General Election

[gowestjambo]

Nonsense. I don't believe you have ever worked in a large corporation if you truly believe that. Often the 'wealth creators' as you like to call them are the frontline staff or lower paid roles; it isn't always the high earners and it almost certainly isn't the shareholders whom in your mind would appear to be the most valuable as they earn the most.

 

I have worked for both large Corporations and ran my own Business so I have experience of both. Yes Employees are what makes a Company but to suggest they are the Wealth Creators is nonsense. So you would in your way of thinking have the Footsoldiers in charge of the Army instead of the Generals??

 

I have never mentioned the Shareholders. The majority of business's are privately owned. 65% of all Business's are Family Owned.

 

Profits need to be generated. The lower you tax the business the more likely they are to pay rather avoid tax.

 

You cannot tax yourself to prosperity.

[Boris]

Socialism has tried to create, relatively successfully, a narrative where anything that is for the people is socialism in name it's really not. Socialism has been tried and failed (unless Im missing something), it's a nice ideology which will never work in practice due to human nature. Therefore, the proponents have tried to claim any success that works as socialism. It's not . Socialism truley a 'busted flush' to steal a socialist poster phrase!

 

 

This is where I would disagree.

 

Human nature in a capitalist environment yes, given we adapt to our environment to survive.  Change the environment and change the nature.

 

In other words, I don't agree with the assertation that people are inherently selfish or greedy.

[Boris]

I wasnt going to respond to this as it's a bit of semantics and you say your struggling to convey your thoughts.

 

However, your not really arguing for socialism in any shape or form IMO. The things that you are suggesting are just more left leaning policies. You even concede nationalised industries should not be a monopoly. That's blows any theory of socialism out the water.

 

The fundamental principal of socialism is ownership by collective (whatever shape that takes) controls production, distribution something your not argueung that. On the basis this is the fundamental principal and relates to economics it becomes impossible to separate socialism from economics.

 

Your way more a caring capitalist (Copyright me) than a socialist! Though I guess that me being a pedant. You can call yourself what you want it's just a label.

 

Socialism has tried to create, relatively successfully, a narrative where anything that is for the people is socialism in name it's really not. Socialism has been tried and failed (unless Im missing something), it's a nice ideology which will never work in practice due to human nature. Therefore, the proponents have tried to claim any success that works as socialism. It's not . Socialism truley a 'busted flush' to steal a socialist poster phrase!

 

On your suggestions I think their bonkers for a variety of reasons. I get what your trying to do but long term they wouldn't work for many of the reasons socialism doesn't work.

 

 

Maybe.

 

Based on your definition I don't really get the difference between communism and socialism then. I'm sure Boris can help with that if he is around!

 

Caring Capitalists could catch on

 

The free market economy also doesn't work, unless you ignore the millions who get left behind because of it. Sure, it works for a lot of people but why are we settling for that rather than looking at alternatives that work for all?

 

Well, in a Marxist sense, socialism is the stepping stone from capitalism to communism.

 

I think that there are many principles that are the same in both.  It is semantic, because what socialism means can vary between individuals.  I also think that you have to be conscious of the fact that socialism isn't a monolithic ideology and it naturally evolves and changes as the world and as capitalist society around it does.

 

So the example of nationalised utilities, in the form of being a competitor as opposed to a monopoly is an interesting concept.  It's one that I think Corbyn has proposed for energy in the UK.

 

Socialism itself is a many headed beast, with factions and a left and right wing as well.  Social democrats, are socialists.  So are Marxists.  My own feeling is that you can (and should!) sort of riff through the whole thing, and see what you like, what you think would work, what would be palatable.

 

Don't forget that capitalism is only a theory too, and is not left alone.  A hybrid of both has been adopted by liberal democracies.  Currently the hybrid tends more to the capitalistic nature of it, in the past things have tended to the more socialist side.

 

IMO.

 

p.s. Where has socialism been tried and failed btw?  USSR doesn't count, again imo.

[doctor jambo]

This is where I would disagree.

 

Human nature in a capitalist environment yes, given we adapt to our environment to survive.  Change the environment and change the nature.

 

In other words, I don't agree with the assertation that people are inherently selfish or greedy.

Then please identify an era in history of mankind where there has not been a social strata or hierarchy.

any era

just one

because I cannot

[AlphonseCapone]

Then please identify an era in history of mankind where there has not been a social strata or hierarchy.

any era

just one

because I cannot

 

I read about this in a book, can't remember which one just now, but interesting;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk

[Sraman]

These people could could improve their skills and get a better job. Why is it always someone else's fault?

 

People need to be responsible for their own lives - not expecting hand outs or be paid more than their worth.

 

There is no cap on anyone becoming better or working harder.

 

 

If everyone improved their skills and got a job as a millionaire who would clean the toilets?

[AlphonseCapone]

Well, in a Marxist sense, socialism is the stepping stone from capitalism to communism.

 

I think that there are many principles that are the same in both.  It is semantic, because what socialism means can vary between individuals.  I also think that you have to be conscious of the fact that socialism isn't a monolithic ideology and it naturally evolves and changes as the world and as capitalist society around it does.

 

So the example of nationalised utilities, in the form of being a competitor as opposed to a monopoly is an interesting concept.  It's one that I think Corbyn has proposed for energy in the UK.

 

Socialism itself is a many headed beast, with factions and a left and right wing as well.  Social democrats, are socialists.  So are Marxists.  My own feeling is that you can (and should!) sort of riff through the whole thing, and see what you like, what you think would work, what would be palatable.

 

Don't forget that capitalism is only a theory too, and is not left alone.  A hybrid of both has been adopted by liberal democracies.  Currently the hybrid tends more to the capitalistic nature of it, in the past things have tended to the more socialist side.

 

IMO.

 

p.s. Where has socialism been tried and failed btw?  USSR doesn't count, again imo.

 

Thanks Boris

 

I don't think my original post to Lord BJ was that absurd based on what you've said then

[Boris]

Then please identify an era in history of mankind where there has not been a social strata or hierarchy.

any era

just one

because I cannot

 

I'm not saying that there has been.

 

My point about environment was that if we make a society where caring for the greater good is the common approach, then that's how we will as a ociety/community think.  If we have a society that is driven by greed then we will become greedy.

 

It's about changing mindsets.

 

Look at the Dutch and the Scandinavian systems - their social care and sense of social responsibility pisses all over ours.

[gowestjambo]

If everyone improved their skills and got a job as a millionaire who would clean the toilets?

 

The guy with the best cleaning toilet abilities.

 

The idea is always to level up - not level down.

 

Some of the comments on here hint at envy. Tax anyone who has has more money than me.

 

Do these people really want to be subsidised by others? Where is their pride?

 

Running any business is about the satisfaction gained. The money is not the ultimate goal. Offering a first class product or service will bring the profits.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

People are paid what they are worth - money is earned - no one is handed money for doing nothing.

 

Wealth Creators should take less and pay employees more- I dont know what world you live  in but competitiveness is required for companies to succeed over others. Paying people more just for the sake of it would never work. I suggest if you want that type of world then you need to go to North Korea.

 

You don't follow much news from the US do you? I would like to introduce you to our Commander in Chief. 

 

I've kept my nose out of the UK political threads and just lurked but JFC for a model of political economy that's fairly new and has generally failed repeatedly neoliberalism has some grip on folks' brains.

[Guest]

Maybe.

 

Based on your definition I don't really get the difference between communism and socialism then. I'm sure Boris can help with that if he is around!

 

Caring Capitalists could catch on

 

The free market economy also doesn't work, unless you ignore the millions who get left behind because of it. Sure, it works for a lot of people but why are we settling for that rather than looking at alternatives that work for all?

I'm travelling at the moment and slightly bored, tired and had a few drinks Probably the reason I'm using jkb right now. So this is a bit hurried.

 

Caring capitalist, I don't want that being used as an election slogan!!! I struggle with politics in main as its become very black and white and hyperbolic. That doesn't appeal to me.

 

Their isn't a massive difference. No doubt boris will have responded, probably differently to me,as he loves a bit of romanticised communism. However, the basic difference is the collective.

 

Socialism refers to the collective which can vary. Whereas communism is about state control only; in the collective sense. It is a very important separation if you talking about the control of economics.

 

The free market does work. It works very well, pretty much every successful place in the world is founded on the principal. It's just a question of how much the govt should intervene into that.

 

People often whine about shareholders. Most companies reward its employees and benefit through successful company. Whether it be bonus or share schemes etc etc. Ironically the companies who get criticised about tax avoidance i.e. Google, banks etc are masters of this type of reward scheme and ownership.

 

Also capitalism has been very successful in improving standards of living for all. (Google if don't believe me) I concede a consequence of that has been greater disparity. However, I believe it's a price worth paying if we are all better off.

 

So this pretence that it's unfair is a bit of a nonsense imo as I said early it's about balance. Is the balance right probably not. However, is google avoiding tax to pay employees more etc a bad thing. The thought that govt make the best decisions is a nonsense imo.

 

As an aside I don't believe it's capitalism that has caused greater disparity but more gkobilisation.

 

I'm all about freedom of choice so I find socialism incredibly oppressive in principal. Application tends to back that view up. How many socialist societies by nature aren't oppressive? You start controlling what people can and can't do economically it leads you down a dark path.

 

As said, socialists,they have been very successful at creating a narrative. I'm just challenging that a bit albeit it semantics you can call your self a Alfonso Componists it's doesn't matter it's your principals that make difference.

 

You want a system that's fairer at all. I think in the main most people do that's why you see a rise in things like ethics up the corporate importance. That's what will make us more successful as society would things are done through want not force.

[Guest]

This is where I would disagree.

 

Human nature in a capitalist environment yes, given we adapt to our environment to survive. Change the environment and change the nature.

 

In other words, I don't agree with the assertation that people are inherently selfish or greedy.

They are google it. All manners of studies prove it. It's not a negative it's born out of evolution.

 

I could prove it with you a man of principal. However, none of us would come out well from it lol.

 

Use google and do the reading.

[Guest]

Well, in a Marxist sense, socialism is the stepping stone from capitalism to communism.

 

I think that there are many principles that are the same in both. It is semantic, because what socialism means can vary between individuals. I also think that you have to be conscious of the fact that socialism isn't a monolithic ideology and it naturally evolves and changes as the world and as capitalist society around it does.

 

So the example of nationalised utilities, in the form of being a competitor as opposed to a monopoly is an interesting concept. It's one that I think Corbyn has proposed for energy in the UK.

 

Socialism itself is a many headed beast, with factions and a left and right wing as well. Social democrats, are socialists. So are Marxists. My own feeling is that you can (and should!) sort of riff through the whole thing, and see what you like, what you think would work, what would be palatable.

 

Don't forget that capitalism is only a theory too, and is not left alone. A hybrid of both has been adopted by liberal democracies. Currently the hybrid tends more to the capitalistic nature of it, in the past things have tended to the more socialist side.

 

IMO.

 

p.s. Where has socialism been tried and failed btw? USSR doesn't count, again imo.

What is the basic principal of socialism?

 

You can't separate the economics of its from social aspects. That is the core principal

 

Though I concede semantics is intregal in this discussion

[Thunderstruck]

I'm not saying that there has been.

 

My point about environment was that if we make a society where caring for the greater good is the common approach, then that's how we will as a ociety/community think. If we have a society that is driven by greed then we will become greedy.

 

It's about changing mindsets.

 

Look at the Dutch and the Scandinavian systems - their social care and sense of social responsibility pisses all over ours.

From a King's Fund Research Paper -

 

The NHS is unique in its low level of cost sharing. All of the health systems profiled in this report, including universal systems that are considered comprehensive such as Sweden and France, charge users fees. These include co-payments for each visit to a health professional, a per day charge for hospital stays, prescription co-pays, deductibles or co- insurance whereby individuals cover a set proportion of their health care costs. These cost-sharing obligations range from minimal (around 80p to visit the GP in France) to more substantial out-of-pocket outlays (20 per cent of the cost of inpatient care must be paid by the user in Korea). Most countries provide means-tested assistance to help those with low incomes meet their cost-sharing obligations, and in some countries private insurance policies are commonly held to cover these costs (see below). While some countries have sought to decrease individual?s cost- sharing obligations in recent years (eg, Germany), the principle of paying at least a small fee for each use of the health service is not controversial in other countries.

 

This underlines what many have said recently - the NHS being free at the point of use diminishes its value (in a non-monetary sense) and it is taken for granted to the point that too many rip the a**e out of it.

 

The NHS cannot hope to compete with other countries unless we change our expectations and change our view on how it is funded and provided. However, changing the funding regime is well-nigh impossible in the U.K. It is a sacred cow and all that can be done is to keep feeding more money to the behemoth in the hope that it will magically become more efficient. It won't.

 

I would prefer the French/Dutch/German approach which is to have a mix of state and non-state provision and to have Long-Term Care or Health insurance to supplement the basic funding from general taxation.

[SwindonJambo]

Personally I hope season tickets sales are slow till the 16th , then u can get my ticket in the new stand silver section . After that let the stampede begin

Who knows what to believe in the polls. I think we can say they have narrowed, but how that will translate into seats nobody can be sure anymore.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has definitely been a narrowing, as May bumbles along, avoids debate and continues to make a total fool of herself. She only looks strong when reading a carefully prepared script. She avoids off- the - cuff direct debate and when rattled, she gets flustered.

 

That said, I still expect her to win. The bookies odds have narrowed - she's now only 10-1 on and Corbyn 5-1 against. Historically, Polls have always underestimated the Tory vote and overestimated Labour. In 1992 and 2015, a hung parliament was expected and both were surprise Tory wins - Major & Cameron respectively. Many Tory supporters are ashamed to admit to it publicly in any way!

 

Corbyn has solid and enthusiastic support from the core Labour vote but not nearly enough from the middle ground. If Labour had a candidate with any kind of substantial appeal to the middle ground, I think they would win.

 

As for Scotland, the SNP may lose a handful of seats but benefit greatly from the late Labour Resurgence as the 2 main Unionist parties cancel each other out.

 

I really wish FPTP was done away with - it is so patently unfair. Where I live, the Tory wins effortlessly, leaving thousands of supporters of other parties without a voice. Some form of PR would stop Tactical voting for a start.

[Maroon Sailor]

Some good questions for Sturgeon on Ask The Leader from the audience

 

Quite clear no matter what compromises she may get she will not take IndyRef2 off the table.

 

She talks about bringing Scotland together all the time but offers us a divisive referendum no matter what

[Space Mackerel]

Some good questions for Sturgeon on Ask The Leader from the audience

 

Quite clear no matter what compromises she may get she will not take IndyRef2 off the table.

 

She talks about bringing Scotland together all the time but offers us a divisive referendum no matter what

You mean she's talking a lot of sense?

[Maroon Sailor]

You mean she's talking a lot of sense?

You don't that's for sure

[Space Mackerel]

You don't that's for sure

Meeeeeeeeeeeeeyow :-/

[Guest]

Well, in a Marxist sense, socialism is the stepping stone from capitalism to communism.

 

I think that there are many principles that are the same in both. It is semantic, because what socialism means can vary between individuals. I also think that you have to be conscious of the fact that socialism isn't a monolithic ideology and it naturally evolves and changes as the world and as capitalist society around it does.

 

So the example of nationalised utilities, in the form of being a competitor as opposed to a monopoly is an interesting concept. It's one that I think Corbyn has proposed for energy in the UK.

 

Socialism itself is a many headed beast, with factions and a left and right wing as well. Social democrats, are socialists. So are Marxists. My own feeling is that you can (and should!) sort of riff through the whole thing, and see what you like, what you think would work, what would be palatable.

 

Don't forget that capitalism is only a theory too, and is not left alone. A hybrid of both has been adopted by liberal democracies. Currently the hybrid tends more to the capitalistic nature of it, in the past things have tended to the more socialist side.

 

IMO.

 

p.s. Where has socialism been tried and failed btw? USSR doesn't count, again imo.

Socialism is very difficult to implement in many ways so countries who have tried to implement it. USSR (why doesn't it count? It's the very essence of socialism), the former soviet block countries (which use used their oppressive mechanism to try and control), venuezela, cuba, Albania and **** it I could make a good argument for North Korea for a start.

 

Countries like China tried them realised capitslism ain't all that bad and works.

 

Socialists always deny it's socialism when it goes wrong. Yet claim countries like Canada are socialist. It's a complete nonsense.

 

In reality it's buzz word bingo.

[Maroon Sailor]

Sturgeon is always in her comfort zone when it comes to blaming the Tories. Not surprising because she has been totally obsessed with them since Thatcher.

 

Not so comfortable when it comes to defending their record in government and she still wants us to go for Independence.

 

She's off her head or she is out of her depth.

 

Maybe both

[Space Mackerel]

Sturgeon is always in her comfort zone when it comes to blaming the Tories. Not surprising because she has been totally obsessed with them since Thatcher.

 

Not so comfortable when it comes to defending their record in government and she still wants us to go for Independence.

 

She's off her head or she is out of her depth.

 

Maybe both

The Torys have been in power down South since 2010. Since then they've been doing this thing called "austerity" you may have heard of it on the news?

 

If you don't understand that then it's you that's off your head and out your depth.

[Maroon Sailor]

The Torys have been in power down South since 2010. Since then they've been doing this thing called "austerity" you may have heard of it on the news?

If you don't understand that then it's you that's off your head and out your depth.

Austerity

 

Hmmm

 

What have the Scottish Government done about that ?

 

#Stronger for Scotland

[Rudy T]

That's the most uncomfortable I've seen Sturgeon. Too many unanswerable questions and nothing to slag the Torys for all about 10 years of SNP rule. Ruth Davidson has been the most impressive of the leaders.

[maroonlegions]

Austerity

 

Hmmm

 

What have the Scottish Government done about that ?

 

#Stronger for Scotland

 

 

What have this Government done about Austerity in general??

 

Attacked the poor, less well off , disabled and the vulnerable.

 

But were is Labours magic money tree the Tories cry in response. 

 

Its in Panama and the Cayman Islands..

 

 

?13tn hoard hidden from taxman by global elite

New study gives staggering new estimate of size of offshore economy ? as much as US and Japanese GDP put together

THEGUARDIAN.COM

 

 

Horrible bunch of subhumans , Selfservatives to the very core of their selfish being, 

 

Ever get the feeling that you are getting royally cheated.

[Cade]

Kim Jong May being her usual evasive, bullshitting self tonight

[Justin Z]

Socialism is very difficult to implement in many ways so countries who have tried to implement it. USSR (why doesn't it count? It's the very essence of socialism), the former soviet block countries (which use used their oppressive mechanism to try and control), venuezela, cuba, Albania and **** it I could make a good argument for North Korea for a start.

 

Countries like China tried them realised capitslism ain't all that bad and works.

 

Socialists always deny it's socialism when it goes wrong. Yet claim countries like Canada are socialist. It's a complete nonsense.

 

In reality it's buzz word bingo.

 

Your premises are really off but most especially the one in bold.  China tried a Soviet-style authoritarian communism--which is absolutely not socialism--and it didn't work.  This whole thing they've been doing where their economy has gone into overdrive is, quite plainly, state-controlled market socialism with top-down policies implemented for the good of their populace.  It is not buzz word bingo, it's exactly what the **** socialism is.

[Maroon Sailor]

That's the most uncomfortable I've seen Sturgeon. Too many unanswerable questions and nothing to slag the Torys for all about 10 years of SNP rule. Ruth Davidson has been the most impressive of the leaders.

I prefer this kind of format rather than everyone talking over each other.

 

She looked embarrassed at times and rightly so. Some good intelligent points were put to her.

 

She's a pretty useless politician if she is not on her soap box being aggressive.

[deesidejambo]

I prefer this kind of format rather than everyone talking over each other.

 

She looked embarrassed at times and rightly so. Some good intelligent points were put to her.

 

She's a pretty useless politician if she is not on her soap box being aggressive.

This.

 

She does the weegie head-nodding gallus swagger well when in attack mode.    But she is on her own when defending.  Nobody else in her party is anywhere near credible, hence Nicola is a one-person show..

 

Labours Manifesto is far and above all the others but its a pity the Tories will pick up more tactical non-Indy votes than Labour will.

 

The ultimate irony would be if Labour win the GE.  Who will Nicola blame then?

[Dawnrazor]

I prefer this kind of format rather than everyone talking over each other.

She looked embarrassed at times and rightly so. Some good intelligent points were put to her.

She's a pretty useless politician if she is not on her soap box being aggressive.

Pretty much agree with all of your post, the debate format with 4/5/6 people allows too many hiding places, the single candidate format allows no hiding place, just look at the mask slipping on Sturgon, I doubt this would've happened if there were people around her trying to get themselves heard.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Angry old men wanting Corbyn to nuke folk .

[ToadKiller Dog]

.

[ToadKiller Dog]

.

[Cade]

So...if another country launches a nuclear attack on us, is that an open admission that Trident is not, in fact, a deterrent?

 

:'>

[maroonlegions]

Once again the Tories try to take the moral high ground  with their home Secretary"s "labours magic money tree" comment but a deeper look at were their  election donations  are coming from paints a very shady picture.

 

During the BBC debate on 31 May, Home Secretary Amber Rudd repeatedly used the jibe that Labour has a ?magic money tree? to fund its policies. But if the latest figures on donations to political parties are anything to go by, it?s the Tories who are making money out of thin air. And a lot of that ?air? appears to be from offshore tax havens.

 

 

Since campaigning began on 3 May, the Conservative Party has raised ?9.5m in donations. This compares to Labour?s ?3.4m. But when you dig deeper into just who has been donating to each party, a pattern emerges. Because Labour?s main donations came from unions like Unite, Unison and the GMB. Theresa May?s donor list, meanwhile, reads like a who?s who of tax avoids, property developers, 

 

So in general the Tories are being supported by tax avoiders,   supported by people stealing from us .   

 

 

The list of dodgy millionaire donors that Theresa May won't want you to see | The Canary

Absolutely astonishing

THECANARY.CO

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

Angry old men wanting Corbyn to nuke folk .

It's the sort of patter that flows the through heids of certain posters on here.

[Rudy T]

Millions of small business have just voted Tory!

 

Also this fully costed manifesto is falling to pieces. As an example the 10 pound minimum wage, it'll reduce the payments made by the DWP apparently however they'll give small businesses supplements to ensure they can pay the minimum wage...where's the saving? No more zero hours contracts..fair enough but now business Have to schedule people's hours and pay them 10 pound an hour but they'll get supplements to do so??

 

Doesn't add up nor has this system been thought through.

 

Also his defence policy is under serious scrutiny now.

[Boris]

Socialism is very difficult to implement in many ways so countries who have tried to implement it. USSR (why doesn't it count? It's the very essence of socialism), the former soviet block countries (which use used their oppressive mechanism to try and control), venuezela, cuba, Albania and **** it I could make a good argument for North Korea for a start.

Countries like China tried them realised capitslism ain't all that bad and works.

Socialists always deny it's socialism when it goes wrong. Yet claim countries like Canada are socialist. It's a complete nonsense.

In reality it's buzz word bingo.

Because state capitalism isn't socialism. Do I win the bingo with that?

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Millions of small business have just voted Tory!

 

Also this fully costed manifesto is falling to pieces. As an example the 10 pound minimum wage, it'll reduce the payments made by the DWP apparently however they'll give small businesses supplements to ensure they can pay the minimum wage...where's the saving? No more zero hours contracts..fair enough but now business Have to schedule people's hours and pay them 10 pound an hour but they'll get supplements to do so??

 

Doesn't add up nor has this system been thought through.

 

Also his defence policy is under serious scrutiny now.

Even the Independent is saying May won tonight. 

[Boris]

Millions of small business have just voted Tory!

Also this fully costed manifesto is falling to pieces. As an example the 10 pound minimum wage, it'll reduce the payments made by the DWP apparently however they'll give small businesses supplements to ensure they can pay the minimum wage...where's the saving? No more zero hours contracts..fair enough but now business Have to schedule people's hours and pay them 10 pound an hour but they'll get supplements to do so??

Doesn't add up nor has this system been thought through.

Also his defence policy is under serious scrutiny now.

Millions of small businesses voting Tory. Shock!

 

Defence under scrutiny? Corbyn just stated that the navy is short, maritime aircraft are short, but what matters is if he is willing to incinerate millions of innocent people. Ok then.

[Boris]

Even the Independent is saying May won tonight.

 

Interesting.

 

As an aside, given they can't debate, I was thinking if one is asked a question, then the other should be asked the same. Allows one to treat like with like.

 

Personally, I don't think May really said that much. For example the care caps. She said it was being consulted. Hardly a policy for it is still being consulted on?

[Captain Sausage]

Interesting.

 

As an aside, given they can't debate, I was thinking if one is asked a question, then the other should be asked the same. Allows one to treat like with like.

 

Personally, I don't think May really said that much. For example the care caps. She said it was being consulted. Hardly a policy for it is still being consulted on?

I'm not surprised you don't rate May, but I think she came across comfortably better than Corbyn tonight.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Interesting.

 

As an aside, given they can't debate, I was thinking if one is asked a question, then the other should be asked the same. Allows one to treat like with like.

 

Personally, I don't think May really said that much. For example the care caps. She said it was being consulted. Hardly a policy for it is still being consulted on?

This format was better. Seeing politicans being grilled by ordinary punters is a better gauge of their character. Put them together and they'll invariably try to shout each other down.

 

May never says much or gives away anything. That seems to be her thing. Corbyn is great with sound bites and rabble rousing. When he gets asked a question about his past, he shits himself.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

I'm not surprised you don't rate May, but I think she came across comfortably better than Corbyn tonight.

She certainly appeared more confidant at least, making you wonder why she appears to want to avoid these things.

 

She's a strange old bird.

[Cade]

So, Jeremy Corbyn is bad because:

 

A] He refuses to take part in a world-ending, open-ended exchange of nuclear weapons.

B] He helped bring about the end of the 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland.

 

Right.

 

Gotcha.

[Dawnrazor]

B] He helped bring about the end of the 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland.

 

 

What was his part in ending the violence?

[Trapper John McIntyre]

So, Jeremy Corbyn is bad because:

 

A] He refuses to take part in a world-ending, open-ended exchange of nuclear weapons.

B] He helped bring about the end of the 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland.

 

Right.

 

Gotcha.

A) God bless him

 b Did he feck.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

What was his part in ending the violence?

Absolutely nothing.

 

Too busy cheerleading the IRA.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Didn't see any real winner of the two .

Both floundered by strong questions .

May couldn't answer on low pay and the treatment of disability and mental health .

Corbyn would never have been able to answer the angry old men still with the cold war mentality what ever he said on nukes .

In a way grudging respect that he stuck to his principles on nukes he could easily have just given the answer they wanted to hear .

The gap between younger voters and the older generation seems as big as it has been since the 60s .

 

As ever many on here will take the usual positions they have always taken .

[Dawnrazor]

Absolutely nothing.

 

Too busy cheerleading the IRA.

This is my take on his involvement.