Is May about to call an election?

ulysse – Member

Does anybody else think Diane Abbott might be actually ill?
Just look at her performance pre election on political talk shows, she’s normally sharper than at present?

Been thinking this also. I seem to remember she had a migraine during the A50 vote?

Imo, it’s no coincidence there was a terrorist attack, days before the G.E. and therefore Labour appearing not to understand the strategic significance of this, or that Labour do understand this and seek to gain by it, is quite disturbing, imo.

This is the funniest thing I’ve read on here on a long time. Just so I can understand, are you suggesting that the terrorists would want labour to win so the labour party should effectively concede defeat out of patriotic duty?

aracer – Member

Because the Tories weren’t trying to make any political capital out of it at all.

Of course IF it was intended to influence people voting it would seem likely the intention was to get people to vote for the party more traditionally associated with law and order. It’s hardly Labour’s fault that the Maybot personally presided over a huge cut in police numbers.

I believe the initial responses from all, included praise for the emergency services.
Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn’t have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

Many believe the Madrid bombings in 2004 did effect the outcome of the Spanish election three days later. Might it be possible terrorists are now trying to create a similar reaction in the UK.

Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

No, it was followed by Theresa May setting out what she wanted to do in the next Parliament. If that’s not campaigning, I don’t know what is.

All that sounds entirely plausible to me

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn’t have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

cite? because Ive seen the opposite

. Might it be possible terrorists are now trying to create a similar reaction in the UK.

possible creating ‘terror’ at this time of uncertainty; post brexit, no plan, government uturning on general election, things are already very unstable ,

however more to do with ISIS calling for attacks during ramadan id have thought

Solo – people generally head right when terrorists strike so presumably you think folk should, in the aftermath of the terrorists attacks, resist any sudden urge to vote for a right wing party?

That was what you meant, no?

😆 Yeah, my bad. I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.

Carry on.
🙂

Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

Didn’t the police themselves come on and say that they couldn’t do their job properly because they didn’t have enough resources?

I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.

Solo,

igm asked you a sensible question (albeit one wrapped in gentle rhetoric, which I think fair if not charitable). So maybe offer an honest answer, rather than a deflection?

Solo – Member

Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

Policing numbers have been an issue for ages.
Been mentioned hundreds of times on here in connection with many subjects.
And increasing numbers was Labour policy pre the recent atrocities.

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn’t have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

We still need more police officers.
It’s not just about the response to one incident.

Might it be possible terrorists are now trying to create a similar reaction in the UK.

Really?
Can you give me any reasons why they’d want to replace a government which cuts police numbers with one that wishes to increase them?

Solo – Member

Yeah, my bad. I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.

Carry on.
you mean you forgot that people didn’t take nonsense at face value.

As predicted Johnson repeating the exact same lies about Corbyn on shoot to kill in his latest interview, despite being factchecked on it on R4 this morning 🙄

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn’t have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

Oh, really…..?

Solo – Member
Yeah, my bad. I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.
Carry on.

If you wish to be taken seriously, how about defending your comments?

Seeing as he actually typed the words ‘Yeah, my bad.’ to begin his post, I think we know how seriously we should take his opinions from now on…..

You could argue the opposite. If Labour had reigned in spending back in 2007/8 then cuts to Police numbers might have been less necessary later.

Yes, because Labour clearly caused the whole financial crash.

That aside, the cuts were still not necessary as the cuts to disabled benefits were not necessary, as the tax breaks to the rich were not necessary. These were choices made by the Tory government and the choice to cut police has not worked out too well for them.

And increasing numbers was Labour policy

Labour’s policy is to spend more on everything, and if you prioritize everything they you prioritize nothing. More police is just an empty promise from a party that wrote a giveaway manifesto at a time it thought it couldn’t win and could therefore promise the moon on a stick withouth getting caught out.

In government they won’t be able to afford 20k policemen any more than they can afford to buy all the ROSCOs.

Solo,

igm asked you a sensible question (albeit one wrapped in gentle rhetoric, which I think fair if not charitable). So maybe offer an honest answer, rather than a deflection?

But isn’t that what any good Toryboy does? deflect the answer and wobble on rehearsed rhetoric?

Does the the Conservative party represent rank incompetence, or opportunistic theft at the expense of society in general, hang the consequences to the poor and infirm, the devil take the hindmost?

Yes, because Labour clearly caused the whole financial crash.

How so?

Joshua Chambers 2010 nterview for civil service life with Lord Turnbull, former head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary for Blair from 2002-2005:

Speaking last month, the retired civil service chief said it was too difficult for civil servants to call for public spending to be reigned in until after the financial crisis hit.

The former cabinet secretary said that the Treasury was prone to “wishful thinking” and that “the politics” of the time had prevented civil servants from speaking more openly about the increasing level of debt.

He suggested that spending was too high because of “optimism bias” in the growth forecasts: “It was a forecast error, but also by a process of optimism bias, not enough people were saying: ‘Come on, do you really think we are able to expect 2.75 per cent growth indefinitely?’”

Questioned on whether he thinks civil servants should have come forward, Turnbull – who was permanent secretary at the Treasury from 1998 to 2002 – suggested that they were scared to. “Yes, maybe Whitehall should have,” he said. “But it’s quite difficult when your minister is proclaiming that we have transformed the propects of the UK economy.”

When asked directly what prevented civil servants from telling politicians that borrowing was too high, he said: “The politics was that we had put an end to boom and bust.”

Turnbull added: “We had a sense of overconfidence; it happened all around the world, but it was a rather extreme form of it in the UK.”

The problem, he argued, demonstrates a need for an organisation such as the Office of Budget Responsibility, which has been set up by the coalition government. “Having someone outside the process is helpful,” he said. “I think the OBR is something which is necessary, providing some degree of external constraint less prone to wishful thinking.”

Turnbull said that that excessive borrowing started to be a problem from 2005. “It kind of crept up on us in 2005, 2006, 2007, and we were still expanding public spending at 4.5 percent a year,” he said, arguing that the Treasury should have been putting more money aside. “You might have thought that we should have been giving priority to getting borrowing under better control, putting money aside in the good years – and it didn’t happen,” he commented.

Turnbull said that “there were some other places that had begun to accumulate surpluses for a rainy day; places like Australia.”

While Turnbull argued that the primary reason Britain is “in the mess that we’re in” is because “public spending got too big relative to the productive resources of the economy, by error” he added that a loss of output caused by the financial crisis has also contributed to the budget deficit.

More police officers, more income tax take, greater fiscal multiplication, no?
More teachers
More firemen

In government they won’t be able to afford 20k policemen any more than they can afford to buy all the ROSCOs.

Can you give me any reasons why they’d want to replace a government which cuts police numbers with one that wishes to increase them?

Maybe they thought that the bombing would have the opposite affect?

I think it’s more likely that these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with influencing the election result.

I agree OOB.
I just can’t see it.

Labour’s policy is to spend more on everything, and if you prioritize everything they you prioritize nothing. More police is just an empty promise from a party that wrote a giveaway manifesto at a time it thought it couldn’t win and could therefore promise the moon on a stick withouth getting caught out.

The spending is clearly laid out so why do you think they are empty promises?

You may not like what they are trying to do but that doesn’t mean they can’t do it.

If only Corbyn dumped Abbot, I just can’t see her as part of the government.

If Labour were to win I can imagine Abbot being on long term sick leave.

Duplicate post.

I think it’s more likely that these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with influencing the election result.

My thoughts exactly. I think we are over estimating the bombers though processes if we think they are doing that. Even if they had the ability to think about it, why would they care which government was in power?

So you think people like Diane Abbott are good then? Or Corbyn’s performance on Womens hour?

I think your bias means you can’t see the faults on all sides.

Not seeing the wood for the trees.

You can’t reflect on a whole campaign just because of the amplified noise of the media in a couple of instances of verbal diarrhoea.

The spending is clearly laid out so why do you think they are empty promises?

Because it assumes corporation tax revenue and income tax revenue is inelastic. Also they’re not even pretending to be able to fund the numberous privatizations. Also there won’t be parliamentary time for the vast amount of significant changes. PLus there won’t be much spare civil service time around brexit.

You may not like what they are trying to do but that doesn’t mean they can’t do it.

Exactly the wrong way round for me. I *love* the idea of a tiny minority paying for loads of good stuff for the other 95pc of us. What’s not to like? I’d get £1400 PCM in childcare alone! My issue is I don’t think it’s possible. If it was that easy all governments would do it. And they don’t.

If it was that easy all governments would do it. And they don’t.

You assume that all governments wish to treat all their citizens in a reasonable manner.

The Tories do not.

They have no interest whatsoever in helping the most vulnerable, instead they are used as scapegoats.

It’s much easier to blame people than help them.
And much simpler to appeal to the worst aspects of human nature than the best.

for just5mins to try and pull him out of his parallel universe

Just to be clear – I agree with the comments made on the papers.

I was actually speaking to the behaviour of us as voters / individuals though. If our first response is to abuse candidates from parties we don’t support, or abuse those who support them this is completely self defeating and makes things worse – it also emboldens politicians who think the same behaviour is ok.

Wouldn’t it be better if we respected all candidates for having the courage to put themselves forward, listened to their policies and then did a bit of thinking for ourselves? We’ve had some terrific orators from all the mainstream parties and even if we disagree we should at least listen to them first.

That’s all I’m saying.

It appears there’s spare time for a debate on fox hunting.

Have you given the same level of scrutiny to the Tories plans? Oh, that’s right, they haven’t bothered costing anything.

The thing is, the Labour spending plans might not be possible, the chances are they will have to scale back on some of their promises, but I much prefer the direction they intend to take. Given I don’t have a bias against them I don’t feel the need to quibble on every detail (whilst letting the Tories get away with far worse). Sure corporation tax and income tax might not be totally inelastic, but they’re probably a lot less inelastic than the Tory cheerleaders are suggesting – as has been pointed out, 26% is hardly a particularly high rate, even Maggie seemed happy with that.

I *love* the idea of a tiny minority paying for loads of good stuff for the other 95pc of us. What’s not to like? I’d get £1400 PCM in childcare alone! My issue is I don’t think it’s possible. If it was that easy all governments would do it.

Some do. Ok it’s not the tiny minority paying, it’s a sliding scale. Sweden gives out free childcare. That one policy alone has a MASSIVE positive effect on society, I reckon.

We’ve had some terrific orators from all the mainstream parties and even if we disagree we should at least listen to them first.

That’s all I’m saying.

I’m done listening to and engaging with murderous greed ridden liars and their enablers.

Left wing missives on here and elsewhere will never change their nature nor voting habits. Only personal epiphany has the possibility of that

Aspects of Swedish healthcare good too. You can’t just pick isolated aspects of a system and plonk them elsewhere though.

Key is how the whole system/package interacts too.

At moment neither labour or conservative plans seem entirely sensible and predicting what will happen economy wise post brexit or what that will be seems a lottery

Wouldn’t it be better if we respected all candidates for having the courage to put themselves forward, listened to their policies and then did a bit of thinking for ourselves? We’ve had some terrific orators from all the mainstream parties and even if we disagree we should at least listen to them first.

as my first reply went, respect is earned. Several from the right are exceptional at lying. They have moved straight to personal attacks, they preset no policy, they have stood behind nothing but slogans and refuse to elaborate on any policy. The very fact the PM refused to debate any of the other leaders shows the lack of respect she has for the public or the others.

Sweden gives out free childcare. That one policy alone has a MASSIVE positive effect on society, I reckon.

It is seen as one way of keeping the birthrate up and to avoid an ageing society.