UK General Election/Politics

First topic message reminder :

Here's a possible thread for it all, despite the lack of political input from me to start it!

Mods if you want to/can cut and paste the recent obviously political "discussions" from the Anything Goes, here might serve?

Diggers, I've seen zero difference in any of those things you mention in regards to whatever party happened to control the council.

I've also NEVER heard any party in a council campaign on any of those issues.

When reporting rubbish, pot holes etc, It doesn't matter who's in. It's always got done. The day it doesn't, maybe I'll care, but it's a bit like caring who makes your salt. It doesn't matter. It does what it's supposed to and until the point it becomes a problem, I don't want my vote to support a third and needless level of politics in Scotland.

Diggers wrote:I don't really understand why a local election is pointless. It's not like they are without power, in some ways you may feel the influence of local councils more than you do national government, it's just that you aren't as aware of it happening.
For me it's a, "I can't be arsed" scenario - which is fine. Let's just not pretend it's anything deeper than that.

Very true. I make no excuse for not voting other than the fact that local politics in my area is scheiss. Only a single flyer from a single party (Tory). No doorstop canvassers from any part. Nothing. Utter rubbish.

Super

Each party will have a different idea about how each of the areas diggers mentioned is run, so it makes a lot of sense to cast your vote and have your say what happens.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:I don't really understand why a local election is pointless. It's not like they are without power, in some ways you may feel the influence of local councils more than you do national government, it's just that you aren't as aware of it happening.
For me it's a, "I can't be arsed" scenario - which is fine. Let's just not pretend it's anything deeper than that.

Very true. I make no excuse for not voting other than the fact that local politics in my area is scheiss. Only a single flyer from a single party (Tory). No doorstop canvassers from any part. Nothing. Utter rubbish.

I think the canvassing, or general lack of it, is a fair point. I tend to feel they don't have big budgets and are also usually already holding down a job and have a family. Still, could be better.
For me it took 10 minutes out of my life as the station is opposite my kids school. I don't think my time is so important I can't find a few moments to vote on something that does have an effect on my daily life.

My local council ( who i work for) make such a big thing about freezing council tax for 8 years. It infuriates me, as I have seen no reason to do that. even a one percent rise every few years would raise 100s of thousand, yet the council refuse to do it due to political reasons. Money which would come in very handy in these cash strapped times for local authorities.

MontysMerkin wrote:

beninho wrote:UKIP are dead, which is good. But they are only dead because the Tories are basically UKIP. It would seem that UKIP supporters were just (further) right wing tories, now happy to return.

Is anyone against the wealthy? Or are people against the wealthy that tax dodge and treat people like sh*t. Something really needs to be done about it, but wont.

Nothing against the wealthy. Bit worried about the toff todger suckers who have to defend the poor dears though.
I only have contempt for those who make a fortune from the public purse or use their power to corrupt the less fortunate.

Oh and the lickspittles who defend the poor dears.

Pretty much my perspective, nothing wrong with working hard and making money but somewhere along the road there's a line that shouldn't be crossed i.e. when money earned from hard work isn't enough, the money maker turns to greed and exploitation to further enhance his/her earnings and hide it away from the state (that's the same state that they expect to protect them and their assets). Where we seem to be in the grand scheme of things is that the unsavoury corporate greed has won the day, we (though not me personally) are about to vote in by a landslide a bunch of pathological liars whose main objective is to further facilitate the flow of capital from the poor to the already rich. It's like taking candy off a baby, divide the poor by injecting immigration into the debate...job done!!

The immigration announcement today is a joke anyway. Same promises in the past, as Home Secretary strong and steady Teresa did sweet FA to cut net migration (plenty of which is not Europe related), and they can't today say how they will back up the claims with policy.
If Labour announced something this flakey they'd get laughed at, but as you say Jas, plenty will lap it up.

I really do think there's a quite incredible level of gullibility out there.On purely personal economic terms, the case for voting Tory should start coming on to the radar around £45k. Anyone earning less than that and voting Tory because they think they'll be better off has been duped, pure and simple. As you go up the income scale people tend to start using their disposable income for private Healthcare and private education. Once over £100k theres a fair chance that a proportion of disposable income is being squirrelled away in "tax efficient" locations. So yes the majority in that income bracket will obviously tend to gravitate to the right which is understandable but that is a very very small proportion of the electorate.

Meanwhile back down the income scale, the people that protest most strongly about immigration and jobs predominately miss the point. Global corporates love immigration, to them that is the flow of cheap labour that will boost their profit margins and if the cheap people won't come to the jobs, the global corporates will TAKE the jobs to the cheap people. I've said it for years, job EMIGRATION is a bigger and more economically damaging issue than people immigration. The global corporates as well as shipping cheap labour in are shipping jobs and corporation tax liability out of this country, damaging it beyond repair and the Tories are supporting it.

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:I don't really understand why a local election is pointless. It's not like they are without power, in some ways you may feel the influence of local councils more than you do national government, it's just that you aren't as aware of it happening.
For me it's a, "I can't be arsed" scenario - which is fine. Let's just not pretend it's anything deeper than that.

Very true. I make no excuse for not voting other than the fact that local politics in my area is scheiss. Only a single flyer from a single party (Tory). No doorstop canvassers from any part. Nothing. Utter rubbish.

I think the canvassing, or general lack of it, is a fair point. I tend to feel they don't have big budgets and are also usually already holding down a job and have a family. Still, could be better.
For me it took 10 minutes out of my life as the station is opposite my kids school. I don't think my time is so important I can't find a few moments to vote on something that does have an effect on my daily life.

True; our voting station is a 5 min walk. However, I'd be voting in the dark - I have absolutely no idea what each local party proposed, what their previous records are etc etc. May as well run a Tombola and pick a name out.

Last time around, we had two people standing for Parish Council I think, on our neighbouring street, and there was nothing whatsoever about them or their policies/records etc anywhere. Not one of my neighbours had the faintest clue these people were standing for anything. I reckon I'd have got in if I'd simply posted stuff on lamp posts between our house and our daughter's school.

It doesn't work any more. There are no hustings anywhere. No proper debates. PMQs in Westminster is a farce. The main parties just do soundbite adverts and leaflets (if you're lucky enough to get any) and if one has any sense, one wouldn't believe anything in any leaflets anyway. 'Fake News' and the idea of it has got a hold now too and everyone can find any 'facts' to dispute any competing opinion. Just look at Trump and the Brexit crew - bare-faced lying throughout and still on their respective election/referendum. Still, we get what we deserve I guess.

JAS wrote:I really do think there's a quite incredible level of gullibility out there.On purely personal economic terms, the case for voting Tory should start coming on to the radar around £45k. Anyone earning less than that and voting Tory because they think they'll be better off has been duped, pure and simple. As you go up the income scale people tend to start using their disposable income for private Healthcare and private education. Once over £100k theres a fair chance that a proportion of disposable income is being squirrelled away in "tax efficient" locations. So yes the majority in that income bracket will obviously tend to gravitate to the right which is understandable but that is a very very small proportion of the electorate.

Meanwhile back down the income scale, the people that protest most strongly about immigration and jobs predominately miss the point. Global corporates love immigration, to them that is the flow of cheap labour that will boost their profit margins and if the cheap people won't come to the jobs, the global corporates will TAKE the jobs to the cheap people. I've said it for years, job EMIGRATION is a bigger and more economically damaging issue than people immigration. The global corporates as well as shipping cheap labour in are shipping jobs and corporation tax liability out of this country, damaging it beyond repair and the Tories are supporting it.

Some great points JAS. The future?:-

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse

So the Tories have totally ripped off a labour policy from 2 years ago. One which they lambasted Labour about, as did the right wing media. Now nothing. Its laughable.

My inlaws are particularly well off an have private healthcare. The mother in law has just had a tumour removed from her kidney on the nhs because all the private cover they've paid for over the years doesn't cover it. Bet Bupa are laughing all the way to the bank on it.

In my opinion, the only thing we have left to sell in this country is talent. Which is why I believe that education should be at the heart of all decisions made politically. We have no more nationalised industries to make money from, no more raw materials (compared globally), labour is far too expensive for any type of intensive industry. However successive governments seem to want to monetise this as well. What is going on in the education sector is a disaster for the future of the country and for future generations (I don't have kids, but it seems to me that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way...)

beninho wrote:So the Tories have totally ripped off a labour policy from 2 years ago. One which they lambasted Labour about, as did the right wing media. Now nothing. Its laughable.

But the punters will lap it up.

navyblueshorts wrote:

JAS wrote:I really do think there's a quite incredible level of gullibility out there.On purely personal economic terms, the case for voting Tory should start coming on to the radar around £45k. Anyone earning less than that and voting Tory because they think they'll be better off has been duped, pure and simple. As you go up the income scale people tend to start using their disposable income for private Healthcare and private education. Once over £100k theres a fair chance that a proportion of disposable income is being squirrelled away in "tax efficient" locations. So yes the majority in that income bracket will obviously tend to gravitate to the right which is understandable but that is a very very small proportion of the electorate.

Meanwhile back down the income scale, the people that protest most strongly about immigration and jobs predominately miss the point. Global corporates love immigration, to them that is the flow of cheap labour that will boost their profit margins and if the cheap people won't come to the jobs, the global corporates will TAKE the jobs to the cheap people. I've said it for years, job EMIGRATION is a bigger and more economically damaging issue than people immigration. The global corporates as well as shipping cheap labour in are shipping jobs and corporation tax liability out of this country, damaging it beyond repair and the Tories are supporting it.

Some great points JAS. The future?:-

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse

Good article Navy but which will no doubt be dismissed by the globalist supporting right wing media as typical BBC looney left propaganda.. just watch!!

Also re the cap on energy prices debate the Times (strangely, of all rags) published the quotes made by May, Johnson etc on Millibands espousal of the exact same policy 2 years ago. Milliband and Labour were widely vilified by the Tories and the right wing press. May is now being lauded by the same right wing press for saying exactly the same thing. The only difference being that Milliband would have followed through whereas once the election is won May will back track, infact I wonder what price I'd get at Paddy Power for betting on a u turn on that one!!

She has now come out in favour of Fox Hunting!

How the hell is she going to win this easily.

beninho wrote:She has now come out in favour of Fox Hunting!

How the hell is she going to win this easily.

Dunno, ask Super. He seems to be one of the victims of neocon reasoning.

The foxes will be portrayed as thieving r***ist immigrant terrorists that will need to be dealt with in a strong and stable manner!!!! Not withstanding the fact that they won't sing the national anthem or wear a tie either the traitorous scum, let the hounds have them!!

beninho wrote:She has now come out in favour of Fox Hunting!

How the hell is she going to win this easily.

It depends if it's successfully fought on a Brexit theme or on the wider U.K. issues. For me, there's a myriad of things I'm more immediately interested in than this ****ing Brexit cluster****, for all that it's long-term important. Labour, LibDems etc need to get the voters thinking of non-Brexit issues.

I can vaguely understand the old working class Tory voters idea, my Dad was one whilst also because no a union rep - bit odd!
But low income Tory voters, now that is borderline retarded. I can only go along the lines they think that the Conservatives will control immigration - whilst forgetting they haven't and their leader didn't want Brexit anyway.
They used to be the party of low and order, this was a working class vote winner, not anymore. Any investment here comes from Labour.
People are weird - or just stupid.

People are definitely stupid. Always have been and always will be.

Thing that makes me laugh is that Corbyn's been getting grief for refusing to say he'd definitely follow through on a brexit deal that is bad for the country. Just let that sink in. He didn't say he'd do what's best for the country, but that's not why he's getting stick. He's getting stick because he won't promise to follow through on a deal that could well ruin our national economy for decades. People really are 'king stupid.

Diggers wrote:I can vaguely understand the old working class Tory voters idea, my Dad was one whilst also because no a union rep - bit odd!
But low income Tory voters, now that is borderline retarded. I can only go along the lines they think that the Conservatives will control immigration - whilst forgetting they haven't and their leader didn't want Brexit anyway.
They used to be the party of low and order, this was a working class vote winner,  not anymore. Any investment here comes from Labour.
People are weird - or just stupid.

Well, I'd say they they're still pretty low. They're definitely consistent there.

May manifesto produces wobble on publication. Who'd a thought they might be asked to justify it!

McLaren wrote:See above on whether I voted or not.


But at least the Lib dems, Greens and to some extent Labour and the SNP have policies aimed at helping those who need it.  The goal of those parties is decent welfare state and publicly owned NHS.  Some of their other policies may or may not be optimal but at least their (ok, maybe not quite for the SNP) core philosophies are about making sure all of society has a chance.

The conservatives and UKIP clearly have an agenda of screwing large segments of society over with no admirable core philosophies.  Yet people vote for them in droves like Turkeys voting for christmas.

I wonder what level of wealth you need to have to do ok under a Tory regime and what proportion of the population in general and the people voting Tory actually achieve that wealth level.  I reckon a very small proportion, which is just baffling.

I don't post that often but I think McLaren put this very well and together with JAS' later comments pretty much sum up my views. I've seen £45,000 plus as a suggested threshold of voting Tory and after May's manifesto release I would add the value of your house to that. 'Turkeys voting for Christmas' for gullible Tory voters below this threshold is so apt although the alternative(s) would struggle to organise a cocktail party in a winery. Good old Theresa has certainly given her opponents some inspiration though (even if Jeremy couldn't) by managing to upset just about everyone, especially those that perhaps were borderline blues.

Utter farce over the proposed Tory social care reforms. Seriously, how May can say this is not a u-turn is a joke. Still no clarification of what the cap might be yet either.
Forgetting any political allegiances, what has she done so far as PM which you could point at and say, yep, that makes sense, a good policy that can be well implemented. It's just been a succession of badly thought out policy that has hacked off their own backbenchers, with the inevitable response of "No, we didn't mean that, you've clearly misunderstood...and anyway we aren't doing it anyway."
She is the bloody antithesis if what strong and stable leadership should be. Throw in the fact that she is a shocking public speaker, has zero charisma is a devout god botherer...what's not to like eh!

Diggers wrote:Utter farce over the proposed Tory social care reforms. Seriously, how May can say this is not a u-turn is a joke. Still no clarification of what the cap might be yet either.
Forgetting any political allegiances, what has she done so far as PM which you could point at and say, yep, that makes sense, a good policy that can be well implemented. It's just been a succession of badly thought out policy that has hacked off their own backbenchers, with the inevitable response of "No, we didn't mean that, you've clearly misunderstood...and anyway we aren't doing it anyway."  
She is the bloody antithesis if what strong and stable leadership should be. Throw in the fact that she is a shocking public speaker, has zero charisma is a devout god botherer...what's not to like eh!

Indeed Diggers, being a devout god botherer should preclude you from any sort of office bar the clergy.

What annoys me is when we get some religious figures opinion on something like famine, politics, Brexit, climate change, economy or the NHS. Who cares what they think? They have zero expertise in any of those departments. Why do people even ask them for their opinion?

Lol the polls begin to show a bit of a closing of the gap and out comes the old regurgitated crap about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser, how utterly predictable.

You have to hand it to their propaganda machine which could probably run the country better than the strong and stable flip flop.

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:Utter farce over the proposed Tory social care reforms. Seriously, how May can say this is not a u-turn is a joke. Still no clarification of what the cap might be yet either.
Forgetting any political allegiances, what has she done so far as PM which you could point at and say, yep, that makes sense, a good policy that can be well implemented. It's just been a succession of badly thought out policy that has hacked off their own backbenchers, with the inevitable response of "No, we didn't mean that, you've clearly misunderstood...and anyway we aren't doing it anyway."  
She is the bloody antithesis if what strong and stable leadership should be. Throw in the fact that she is a shocking public speaker, has zero charisma is a devout god botherer...what's not to like eh!

Indeed Diggers, being a devout god botherer should preclude you from any sort of office bar the clergy.

What annoys me is when we get some religious figures opinion on something like famine, politics, Brexit,  climate change, economy or the NHS. Who cares what they think? They have zero expertise in any of those departments.  Why do people even ask them for their opinion?

Agree w/ Digs re. the laughable performance so far on this, but don't support your 'God botherer' position Sups, I'm afraid. I don't care what persuasion people are, as long as they don't produce policy etc directly driven by such beliefs. Hard to police I know.

JAS wrote:Lol the polls begin to show a bit of a closing of the gap and out comes the old regurgitated crap about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser, how utterly predictable.

You have to hand it to their propaganda machine which could probably run the country better than the strong and stable flip flop.

The IRA sympathies story will gain traction with some. TBH, I think his historical positions on this and other military issues is a problem. Certainly, some of it is for me anyway.

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:Utter farce over the proposed Tory social care reforms. Seriously, how May can say this is not a u-turn is a joke. Still no clarification of what the cap might be yet either.
Forgetting any political allegiances, what has she done so far as PM which you could point at and say, yep, that makes sense, a good policy that can be well implemented. It's just been a succession of badly thought out policy that has hacked off their own backbenchers, with the inevitable response of "No, we didn't mean that, you've clearly misunderstood...and anyway we aren't doing it anyway."  
She is the bloody antithesis if what strong and stable leadership should be. Throw in the fact that she is a shocking public speaker, has zero charisma is a devout god botherer...what's not to like eh!

Indeed Diggers, being a devout god botherer should preclude you from any sort of office bar the clergy.

What annoys me is when we get some religious figures opinion on something like famine, politics, Brexit,  climate change, economy or the NHS. Who cares what they think? They have zero expertise in any of those departments.  Why do people even ask them for their opinion?

Agree w/ Digs re. the laughable performance so far on this, but don't support your 'God botherer' position Sups, I'm afraid. I don't care what persuasion people are, as long as they don't produce policy etc directly driven by such beliefs. Hard to police I know.

Didn't Tony Blair say "God told me to go to Iraq"? and didn't May say she prayed about the election? That's lunacy. You should be removed from office if you use fairy tales to make decisions.

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:Utter farce over the proposed Tory social care reforms. Seriously, how May can say this is not a u-turn is a joke. Still no clarification of what the cap might be yet either.
Forgetting any political allegiances, what has she done so far as PM which you could point at and say, yep, that makes sense, a good policy that can be well implemented. It's just been a succession of badly thought out policy that has hacked off their own backbenchers, with the inevitable response of "No, we didn't mean that, you've clearly misunderstood...and anyway we aren't doing it anyway."  
She is the bloody antithesis if what strong and stable leadership should be. Throw in the fact that she is a shocking public speaker, has zero charisma is a devout god botherer...what's not to like eh!

Indeed Diggers, being a devout god botherer should preclude you from any sort of office bar the clergy.

What annoys me is when we get some religious figures opinion on something like famine, politics, Brexit,  climate change, economy or the NHS. Who cares what they think? They have zero expertise in any of those departments.  Why do people even ask them for their opinion?

Agree w/ Digs re. the laughable performance so far on this, but don't support your 'God botherer' position Sups, I'm afraid. I don't care what persuasion people are, as long as they don't produce policy etc directly driven by such beliefs. Hard to police I know.

Didn't Tony Blair say "God told me to go to Iraq"? and didn't May say she prayed about the election? That's lunacy. You should be removed from office if you use fairy tales to make decisions.

I'd tend to agree, hence my "as long as they don't produce policy etc directly driven by such beliefs.", but that doesn't mean I think blanket bans on anyone of religion having any role in public policy is the way to go.

navyblueshorts wrote:

JAS wrote:Lol the polls begin to show a bit of a closing of the gap and out comes the old regurgitated crap about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser, how utterly predictable.

You have to hand it to their propaganda machine which could probably run the country better than the strong and stable flip flop.

The IRA sympathies story will gain traction with some. TBH, I think his historical positions on this and other military issues is a problem. Certainly, some of it is for me anyway.

No doubt it already has Navy, it's easy to take for granted now that we don't have IRA bombing campaigns on the mainland that a peace process must have started somewhere. Corbyn was fairly instrumental in bringing Adams and McGuinness to the table. It would have taken a degree of balls to reach out.

To me the fact Jezza sees that the only way to solve long term military struggles is a massive bonus. Whether you like it or not, the way to resolve any dispute is debate, be that with Hamas or the IRA.
Is he a terrorist sympathiser or a guy who finds the senseless waste of life unbearable and looks to prevent it? I know which one I believe.

Does anyone really think Tony Blair said "God told me to go to Iraq" and meant it? He was just using it as a crutch for what he really wanted to do

And as for Jezza ... I was born and grew up in Barrow in Furness in Lancashire (later Cumbria). When I was a child literally 80% of the working population of Barrow worked either for Vickers Shipbuilders (later nationalized to be British Shipbuilders) or Vickers Armstrong Engineering

Over the years that figure has probably dropped to 30-40% of the working population as Barrow now only builds submarines and not the battleships, destroyers, aircraft carriers and oil tankers of the past

Jezza doesn't support Trident but you can bet your last pound Barrow will still return a labour MP in 3 weeks time.

Now THAT'S stupid

Why? He doesn't personally support Trident but has accepted Labour policy on it.
If you want to see an improvement for the people who live in Barrow, take a look at the two main party manifestos.
If you do that, and still vote Tory, now that would be stupid.

I've not lived in Barrow for 35 years, I just said I was born and grew up there

That is the other side of the defence debate Davie and one nobody as yet is talking about. Trident is going to cost the taxpayer £30bn....ok if we have to have it we have to have it but putting that part of the argument to the side for a minute and getting back to the £30bn.... Has anybody broken that down? Who are we paying to £30bn to? Is it British jobs or foreign jobs? I'd like to know and I'd like to know if the various companies involved pay their workers decent wages? Are the companies publicly listed or privately owned? Do they pay dividends?

It's just that £30bn is a bloody sizeable chunk of money and those questions should be getting asked. What if we turned round and said "Och d'ya know what, it's too expensive, we don't want it" What would the companies involved do? Phone up Pyong Yang and say "Hey, Kim, some subs & nukes have just come back on the market, £25bn and they're yours".

The problem with having a deterrent is proving whether it has actually deterred, people can assume it has but equally it can have served no real purpose.
For me it's just a vanity project, Britain pushing to show it's still a military player, in reality that particular submarine has long since sailed.

JAS wrote:That is the other side of the defence debate Davie and one nobody as yet is talking about. Trident is going to cost the taxpayer £30bn....ok if we have to have it we have to have it but putting that part of the argument to the side for a minute and getting back to the £30bn.... Has anybody broken that down? Who are we paying to £30bn to? Is it British jobs or foreign jobs? I'd like to know and I'd like to know if the various companies involved pay their workers decent wages? Are the companies publicly listed or privately owned? Do they pay dividends?

It's just that £30bn is a bloody sizeable chunk of money and those questions should be getting asked. What if we turned round and said "Och d'ya know what, it's too expensive, we don't want it" What would the companies involved do? Phone up Pyong Yang and say "Hey, Kim, some subs & nukes have just come back on the market, £25bn and they're yours".

£30bn is nothing really.

The SNP use this ridiculous debate all the time saying how they could save so much money for the NHS, Education etc, but it falls flat on it's face when you look at the figures. If this £30bn is to keep Trident going lets say for the next 10 years, then that equates to £44 per person per year in the UK.  Isn't there bigger issues than £44 a year to worry about?

To see how stupid it looks in terms of Scotland alone in regards to the SNP argument, it's just £220m a year, you couldn't even build one hospital wing with that. In fact you couldn't even build Holyrood for that, and they didn't.

Compare that to the 25% of your tax that goes on Welfare and it is a drop in the ocean. So Corbyn, SNP etc would be better working on ways to reduce the number of people who have to be dependent on welfare rather than looking at piffling amounts of money simply because it has a sensationalist position such as it being Nuclear. It's so easy for them to criticise things without concentrating on things which are MUCH more of a strain on the economy.

It's not that much money when you consider the number of people it keeps in employment and the knock on effect in the communities too.

UK public spending is 780bn a year, so 3bn (if the 30bn is the cost of Trident for the next 10 years) then that's just 0.38% of the budget. Big bloody deal.

I'm not saying I have the answers, but attacking one TINY element of the budget spend when there are much bigger strains on it from other aspects then it makes Corbyn and Sturgeon look as pathetic as we already know they are.

Who was attacking anybody?? All I said was I would like to know more detail about the employment it provides and who profits from it and to what extent. Bit defensive aren't we supe??

JAS wrote:Who was attacking anybody?? All I said was I would like to know more detail about the employment it provides and who profits from it and to what extent. Bit defensive aren't we supe??

I think he might have meant Corbyn, Sturgeon et al...

navyblueshorts wrote:

JAS wrote:Lol the polls begin to show a bit of a closing of the gap and out comes the old regurgitated crap about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser, how utterly predictable.

You have to hand it to their propaganda machine which could probably run the country better than the strong and stable flip flop.

The IRA sympathies story will gain traction with some. TBH, I think his historical positions on this and other military issues is a problem. Certainly, some of it is for me anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gatland
Former member of the IRA is a tory councillor for Croydon.
Hope that helps.

navyblueshorts wrote:

JAS wrote:Who was attacking anybody?? All I said was I would like to know more detail about the employment it provides and who profits from it and to what extent. Bit defensive aren't we supe??

I think he might have meant Corbyn, Sturgeon et al...

Exactly, I'm not especially for Trident, however, the people (opposition politicians) who are against it and using the cost of it as a reason not to have it haven't really done their sums. It's not a big cost in the grand scheme of things.

I would also imagine that most of the contracts go to AWE, a Government organisation.

It would be a miracle if they did it for £30 bn. The aircraft carriers that can't take aircraft are currently at £14.3bn, when the contract was approved, costs were put at £3.65bn. Still, should be ready for 2026 before being scrapped in 2030.

Well that's the figure which is being quoted, but even if it doubled to 60bn, it's still only £88 a year per person for 10 years.

Doesn't seem a lot to protect thousands of jobs.

Compare that to the thousands you pay in other taxes.

I would rather pay my thousands of pounds a year on Tax/Ni than pay £88per year on trident.

So would I, but the way people talk about Trident they talk as if it's crippling the economy and costing everyone thousands of pounds.
You probably pay more on your taxes to subsidise bloated and inefficient local authorities or to the NHS to pay for the treatment of people who are fat because of their own gluttony and laziness.

I'm simply saying these people who moan about the cost of Trident need to look a the wider picture and focus on the things which are really dragging the economy down.

Such as low productivity.
2305 days since you joined.
20072 posts.
Fascinating reading...

No tax money is being spent keeping me in a job Monty.

But what about your pride, man.
oh......

MontysMerkin wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JAS wrote:Lol the polls begin to show a bit of a closing of the gap and out comes the old regurgitated crap about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser, how utterly predictable.

You have to hand it to their propaganda machine which could probably run the country better than the strong and stable flip flop.

The IRA sympathies story will gain traction with some. TBH, I think his historical positions on this and other military issues is a problem. Certainly, some of it is for me anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gatland
Former member of the IRA is a tory councillor for Croydon.
Hope that helps.

Sorry. No, it doesn't really. You'll have to explain to a dullard like me, what this has to do with Corbyn, specifically.