Ot- May calls for election in June.

[Andy_Faber]

Anag wanted all those MPs sacked even though they hadn't even been charged with anything. Surely, if there had been any wrong doing, it was Tory hq which should have been held to account. If your party hq tells you that the battlebus that's called in your area was on a nation wide tour, wouldn't you agree with them? It's hardly the crime of the century.

It seems daft that 16 police forces from all over the country were trying to prove that the battlebus wasn't national.

IMO it was a real 'move along, nothing to see here' issue, in the overall scheme of things.

[Ram59]

Thing is, how many millions of pounds have the police wasted on another fruitless exercise?

[roger_ramjet]

Thing is, how many millions of pounds have the police wasted on another fruitless exercise?

I think we should ask Dianne Abbot - she is very good on the police and costings.

[roger_ramjet]

Looks like the Libdems know how to appeal to the electorate. they have announced increased funding for schools by:

A) Not leaving the EU; and
Scrapping the married couples tax allowance

The former is unlikely to appeal to that many non Libdem voters, but getting funding by not doing something that hasn't yet been done isn't going to raise much new money is it;

The latter is a real vote winner - basically increase the tax burden on the over 82 year olds. So lets think - how many couple are still alive where at least one is over 82? Of them how many are actually earning enough to benefit from an increased personal allowance (ie over about 12,000)? Furthermore how much money will this raise since the most anyone can save from this allowance is £ 845 pa?

So under the new Libdem rule, they will be taking money away from a lot of genuinely needy people in the twilight of their days, who are living on a fixed income. How much therefore will this increase the spend on state social care for the very people that have had their income cut.

Sure, there will be a handful of wealthy 82+ year olds who are still married and living together and have a high income who he can snaffle £ 850 off. Maybe £ 10 million raised? Peanuts and surely a vote loser in view of taking away from those most in need.

Corbyn on the other hand is promising £ 6 billion (albeit la-la land) from increasing corporation tax. That's a good move - a 2016 IEA study found that 57.6% of the corporate tax burden in the UK is ultimately borne by the workers (higher corporation tax = lower capital investment = reduced productivity = lower wages). The more open the economy and thus the more mobile the capital, then the greater the burden of corporation tax falls on the workers. So staying in the EU makes this proportion even higher given the greater mobility of capital. In Germany, for instance, a 1% increase in corporation tax has been shown to result in a 0.3 to 0.5% reduction in wages.

Do politicians ever think before they open their mouths?

[ramAnag]

Anag wanted all those MPs sacked even though they hadn't even been charged with anything. Surely, if there had been any wrong doing, it was Tory hq which should have been held to account. If your party hq tells you that the battlebus that's called in your area was on a nation wide tour, wouldn't you agree with them? It's hardly the crime of the century.

It seems daft that 16 police forces from all over the country were trying to prove that the battlebus wasn't national.

I'd love you to find where I said 'I wanted all those MP's sacked'. Can't be bothered to trawl back but I suspect I was questioning how we could have another election at a time when some were still under investigation from the 2015 one. As I recall there were more MP's under investigation than equated to the Tory majority so it seemed fair to raise it.
If you're going to quote me then please get it right. I'll apologise if I'm wrong though it seems you maybe think the rules are there to be ignored.

P.S. Perhaps Roger's question above could have been condensed to the first four words.

[roger_ramjet]

She's a former Home Secretary and a current PM for goodness sake. The 'opposition' is completely inexperienced in comparison. If she can't handle Corbyn and Co. what chance her handling the terms of our EU exit? Personally I'll be glad to see the end of Corbyn but I can't help thinking this is complete cowardice on the part of May. She might have come to see herself as an amalgam of the Queen and Thatcher of late but her mind changes over the election - six times she's categorically said there will be no 'snap' election - and this refusal to debate do not inspire confidence.

Nice to see you back southern...think your return from retirement should be permanent.

P.S. Note the Beast of Bolsover has also had something relevant to say today, 'Will the PM confirm that no Tory MP under investigation by the police over election expenses in the last General Election will be a candidate in this election because if she won't this will be the most squalid election campaign in my lifetime'.
He has a point imo.

As requested

[Ram59]

She's a former Home Secretary and a current PM for goodness sake. The 'opposition' is completely inexperienced in comparison. If she can't handle Corbyn and Co. what chance her handling the terms of our EU exit? Personally I'll be glad to see the end of Corbyn but I can't help thinking this is complete cowardice on the part of May. She might have come to see herself as an amalgam of the Queen and Thatcher of late but her mind changes over the election - six times she's categorically said there will be no 'snap' election - and this refusal to debate do not inspire confidence.

Nice to see you back southern...think your return from retirement should be permanent.

P.S. Note the Beast of Bolsover has also had something relevant to say today, 'Will the PM confirm that no Tory MP under investigation by the police over election expenses in the last General Election will be a candidate in this election because if she won't this will be the most squalid election campaign in my lifetime'.
He has a point imo.

You basically agreed with the beast that no Tory MP under investigation should be a candidate for this election. Or in other words, they should be sacked, ie, forcing that person out of their job.

[ramAnag]

You basically agreed with the beast that no Tory MP under investigation should be a candidate for this election. Or in other words, they should be sacked, ie, forcing that person out of their job.

Which, on all counts, is a very far cry from asking for any MP's to be 'sacked'.
I quoted Dennis Skinner and suggested he 'has a point imo'...that being that questions need to be asked about MP's standing in another election when their behaviour at the last one was still under scrutiny.
At no time have I suggested that anyone should be 'sacked'...although how it should have been sorted is a reasonable question. It is not my fault or Mr. Skinner's that the PM has chosen to call an election so quickly after the last one at a time when a number of her MP's were still under investigation for something akin to electoral fraud.
Perhaps you could now answer the question about whether you feel the possible breaking of electoral rules would have been okay as you appear to intimate.

[Ram59]

The beast clearly states that they shouldn't be able to contest the election, that's sacked or suspended for a minimum of 5 years, you agreed. RR is more capable than me and has highlighted your words, to help you.

You obviously weren't a teacher of English. Even RR has called you out. And if you read my explanation of, IF there was any wrong doing, which we now know to be untrue, then I felt that it should be Tory hq that gets punished.

The MPs in question were told correctly that the battlebus was part of the national campaign. Even if it was incorrect, it would have been highly believable, so who would have argued with their bosses.

It's incredible that police forces from all over the country are trying to prove it wasn't country wide.

I think you need to go back to sticking pins into your Maggie Thatcher doll, anag.

[ramAnag]

The beast clearly states that they shouldn't be able to contest the election, that's sacked or suspended for a minimum of 5 years, you agreed. RR is more capable than me and has highlighted your words, to help you.

You obviously weren't a teacher of English. Even RR has called you out. And if you read my explanation of, IF there was any wrong doing, which we now know to be untrue, then I felt that it should be Tory hq that gets punished.

The MPs in question were told correctly that the battlebus was part of the national campaign. Even if it was incorrect, it would have been highly believable, so who would have argued with their bosses.

It's incredible that police forces from all over the country are trying to prove it wasn't country wide.

I think you need to go back to sticking pins into your Maggie Thatcher doll, anag.

Sorry Ram but you are just wrong.

You've already moved the goalposts by saying 'that's sacked or suspended' which are two very different things and I have no idea what 'even Roger has called you out' is meant to mean.

So, issue by issue let's consider this.

1) Suggesting that someone 'has a point imo' does not necessarily imply total agreement with them. It means what they are suggesting is worthy of consideration and may have some credence.
2) Seeing as you repeatedly seem to want to refer to and belittle my career as a teacher let's introduce the following analogy. If a teacher, head of department perhaps, was under investigation for something relating to how they had discharged their professional responsibility would you be happy for them to apply for a promotion to the role of headteacher while an investigation was taking place? I wouldn't and the same is true of doctors, accountants, nurses and yes...even MP's. That doesn't mean I want them sacked. Suspended quite possibly...until the investigation is concluded but certainly not 'sacked' prior to being found 'guilty'.
3) Such a suspension would obviously have complications for the role of MP particularly given the current circumstances. This is what I meant by 'how it should have been sorted is a reasonable question'. MP's are in a unique position and it would have been unfortunate and complex for any MP's to be suspended at precisely the time they need to concentrate on the business of being re-elected or during a closely contested Parliamentary term. That does not mean however that they should be placed above the law or above the rules of electoral procedure.
4) The details you refer to in the second part of your post were not known at the time DS made his remark so have no relevance.
5) I agree with you about the involvement of the police but that too is irrelevant in relation to anything DS or I said.
6) You set great store by the suggestion that if anyone was to blame it was Tory HQ and not the individual MP's. If that's your attempt at reassurance I'm afraid it's failed.
7) As I suspect you already know, I don't have a 'Maggie Thatcher doll' and neither, as I hope I have now proved, did I at any time express the wish for any MP's to be 'sacked'.