I've been reliably informed over the last week that Ed was too left wing. So presumably the post-Corbyn party will become even more indistinguishable from the Tories than even that lot were. So, again, what a win that would be.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I can't wait for the leaders debate. Corbyn will expose May for the weak, unstable pretender she is.
I suggest you don't hold your breath.
Yeah but she said she wouldn't and would be insane to do so now - so you never know.
I decided to quote your post only instead of everyone because it will answer everyones questions.
I am clearly not advocating that we should stop people having children nor am I talking about unplanned pregnancies and similar things in my assesment. I'm merely stating my opinion that having kids when you can't afford to fully support all their needs is not the best idea and that I wouldn't do it myself.
I have had a lot of responsibilities in my life. Some as big as making sure nuclear subs are safe and fit for purpose. Nothing however compares to the responsibility of being a parent. The most important job you will do in your life is being a parent therefore you should feel privileged. Even though no one died to give you that right and it's just human nature you shouldn't take being a parent for granted.
You clearly are not clued up enough on the issue of child hunger in the UK so you need to research that a bit more. There was a report in 2016 by MP's where they found that in some schools as much as 1 in 5 were arriving to school hungry and the free dinners were the only hot food and substantial meal they were getting all day. Panorama did a soecial on this as well. The problem is so big that an inquiry was set up in February of this year to investigate the number of children going hungry during school holidays when they have no access to free school meals. Tories should indeed hang their head in shame and so should everyone voting for them.
You are getting the wrong end of the stick completely. I do not advocate that people shouldn't be helped on the contrary I find it absolutely disgusting that they are not and that there is child suffering in the UK in 2017. What I do not agree with is a family that cannot afford to have children or rather more children as is most often the case being responsible for causing that suffering by deciding to bring another child into the world. Unfortunately there are also some that see children as a gateway to an easy life of benefits and they are most definitely not qualified to be parents.
It would be amazing if the social safety net covered all bases while alleviating all suffering and allowing people to live comfortable lives however in the real world we live in this is not the case so if you decide to bring a child into the world on the basis that you would rely on that safety net to bring that child up then this in my opinion is wrong because that safety net is in no way adequate which is what ha sled to the situation where children are going to school hungry.
We have thought about everything including circumstances that I'm not going to share and have decided it's not the best idea to have another child now. While the financial aspect was not the sole deciding factor it was an important one.
I'm sorry if I come across as an arsehole for wanting to make sure that I can afford to bring my kids up while living within my means.
May will expose herself as being a weak, unstable pretender herself. Unfortunately Corbyn will probably manage to do something worse and all the attention will still end up being on him.
Wait, have I missed news? Thought May wasn't doing them and Corb had ruled out doing them without May?
Yeah she said she wouldn't. I look forward to it.
I am deeply confused.
Corbyn has said he won't if she won't
Are you forgetting this...?
Very clear. Notice how strongly she emphasised "stability" there
Very clear. Notice how strongly she emphasised "stability" there
Last edited:
Yeah don't expect a u turn from her unless it benefits her.
A progressive alliance is misbegotten and doomed | Nick Cohen
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/06/a-progressive-alliance-misbegotten-and-doomed
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/06/a-progressive-alliance-misbegotten-and-doomed
Last edited:
This is the explanation, the problem, and the solution. This is how the 'progressive alliance' should work.
Each party makes a reciprocal deal with the other parties to stand aside candidates in critical constituencies. i.e. the Lib Dems and the Greens each choose 10 constituencies (where they have a good chance of winning) for the other to not put forward a candidate.
However, the candidate being put forward would have to have credentials at least moderately supporting the cause of the other party. i.e. The Lib Dems would have to put forward a candidate with Green credentials if the Greens were to stand aside, and the Greens would have to put forward a candidate with Lib Dem credentials (economic sanity, liberalism, etc).
Where these deals have taken place, at least a small amount of funding would go to supporting each others candidate. i.e. "Lib Dems support Green candidate Caroline Lucas in Brighton".
Those Lib Dem candidates that get elected would should support Green proposals, and at the very least, never oppose them. And visa versa. At a party level, each party would be under no obligation to support one another.
But - I am under no illusion that it is too late, and this is not going to happen.
The mechanics of such an arrangement aside,m i think there is a good deal of truth to the following statement:
Wouldn't have to restrict their choice if we didn't have a broken system, that's the whole reason they are doing it ffs.
Yup - wouldn't work. Only reason I can see it working is if there's a single issue that multiple parties and voters agree on, and see as important above all other issues. If Brexit hasn't created that unity then I struggle to see what will.
I imagine the dream is that the rainbow coalition comes to power on a promise of moving to a PR voting system, and "making Westminster fair", but the public's never going to care enough about that.
That's the dream, PR or STV, hell even something like MMP. Won't happen while the heavily funded Tories and their media cronies still control what people think.
That's the big worry isn't it. That attempts at any so-called alliance will ultimately put most voters off, and allow the Tories to really back them into a corner with giving voters a democratic choice.
But - at the same time, they are limited on their options.
The Greens, Lib Dems, and Labour are standing over each other, fighting for the same votes. UKIP are (were) also fighting for this same traditional labour voters, and in Scotland and Wales you have the SNP and Plaid Cymru adding to the problems.
All this whilst we have an electoral system that completely screws the smaller parties. And the Tories can just sit back and scoop up votes from the center to the far right.
But... If in ten years we are out of the EU, and there is no reform of the house of commons, and no democratically elected house of lords, then these parties will start merging into each other anyway.
We need a STV House of Lords.
Britain won't be ready for electoral reform in the House of Commons for another 50 years
But House of Lords, people do know that it's a joke. We have bishops debating law for Christ's sake (deliberate)
Last edited:
I support the SNP, but they do create a big problem for Labour in Scotland, and the fact that the Tories can always throw about the "in Sturgeons pocket" rhetoric about Corbyn. When really the SNP have done a pretty fair job so far since their large increase in MP's. Especially since they only have to represent Scotland.
Or...the three parties involved happen to be led by people who are seen as more incompetent than the rest. You've got a group including people like May, Davidson and Sturgeon quite a ways out in front i would argue.
This is further exacerbated by Labour's anxiety toward 'English' politics. This was perfectly exemplified in an essay written by Chuka Umunna for the New Statesman a couple of months ago. Within, he made the case for further devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but when it came to England it stopped at metro mayors or the 'regions'. Of course it doesn't require a genius to realise that self-serving motives play a significant role in this blind spot.
We need a STV House of Lords.
Britain won't be ready for electoral reform in the House of Commons for another 50 years
But House of Lords, people do know that it's a joke. We have bishops debating law for Christ's sake (deliberate)
I think it rather depends what purpose you have in mind. If we are just drawing the same party lines somewhere else, i think i might favour a system with a single chamber. In such a scenario, you either make referenda part of your checks and balances, or reduce the term limits of government.
Single chamber for me too.
This is good, imo...
Betway – Politics – UK
Things that are more likely than Labour winning the election:
Labour to form a majority in general election
33/1
England to win the 2018 World Cup
20/1
Labour to win most seats in general election
16/1
One For Arthur to win back to back Grand Nationals
16/1
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to get married in 2017
14/1
Gary Lineker to take part in Strictly
14/1
Kyle Walker to sign for Barcelona
12/1
England to win Euro 2020
11/1
Nigel Farage to take part in I’m A Celeb
10/1
Andy Murray to win SPOTY
9/1
Tottenham to win 2017/18 Premier League
8/1
Things that are more likely than Labour winning the election:
Labour to form a majority in general election
33/1
England to win the 2018 World Cup
20/1
Labour to win most seats in general election
16/1
One For Arthur to win back to back Grand Nationals
16/1
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to get married in 2017
14/1
Gary Lineker to take part in Strictly
14/1
Kyle Walker to sign for Barcelona
12/1
England to win Euro 2020
11/1
Nigel Farage to take part in I’m A Celeb
10/1
Andy Murray to win SPOTY
9/1
Tottenham to win 2017/18 Premier League
8/1
Why? I mean firstly the two house Westminster system has proven itself to be stable over centuries, and is one of our greatest exports. Reducing that to a single chamber, why? To give more power to the government?
Right now, the House of Lords has very limited power to prevent bills passed in the House of Commons coming into law. I get exasperated by groups that ask the House of Lords to do this, but it should be obvious that we need some sort checks and balances to prevent a parliament that has lost the populous from going rogue.
A prepositionally elected House of Lords would be a fantastic counterweight to the FPTP House of Commons. The House of Lords would represent the people more accurately; 20% Green, 30% Liberal, 40% Conservative, 40% Socialist, etc, whilst the House of Commons would represent what the people wanted for Government. What's the alternative, referenda ad infinitum?
Why? So the Tories (or whoever is in control) can govern unchecked?
I'm no Tory but I believe a govenment is elected to govern. If you're afraid of someone being unchecked don't vote for 'em.
What?
Paid for by an increase on the taxation of health insurance premiums.
Electing a government that answers to no-one sounds a lot like electing a dictator to me.
I used to care about this, but have completely changed my mind (as someone who has paid £100+ a year in hospital charges for the last 5 years)
Firstly, if they raise the cost of parking too much, then people will stop parking there (get a lift from a friend, uber, bus, etc) giving an automatic check. Secondly, paying a few pounds for a hospital visit is fine. Just like we pay some money to have our teeth checked, our pay a small amount for prescriptions.
I used to care about this, but have completely changed my mind (as someone who has paid £100+ a year in hospital charges for the last 5 years)
Firstly, if they raise the cost of parking too much, then people will stop parking there (get a lift from a friend, uber, bus, etc) giving an automatic check. Secondly, paying a few pounds for a hospital visit is fine. Just like we pay some money to have our teeth checked, our pay a small amount for prescriptions.
I completely disagree. When my father was in hospital for 4/5 years of his life it cost an absurd amount of money for parking. It's a parking fee which as a one off is acceptable, you'd be pissed at the price given it can be stupidly expensive but for any family who has to go to the hospital daily for a considerable amount of time it's just unacceptable.
It's bad enough that you have to spend so much time in the Hospital in the evenings/weekends. But when you have to pay up to £10 each day (especially given the price of food/drink inside the Hospital as well) it becomes something that you rant about.
Also, it's not as easy as you suggest. Hospitals are closing and Super Hospitals are starting to become the norm, which means people have to travel further to get there. Bus' are simply a no go for these people as it would take way too long to get there (and back). Friends wouldn't drive you there given the journey time.
It's a stupid system.
There needs to be discounts for people who have to come regularly of course. My local hospital has a secret way of paying for parking that only costs £12(?) For however many days you've stayed there.
I guess it depends on the hospital.
I don't agree either. It's not even as if the punitive parking fees go to the NHS, they go to a private contractor. It is indiscriminate in who it affects too, eg it can be the poorest having to pay it, when they can ill afford it.