General Election - June 8th

Ooooh my Nephew does that, babysitting ships that is, he is ex Royal Marines. Absolutely loves it and gets a small fortune for doing so.

Great work if you can get it

Yer too right, Ive asked him to get me on there with him but he says "Uncle Dave you have no military experience" but Im always in the top 3 on Call of Duty online I tell him

Corbyn did a great Ms Abbott impression on women's hour when quizzed about healthcare costs.

I don't think she had any choice: that was a stitch-up by Cameron and Hague to streamline the Foreign Office. But she is responsible for cutting staff and the worsening morale - the Home Office is regarded as the Siberia of the civil service.

Our rules are 8 years service - Marines, Paras or Gurkhas - don't care which - and a Section 5 clearance (which includes a Police check).

So Call of Duty and Battlefield 4 on the PS4 don't count I take it ?

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

Earlier Andrew asked if I remembered reading a piece about Theresa May published on Guido Fawkes' website a year ago. I wonder if he has seen this piece Guido publishes today: it seems that the Lib Dems have two (or more?) candidates who don't even live in the UK let alone the constituencies they hope to represent!

And what about this car-crash interview on Labour's flagship child care pledge conducted by Emma Barnet (EB) of Woman's Hour featuring a doddery sixty-eight year old (JC) Andrew prefers to be our next PM:

EB: How much will it cost?

JC: Er, it will cost, er. It will obviously cost a lot, we accept that.

EB: You presumably have the figures?

JC: Yes, I do.

EB: So how much will it cost?

JC: I’ll give you the figure in a moment.

EB: You don’t know it.

JC: Er…

EB: You’re logging into your iPad here. You’re announcing a major policy. and you don’t know how much it will cost?

JC: Can I give you the exact figure in a moment?

EB: You’re holding your manifesto, you’re flicking through it, you’ve got an iPad there, you’ve had a phone call while you’re in here, and yet you don’t know how much it’s going to cost.

JC: Can we come back go that in a moment?

EB: This is a policy you’re launching this morning.

JC: I think what is important for voters to understand is that if we don’t invest in our children they do less well in primary school. less well in secondary school. less will in the future.

EB: But you don’t know the cost?

JC: I want to give you an accurate figure.

EB: This is a very expensive policy. Mr Corbyn. I’m going to help you out with the figures. Would you like to hear how much it’s going to cost?

JC: What we think is, it’s important to invest for the whole community and collect the money back through taxation on the principle of universalism.

EB: Would you like to know how much your policy is going to cost, Mr Corbyn?

JC: What is your estimate of it?

EB: Well. it‘s actually from Angela Rayner, your shadow education secretary. £2.7billion, and then £4.8billion. With half a billion to reverse the cuts to the Sure Start scheme. Does that sound about right?

JC: It does sound correct…
​

Posted the link in previous post you can see the interview very poor from JC

Yes I know but the clip missed Emma's coup de gras when she tells Corbyn what his policy will cost - according to his own education secretary! It seems she gave Corbyn a tougher time than Paxman did last night!

And I posted it on the previous page

That's the man you say will be leading the Brexit negotiations in a couple of weeks time, hang on to your hats

Haha great minds!

Yes he was clearly uncomfortable

I still think it's May's to lose

YouGov predicting a Hung Parliament:

​

Watching the news earlier a lot of people/pollsters are doubting the poll, apparently the particular poll you posted is done using a new method.

I think we all have to remember Brexit and the 2015 General Election when it comes to how these latest polls are perceived.

Well, yes, but ....

According to statements issued by Stephan Shakespeare, YouGov's chief executive, this result is based on a new polling model they devised following the 2015 General Election. This new model was used internally during the entire referendum campaign and each set of results had the Leave campaign winning. So maybe we should not be too dismissive of it.

It is the worst of all possible outcomes because neither side can form an effective government. Theresa May, as the imcumbant, would have to try and form a minority government but she will have to abandon many of her manifesto pledges including Brexit for which she would not have a mandate and can not rely on many of her MPs being pro-Brexit. It will be a consensus government that will achieve little other than rubber-stamping EU legislation into UK law.

The Big Loser will be Nicola Sturgeon because the English have robbed her of her justification for her independence referendum - maybe that of itself will be her new justification!

The 22% will have won and won a victory far greater than a General Election - they will have bloodied the noses of the majority who dared to vote Leave and that will be such sweet and delicious revenge.

I'm beginning to wonder whether we, the electorate, aren't being cynically manipulated by Tory-backing Big Business. Let's consider the events following Cameron's resignation. Big Business does not want the UK to leave the EU under any circumstances, remember. Theresa May was a Remainer, albeit a rather silent one as was Stephen Crabbe who also stood in the leadership election; all the remaining candidates were prominent members of the Leave campaign. Crabbe withdrew before voting commenced and Liam Fox was eliminated in the first round leaving Theresa May, Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove. There may have been a deliberate campaign against Leadsom who then withdrew and Masy defeated Michael Gove. That whole leadership "election" might have been stage-managed to ensure that a Remainer takes up what will become the poisoned chalice. Everything May does and says is designed to undermine Brexit. She delays the Article 50 notice deliberately allowing Gina Miller to challenge her and win in the High and Supreme Courts. She deliberately sets out to annoy a significant percentage of the electorate with her talk of hard Brexit and "no deal is better than a bad deal" and pumps-up the EU with her faux defiance. She and party managers deliberately (in my view) upset Tory supporters with their budget and May and Hammond's subsequent U-turns. But worse, they completely alienate the over fifties with their manifesto pledges on care provision. Her entire campaign is Presidential and not party-based. From the moment she assumed her role as Prime Minister, Theresa May - and CCHQ - appear to have set out to lose this election, which she stated SIX times she would not hold, to ensure that whatever emerges as a government be either too weak to pursue Brexit or be totally opposed to it. Big Business wins, we lose, democracy loses. Maybe what Britain needs is a Marxist/Trotskyist government that will punish Big Business.

Hmmm thought provoking Mark