Yet you then make this up: "But that's the point isn't it. IF it had been Theresa May being seen with a young black woman on umbrella-holding duties, the manic left twitterati absolutely would have made it the very worst thing a party leader had done this weekend."
Another little joke? Can you put smileys at the end so we know when you are using humour?
No.
At least I got a response to one of my posts questioning your claims...
I bloody hate the tories with a vengeance but did anyone else hear Diane Abbott on lbc (Nick Ferrari) this morning re new police numbers. Bloody pathetic. Couldn't get her numbers right at all. Christ sake she's the shadow home secretary.
The past couple of weeks I've allowed myself to think "what if labour did the unthinkable and won the election, wouldn't be that bad would it really?" I then realise dianne Abbott would actually be able to have a say in how the country is run and i slap it back down to the realms of "it would be an utter nightmare, a disaster" again.
Which policy of Dianne Abbott's would you be most opposed to?
Her policy of thinking black mothers are superior to other races and that white people like to play divide and rule to name a few.
Also her policy of being an idiot doesn't help either.
I get the point that you don't like her. But what policies of hers would you not want enacted? What's in the Labour manifesto, within the
That is a truly awful interview. At a time when the Labour Party are trying to demonstrate they have some credibility to an electorate that I hope is not as confused by it all as I feel, that must surely rank as a massive fail on her part. Jeremy, you should be embarrassed by that. I know you say you're not, but blimey, you ought to be. And I say that as someone who used to vote Labour before Tony Blair and Iraq.
I bloody hate the tories with a vengeance but did anyone else hear Diane Abbott on lbc (Nick Ferrari) this morning re new police numbers. Bloody pathetic. Couldn't get her numbers right at all. Christ sake she's the shadow home secretary.
The past couple of weeks I've allowed myself to think "what if labour did the unthinkable and won the election, wouldn't be that bad would it really?" I then realise dianne Abbott would actually be able to have a say in how the country is run and i slap it back down to the realms of "it would be an utter nightmare, a disaster" again.
Which policy of Dianne Abbott's would you be most opposed to?
Her policy of thinking black mothers are superior to other races and that white people like to play divide and rule to name a few.
Also her policy of being an idiot doesn't help either.
I get the point that you don't like her. But what policies of hers would you not want enacted? What's in the Labour manifesto, within the
You replied before I finished editing my post! What I wanted to know was, what policies of Dianne Abbott do you oppose? Or, even, think the Home Secretary has better answers for?
I get the fact you don't like her. And I get the fact Nick Ferrari is never going to give her an easy ride. But which of her policies do you dislike?
My point is, if she doesn't even know her flagship policy then why should anyone trust her?
Fine if you want to increase spending, but at least know how much more it will cost.
The biggest issue for many is Brexit, the government have no policy or strategy on this, why should anyone trust them?
Well yes, quite. But labour aren't exactly filling anyone with confidence are they? Labour's real weak spot is the economy and spending, if your Home Secretary can't even come up with the cost of her flagship policy then that's really bad. Knowing the cost and being open with it, replacing "anti austerity" slogan with calling your economic policy "Keynesian" (a well trod and provable economic system) makes you seem highly competent rather just being an "anti" party who don't want to be in power and more interested in being contrarians.
I bloody hate the tories with a vengeance but did anyone else hear Diane Abbott on lbc (Nick Ferrari) this morning re new police numbers. Bloody pathetic. Couldn't get her numbers right at all. Christ sake she's the shadow home secretary.
The past couple of weeks I've allowed myself to think "what if labour did the unthinkable and won the election, wouldn't be that bad would it really?" I then realise dianne Abbott would actually be able to have a say in how the country is run and i slap it back down to the realms of "it would be an utter nightmare, a disaster" again.
Which policy of Dianne Abbott's would you be most opposed to?
Her policy of thinking black mothers are superior to other races and that white people like to play divide and rule to name a few.
Also her policy of being an idiot doesn't help either.
I get the point that you don't like her. But what policies of hers would you not want enacted? What's in the Labour manifesto, within the
You replied before I finished editing my post! What I wanted to know was, what policies of Dianne Abbott do you oppose? Or, even, think the Home Secretary has better answers for?
I get the fact you don't like her. And I get the fact Nick Ferrari is never going to give her an easy ride. But which of her policies do you dislike?
My point is, if she doesn't even know her flagship policy then why should anyone trust her?
Fine if you want to increase spending, but at least know how much more it will cost.
So, there's nothing policy-wise that would make you vote against - or for - her. But you would prefer to vote based on trust.
It's a shame that someone chooses whom to vote for without a proper examination of their policies. (But I guess that's a legacy of our having decades of presentation-is-more-important-than-policy, stemming back as far as Thatcher and Ingham).
But it's entirely appropriate to choose whom to vote for based on whom one trusts. Trust is important.
Do you trust Theresa May ("I’m not going to be calling a snap election. I’ve been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability, to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020"), Boris Johnson ("This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms, the membership fee seems rather small for all that access, why are we so determined to turn our back on it?"), Philipi Hammond (the Chancellor who ignored the Tory manifesto commitment from 2015 not to increase tax?), Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom or Liam Fox (who all campaigned on the £350m a week pledge, but voted against it in the House after the referendum)?
I bloody hate the tories with a vengeance but did anyone else hear Diane Abbott on lbc (Nick Ferrari) this morning re new police numbers. Bloody pathetic. Couldn't get her numbers right at all. Christ sake she's the shadow home secretary.
The past couple of weeks I've allowed myself to think "what if labour did the unthinkable and won the election, wouldn't be that bad would it really?" I then realise dianne Abbott would actually be able to have a say in how the country is run and i slap it back down to the realms of "it would be an utter nightmare, a disaster" again.
Which policy of Dianne Abbott's would you be most opposed to?
Her policy of thinking black mothers are superior to other races and that white people like to play divide and rule to name a few.
Also her policy of being an idiot doesn't help either.
I get the point that you don't like her. But what policies of hers would you not want enacted? What's in the Labour manifesto, within the
You replied before I finished editing my post! What I wanted to know was, what policies of Dianne Abbott do you oppose? Or, even, think the Home Secretary has better answers for?
I get the fact you don't like her. And I get the fact Nick Ferrari is never going to give her an easy ride. But which of her policies do you dislike?
My point is, if she doesn't even know her flagship policy then why should anyone trust her?
Fine if you want to increase spending, but at least know how much more it will cost.
So, there's nothing policy-wise that would make you vote against - or for - her. But you would prefer to vote based on trust.
It's a shame that someone chooses whom to vote for without a proper examination of their policies. (But I guess that's a legacy of our having decades of presentation-is-more-important-than-policy, stemming back as far as Thatcher and Ingham).
But it's entirely appropriate to choose whom to vote for based on whom one trusts. Trust is important.
Do you trust Theresa May ("I’m not going to be calling a snap election. I’ve been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability, to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020"), Boris Johnson ("This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms, the membership fee seems rather small for all that access, why are we so determined to turn our back on it?"), Philipi Hammond (the Chancellor who ignored the Tory manifesto commitment from 2015 not to increase tax?), Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom or Liam Fox (who all campaigned on the £350m a week pledge, but voted against it in the House after the referendum)?
When you need to win votes off the government you need to prove you're more competent than them, not match them with incompetence and shrug your shoulders and say "well you're just a bad person if you vote for them aren't you".
If you can't even communicate your flagship policy then how on earth are you going to be able to run a country? It's not as if your job is literally to communicate. Oh wait..
I think a lot of voters will simply say "better the devil you know.."
This election isn't about Labour winning it. That can't happen. But it is about stopping May getting an increased majority or landslide which will be a total disaster!
This election isn't about Labour winning it. That can't happen. But it is about stopping May getting an increased majority or landslide which will be a total disaster!
I tend to agree. If the predicted Tory win is interpreted as the UK population saying to Theresa May she can do whatever she wants, she has unconditional love warts and all, then any criticism of anything she does can be met with the Meire Manoeuvre 'that's your opinion'.
I am hoping that there are sufficient anti Tory votes, even in places where the Tories are nailed on, to give them pause for thought. Even a hopeless tactical vote might have this effect.
This election isn't about Labour winning it. That can't happen. But it is about stopping May getting an increased majority or landslide which will be a total disaster!
What is becoming abundantly clear is that, contrary to David Davis assertion that we will have all the same benefits after leaving the EU, our position economically will be worse outside the EU - and also likely that our influence in the world will diminish (we could, some would argue should, lose our place as a permanent member of the security council).
There will not be an agreement that is favoured by the majority of the population so I'm fast arriving at the conclusion that it matters not a jot what May does, how big her majority is, and so on.
We are being lead into a blind alley by blind politicians who only have self-interest at heart.
This election isn't about Labour winning it. That can't happen. But it is about stopping May getting an increased majority or landslide which will be a total disaster!
I tend to agree. If the predicted Tory win is interpreted as the UK population saying to Theresa May she can do whatever she wants, she has unconditional love warts and all, then any criticism of anything she does can be met with the Meire Manoeuvre 'that's your opinion'.
I am hoping that there are sufficient anti Tory votes, even in places where the Tories are nailed on, to give them pause for thought. Even a hopeless tactical vote might have this effect.
I hope it is anti stich the country up votes. I sincerely hope that many Tories can see that too. A short term success such as a landslide win could be the worst thing that could happen to the Conservative Party. They will not esacpe the blame for what follows and it will give the opposition time and the power to sort themselves out. Whoever that opposition may turn out to be.
This election isn't about Labour winning it. That can't happen. But it is about stopping May getting an increased majority or landslide which will be a total disaster!
Lol. "This isn't about beating palace, it's just only losing 3 or 4-0". How on earth are you going to be able to stop a landslide if you don't at least try to go for a shock win?
I bloody hate the tories with a vengeance but did anyone else hear Diane Abbott on lbc (Nick Ferrari) this morning re new police numbers. Bloody pathetic. Couldn't get her numbers right at all. Christ sake she's the shadow home secretary.
The past couple of weeks I've allowed myself to think "what if labour did the unthinkable and won the election, wouldn't be that bad would it really?" I then realise dianne Abbott would actually be able to have a say in how the country is run and i slap it back down to the realms of "it would be an utter nightmare, a disaster" again.
Which policy of Dianne Abbott's would you be most opposed to?
Her policy of thinking black mothers are superior to other races and that white people like to play divide and rule to name a few.
Also her policy of being an idiot doesn't help either.
I get the point that you don't like her. But what policies of hers would you not want enacted? What's in the Labour manifesto, within the
You replied before I finished editing my post! What I wanted to know was, what policies of Dianne Abbott do you oppose? Or, even, think the Home Secretary has better answers for?
I get the fact you don't like her. And I get the fact Nick Ferrari is never going to give her an easy ride. But which of her policies do you dislike?
My point is, if she doesn't even know her flagship policy then why should anyone trust her?
Fine if you want to increase spending, but at least know how much more it will cost.
So, there's nothing policy-wise that would make you vote against - or for - her. But you would prefer to vote based on trust.
It's a shame that someone chooses whom to vote for without a proper examination of their policies. (But I guess that's a legacy of our having decades of presentation-is-more-important-than-policy, stemming back as far as Thatcher and Ingham).
But it's entirely appropriate to choose whom to vote for based on whom one trusts. Trust is important.
Do you trust Theresa May ("I’m not going to be calling a snap election. I’ve been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability, to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020"), Boris Johnson ("This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms, the membership fee seems rather small for all that access, why are we so determined to turn our back on it?"), Philipi Hammond (the Chancellor who ignored the Tory manifesto commitment from 2015 not to increase tax?), Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom or Liam Fox (who all campaigned on the £350m a week pledge, but voted against it in the House after the referendum)?
When you need to win votes off the government you need to prove you're more competent than them, not match them with incompetence and shrug your shoulders and say "well you're just a bad person if you vote for them aren't you".
If you can't even communicate your flagship policy then how on earth are you going to be able to run a country? It's not as if your job is literally to communicate. Oh wait..
I think a lot of voters will simply say "better the devil you know.."
Well, as long as people vote for candidates based on approving policies and for candidates whom they trust, that's a good thing.
I can't name any current member of government that I trust.
A soft Brexit could avert the disaster. It is our only chance IMO.
You know that and I know that - but the electorate who voted for Brexit is unlikely to accept that outcome as it basically maintains all of their perceived negatives (freedom of movement, ECJ rulings).
Full membership of the EU is a better option that soft Brexit - and cheaper! But yes, a soft Brexit would mean we are only partially f*cked rather than completely f*cked.
A soft Brexit could avert the disaster. It is our only chance IMO.
You know that and I know that - but the electorate who voted for Brexit is unlikely to accept that outcome as it basically maintains all of their perceived negatives (freedom of movement, ECJ rulings).
Full membership of the EU is a better option that soft Brexit - and cheaper! But yes, a soft Brexit would mean we are only partially f*cked rather than completely f*cked.
What's the best way to vote in order to make retention of the UK's membership of the EU most likely?
(That's weird. When I hit "Quote", it included an extra sentence, at the end of what you typed. How did that happen?)
A soft Brexit could avert the disaster. It is our only chance IMO.
You know that and I know that - but the electorate who voted for Brexit is unlikely to accept that outcome as it basically maintains all of their perceived negatives (freedom of movement, ECJ rulings).
Full membership of the EU is a better option that soft Brexit - and cheaper! But yes, a soft Brexit would mean we are only partially f*cked rather than completely f*cked.
What's the best way to vote in order to make retention of the UK's membership of the EU most likely?
(That's weird. When I hit "Quote", it included an extra sentence, at the end of what you typed. How did that happen?)
Probably coincided with my edit!!
I don't believe it is now possible (politically) to rescind Article 50 - we are leaving whoever is in power.
A soft Brexit could avert the disaster. It is our only chance IMO.
You know that and I know that - but the electorate who voted for Brexit is unlikely to accept that outcome as it basically maintains all of their perceived negatives (freedom of movement, ECJ rulings).
Full membership of the EU is a better option that soft Brexit - and cheaper! But yes, a soft Brexit would mean we are only partially f*cked rather than completely f*cked.
What's the best way to vote in order to make retention of the UK's membership of the EU most likely?
(That's weird. When I hit "Quote", it included an extra sentence, at the end of what you typed. How did that happen?)
Probably coincided with my edit!!
I don't believe it is now possible (politically) to rescind Article 50 - we are leaving whoever is in power.
I believe the EU has made noises indicating a change in administration could lead to A50 invokation to be reversed.
Meanwhile May's campaigning is like something out of the Thick of It. At May's visit in Cornwall today, a group of journalists were told they could not film the PM and then when they asked why they were ushered out of the room and the door was locked.
A soft Brexit could avert the disaster. It is our only chance IMO.
You know that and I know that - but the electorate who voted for Brexit is unlikely to accept that outcome as it basically maintains all of their perceived negatives (freedom of movement, ECJ rulings).
Full membership of the EU is a better option that soft Brexit - and cheaper! But yes, a soft Brexit would mean we are only partially f*cked rather than completely f*cked.
What's the best way to vote in order to make retention of the UK's membership of the EU most likely?
(That's weird. When I hit "Quote", it included an extra sentence, at the end of what you typed. How did that happen?)
Probably coincided with my edit!!
I don't believe it is now possible (politically) to rescind Article 50 - we are leaving whoever is in power.
I believe the EU has made noises indicating a change in administration could lead to A50 invokation to be reversed.
Meanwhile May's campaigning is like something out of the Thick of It. At May's visit in Cornwall today, a group of journalists were told they could not film the PM and then when they asked why they were ushered out of the room and the door was locked.
I believe technically it can be reversed - my point is that it couldn't be from a political perspective.
How complex can it be? They can't afford food. Mainly because nurses are having to work ludicrous hours in horrendous conditions for terrible pay and it's getting worse under this government.
But your bloke don't like gay sex
Why, do you?
Hadn't realised that about you, but as a lib.Dem. kinda guy myself, I have no issue with it at all.
I bloody hate the tories with a vengeance but did anyone else hear Diane Abbott on lbc (Nick Ferrari) this morning re new police numbers. Bloody pathetic. Couldn't get her numbers right at all. Christ sake she's the shadow home secretary.
I have finally been able to make SOME MINIMAL sense of her sums, though they still don't make too much sense.
How many police?10,000 What's the cost£300,000 What's really the cost£80,000,000 That's just £8,000 per officer? What will they be paid? Has this been thought through? The additional costs in Y1 will be about 250,000 police officers is £64.3 Million. So 250,000 officers? No perhaps 2000-2250? Where did 250,000 come from? It was you wasn't it? The other costs will be Y1 £64,000,000, £139,100,000, £270,000,000, £298,000,000. This equals £771,000,000.
I'm going to ignore her maths for a second and run through what I think she had on her papers as she panicked and failed to answer with any sense.
Allowing for average police salary of £25,000 (around £23,000 outside London and £27,000 in London)
These figures must also include pension payments etc as otherwise all these officers in Y3 will get an outrageous bump up in salary and then a decrease in Y4. I would also assume they include equipment and training. which once again bring us a bit closer.
Jeremy Corbyn has since said the total cost will be £300,000,000 which if inclusive of employment benefits such as services pension etc, this would be more acceptable of an ''average'' costing.
A soft Brexit could avert the disaster. It is our only chance IMO.
You know that and I know that - but the electorate who voted for Brexit is unlikely to accept that outcome as it basically maintains all of their perceived negatives (freedom of movement, ECJ rulings).
Full membership of the EU is a better option that soft Brexit - and cheaper! But yes, a soft Brexit would mean we are only partially f*cked rather than completely f*cked.
What's the best way to vote in order to make retention of the UK's membership of the EU most likely?
(That's weird. When I hit "Quote", it included an extra sentence, at the end of what you typed. How did that happen?)
Probably coincided with my edit!!
I don't believe it is now possible (politically) to rescind Article 50 - we are leaving whoever is in power.
That would depend on a scenario like the suggestion by the Green Party co-leader wouldn't it?
She has suggested a referendum where by the British public are told to vote based on the the settlement with the EU.
Her suggestions were:
Accept settlement Decline settlement and remain in the EU.
However we all know the straightforward thing that the EU would propose.
TV coverage of Corbyn today. In the rain. He seems to have a nice young lady holding his umbrella for him. I wonder if she's on zero hours? (Even QEII carries her own umbrella ffs.)
Not sure that's really the worst thing one of the party leaders has done this weekend tbf.
Watching that video and thinking about nurses forced to use food banks in one of the richest countries on the planet should make even the staunchest Tory think twice about her bullshit rhetoric and out of touch attitude to what's actually happening on her watch.
But that's the point isn't it. IF it had been Theresa May being seen with a young black woman on umbrella-holding duties, the manic left twitterati absolutely would have made it the very worst thing a party leader had done this weekend.
BTW, my niece is a nurse, she works part-time, on a standard working day, brings up her twins, buys her own food, has an iPhone, a Sky subscription and a mortgage. Although it has to be said that she does drive a Dacia.
Our PM almost glibly dismisses the fact professional people, doing one of the most important jobs in society, are reduced to using food banks in this country. Which she and her colleagues are responsible for...and you're more upset over who's holding up someone's brolly when they do a TV interview? Seriously?
No, not at all seriously. In fact the absolute opposite. But that seems to have passed you by....
Well I'm sorry but I missed the apparent humour in the situation in that case. It looked to me like you were avoiding the issue of May's response to nursing staff using food banks, hardship grants, Wonga loans, etc beyond presenting some anecdotal evidence of one family member that appears to have been misleading anyway.
Trying to move the discussion on to some small, irrelevant part of Corbyns social media support and pushing the "food banks as a lifestyle choice" argument might make it easier for you to dismiss the facts that many, many people are suffering under this government's policies but it doesn't really reflect well on us as a country in my view.
Bit rich of Tories to accuse Labour's sums of not adding up. How's the national debt reduction going?
Agree all politicians seem to struggle with these things, but maybe not so publicly and so horrifically on live radio.
Her incompetence worries me. Corbyn's incompetence worries me.
May worries me, she is trying to seem stronger than she is.
As a floating voter, looking for the best party to choose both the main parties scare the hell out of me with all the bollocks they spew out and all the promises that CANNOT mathematically ALL be funded
Corbyn is currently less worrying than his own MPs, whereas May is worrying me more than her MPs.
Bit rich of Tories to accuse Labour's sums of not adding up. How's the national debt reduction going?
Agree all politicians seem to struggle with these things, but maybe not so publicly and so horrifically on live radio.
Her incompetence worries me. Corbyn's incompetence worries me.
May worries me, she is trying to seem stronger than she is.
As a floating voter, looking for the best party to choose both the main parties scare the hell out of me with all the bollocks they spew out and all the promises that CANNOT mathematically ALL be funded
In that case, on the subject of policing, you should ask yourself which party you trust to provide a means of increasing the amount of policing, Conservatives, Labour, LibDems or another party? That is to say that, it's likely that all parties would want more police, but some parties may be swayed by what they regard as more important issues, like reducing taxes, increasing border police, providing foreign aid, funding Trident, increasing NHS pay, etc.
In this post-fact world, the best thing to do when thinking about policing is to imagine which party (or parties) have the will to carry out the policy of increasing police numbers. Because 1,000 or 10,000 or 10,000,000 new police will cost the same amount, no matter who is in office: the question is, which party is most likely actually to spend that money.
TV coverage of Corbyn today. In the rain. He seems to have a nice young lady holding his umbrella for him. I wonder if she's on zero hours? (Even QEII carries her own umbrella ffs.)
Not sure that's really the worst thing one of the party leaders has done this weekend tbf.
Watching that video and thinking about nurses forced to use food banks in one of the richest countries on the planet should make even the staunchest Tory think twice about her bullshit rhetoric and out of touch attitude to what's actually happening on her watch.
But that's the point isn't it. IF it had been Theresa May being seen with a young black woman on umbrella-holding duties, the manic left twitterati absolutely would have made it the very worst thing a party leader had done this weekend.
BTW, my niece is a nurse, she works part-time, on a standard working day, brings up her twins, buys her own food, has an iPhone, a Sky subscription and a mortgage. Although it has to be said that she does drive a Dacia.
Our PM almost glibly dismisses the fact professional people, doing one of the most important jobs in society, are reduced to using food banks in this country. Which she and her colleagues are responsible for...and you're more upset over who's holding up someone's brolly when they do a TV interview? Seriously?
No, not at all seriously. In fact the absolute opposite. But that seems to have passed you by....
Well I'm sorry but I missed the apparent humour in the situation in that case. It looked to me like you were avoiding the issue of May's response to nursing staff using food banks, hardship grants, Wonga loans, etc beyond presenting some anecdotal evidence of one family member that appears to have been misleading anyway.
Trying to move the discussion on to some small, irrelevant part of Corbyns social media support and pushing the "food banks as a lifestyle choice" argument might make it easier for you to dismiss the facts that many, many people are suffering under this government's policies but it doesn't really reflect well on us as a country in my view.
I think you may have spotted his and indeed his party's strategy, BA...
Nurses pay ranges from £15231 at the bottom of band one to £48,001 at the top of band 8a. 31 steps up from band one gets you to the top of band 5 which is £28,000. There is plenty of credibility in the notion that some nurses (which I understand is to be an all graduate workforce) need foodbanks. My son is a graduate under the first Liberal Democrat higher fees system and has graduated with debts of over £45000 and that is after a decent amount of financial support from me and Mrs Plum.
That's disgusting. Particularly when you consider that if you aren't able to land a grad scheme place you could be looking at entering into the jobs market on say £21k a year for London.
I don't really care about this 'only paying it back after a certain threshold', that's too big a number
Comments
Jeremy, you should be embarrassed by that. I know you say you're not, but blimey, you ought to be.
And I say that as someone who used to vote Labour before Tony Blair and Iraq.
It's a shame that someone chooses whom to vote for without a proper examination of their policies. (But I guess that's a legacy of our having decades of presentation-is-more-important-than-policy, stemming back as far as Thatcher and Ingham).
But it's entirely appropriate to choose whom to vote for based on whom one trusts. Trust is important.
Do you trust Theresa May ("I’m not going to be calling a snap election. I’ve been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability, to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020"), Boris Johnson ("This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms, the membership fee seems rather small for all that access, why are we so determined to turn our back on it?"), Philipi Hammond (the Chancellor who ignored the Tory manifesto commitment from 2015 not to increase tax?), Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom or Liam Fox (who all campaigned on the £350m a week pledge, but voted against it in the House after the referendum)?
If you can't even communicate your flagship policy then how on earth are you going to be able to run a country? It's not as if your job is literally to communicate. Oh wait..
I think a lot of voters will simply say "better the devil you know.."
I am hoping that there are sufficient anti Tory votes, even in places where the Tories are nailed on, to give them pause for thought. Even a hopeless tactical vote might have this effect.
There will not be an agreement that is favoured by the majority of the population so I'm fast arriving at the conclusion that it matters not a jot what May does, how big her majority is, and so on.
We are being lead into a blind alley by blind politicians who only have self-interest at heart.
I can't name any current member of government that I trust.
Full membership of the EU is a better option that soft Brexit - and cheaper! But yes, a soft Brexit would mean we are only partially f*cked rather than completely f*cked.
(That's weird. When I hit "Quote", it included an extra sentence, at the end of what you typed. How did that happen?)
I don't believe it is now possible (politically) to rescind Article 50 - we are leaving whoever is in power.
Meanwhile May's campaigning is like something out of the Thick of It. At May's visit in Cornwall today, a group of journalists were told they could not film the PM and then when they asked why they were ushered out of the room and the door was locked.
Hadn't realised that about you, but as a lib.Dem. kinda guy myself, I have no issue with it at all.
You're welcome
How many police?10,000
What's the cost£300,000
What's really the cost£80,000,000
That's just £8,000 per officer? What will they be paid? Has this been thought through?
The additional costs in Y1 will be about 250,000 police officers is £64.3 Million.
So 250,000 officers? No perhaps 2000-2250?
Where did 250,000 come from? It was you wasn't it?
The other costs will be Y1 £64,000,000, £139,100,000, £270,000,000, £298,000,000. This equals £771,000,000.
I'm going to ignore her maths for a second and run through what I think she had on her papers as she panicked and failed to answer with any sense.
10,000 Police / 4 years = 2500 a year.
£64,300,000 / 2,500 = £25,720
£139,100,000 / 5,000 = £27,820
£270,000,000 / 7,500 = £36000
£298,000,000 / 10,000 = £29,800
Total cost £298,000,000
Allowing for average police salary of £25,000 (around £23,000 outside London and £27,000 in London)
These figures must also include pension payments etc as otherwise all these officers in Y3 will get an outrageous bump up in salary and then a decrease in Y4. I would also assume they include equipment and training. which once again bring us a bit closer.
Jeremy Corbyn has since said the total cost will be £300,000,000 which if inclusive of employment benefits such as services pension etc, this would be more acceptable of an ''average'' costing.
She has suggested a referendum where by the British public are told to vote based on the the settlement with the EU.
Her suggestions were:
Accept settlement
Decline settlement and remain in the EU.
However we all know the straightforward thing that the EU would propose.
Trying to move the discussion on to some small, irrelevant part of Corbyns social media support and pushing the "food banks as a lifestyle choice" argument might make it easier for you to dismiss the facts that many, many people are suffering under this government's policies but it doesn't really reflect well on us as a country in my view.
Her incompetence worries me. Corbyn's incompetence worries me.
May worries me, she is trying to seem stronger than she is.
As a floating voter, looking for the best party to choose both the main parties scare the hell out of me with all the bollocks they spew out and all the promises that CANNOT mathematically ALL be funded
Corbyn is currently less worrying than his own MPs, whereas May is worrying me more than her MPs.
In this post-fact world, the best thing to do when thinking about policing is to imagine which party (or parties) have the will to carry out the policy of increasing police numbers. Because 1,000 or 10,000 or 10,000,000 new police will cost the same amount, no matter who is in office: the question is, which party is most likely actually to spend that money.
I don't really care about this 'only paying it back after a certain threshold', that's too big a number