I would venture to suggest that more people don't watch it than doQuote:
Originally Posted by CASPER-64-FRANK
Printable View
I would venture to suggest that more people don't watch it than doQuote:
Originally Posted by CASPER-64-FRANK
Sorry for delayed reply. Meant to get back to you on this. Yes, I agree, if we lose seats there has to be careful reflection. For me, if we don’t make active gains (which is most likely) the first thing is that Corbyn has to go. I’ve been saying that he’s a net liability for over a year now and hoped he would be replaced then but due to his stubbornness, mixed with lack of obvious successor material, we went on with him and his low hanging fruit baggage which = his name deterring many voters in working class and strong Jewish constituencies. In the campaign, he doesn’t look anything like the same man who I thought convincingly moved the party from centre to left ground when he became leader and re-enthused many who felt there needed to be radical change after the many years of cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
Then the policies. I know you and I would disagree but I think there does need to be a radical change and realignment of wealth and restructuring and strengthening of public services. You said recently that politicians need to be honest about how much that would cost and say that 1p on income tax for everyone would make much difference in affording better service. We need to raise more and on that we appear to agree. Which led me to repeatedly ask you what your suggestion would be to raise the kind of money we need, and this goes to the crux of our problem. Firstly, an acceptance of how much we need to raise in order to make a positive impact on public services and health care and then secondly how do we go propose to raise such an amount from the options available? The current Labour option is very ambitious and I would agree over reaches in its final amount. That leads to the question of what proposals do they draw back on? Here we might have some further agreement: non universal free broadband, dental treatment and education so that only the lower classes benefit the most. I wonder to what extent that Labour are appealing to the vote of these ‘comfortable’ middle classes by making them even more comfortable. And whether without offering them these benefits, they will be more likely to vote elsewhere? But of course that is offset by a more expensive overall spend, so we lose votes to those ‘irresponsible spenders’ accusation.
I would think it reasonable also not to renationalise all suggested services, to prioritise rail and energy possibly. And I would also take on board the IFS observation that collected business taxes, corporation plus others could take us to the top of the overall business tax payers in Europe, which is where we don’t want to be. So there needs to be some amendments there so that we sit comparatively with local competitors, who are able to spend more on services because they raise more through taxes, but not above and beyond them.
But I don’t think that the policies are far off, although I know many on here disagree, if we are to try and make a significant impact on the lives of working people. I think an important obfuscation is Brexit, without which I think the heartlands would remain strongly Labour, and we would not have bled so many votes to extremist remainers going over to Swinson’s stance. By contrast, Farage’s meek deferment to the Tory campaign, despite the Johnson deal being very soft by his and his supporter’s wishes is a huge factor and will I thing just about secure the majority. Labour need a serious review, but not throw the baby out…
Yes, I'm sure there are many unemployed dole scrubbers that don't like watching one of the hardest working OAPs in the UKQuote:
Originally Posted by Exiletyke
I don't think you get to 93 by working hard, that's why there aren't lots of 93 year olds
Let me know if she mentions Andrew this year
To be honest I don’t know any 93 year olds that are still working, Queen or otherwiseQuote:
Originally Posted by Exiletyke
Here’s an odd thought, in this general election a lot of importance has been put on the “young vote” particularly by the Labour Party. Should it happen though that Jeremy Corbyn wins he will be the oldest PM we’ve ever had.
I can't vote for a party whose leader disrespects the queen. End of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill
Grist
My dad died at 65 years old less than one year into his pension & worked in the pit from 14 years of age
My mum died at 70 & worked all her life [time off only for birth of 4 kids]
Wifes dad died at 64 after all his life in the pit after 50 years [never got to see his pension]
I'm sure my family circumstances are the same as millions of others so ffs don't tell me that HRH works hard
Pales into insignificance by comparison
She has spent her whole life being waited on hand & foot exactly as her mother before her who reached 101 eve Phill has reached 97
Ask yourself how?
How many 93 year olds do you know?
& in response to Corbyn being the oldest PM we've ever had Churchill was 80 when he resigned as PM
So you'll not be voting for the Tory Johnson thenQuote:
Originally Posted by wendun
Nicholas Parsons is 96 and still working I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill
Gladstone was the oldest at 84 when he finally left office.
Churchill was 80 when he resignedQuote:
Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill