get into the benefits argument lower down the attachment.

I'd vote for a party who would reduce the 11 billion a year we give away in overseas aid and use the money in this country. A party that would remove many of the yellow lines painted everywhere that are killing trade for many businesses and costing the individual. A party that scrapped the taxation of dividends paid to my pension.
I'm not interested in some of the rhetoric concerning the NHS, building houses, etc. It's the same guff at every election. Sadly I don't think the party I would like to vote for exists, instead I'm left with having to choose from the best of a bad bunch.