[UK] Labour support surges in Wales - 16 point shift - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;52266389]I'm torn between my vote for labour or a tactical vote for Lib Dems to stop a conservative seat, my local MP is generally a safe Tory seat :/ but lib dems seem to have the second majority support. At the same time I don't want to tactical vote in case Labour actually has a chance here.[/QUOTE] I personally dont think lib dem has a chance in anything, you should probably look at result history of where you live, will probably be just between Labour and Tory every time

[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;52265942]Question: If one does not want the conservatives to win this election, and they lived in a county like this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/HEahB8r.png[/img] What would they best be voting? I want the conservatives to loose :v[/QUOTE] Vote for the Alternative Vote in the 2011 referendum, you'll require a time machine for this.

[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;52265942]Question: If one does not want the conservatives to win this election, and they lived in a county like this: [img]http://i.imgur.com/HEahB8r.png[/img] What would they best be voting? I want the conservatives to loose :v[/QUOTE] Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52266229]I dunno I think the tories blundered into brexit out of opportunism and never actually really had a plan to leave. Would you trust a party that has no idea what they're doing?[/QUOTE] I am glad you see it as opportunism. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=fulgrim;52265837]A bit like how everything you don't like is "doom and gloom! rhetoric?" Also it's a bit rich to be accusing people of being in an echo-chamber when you constantly make posts that read like the summaries of a daily mail articles. Seriously, Is this your political opinion or a short list of headlines from the daily mail/Sun?[/QUOTE] If these are headlines in either of those tabloids then the tabloids are right then. You must be very small minded believing that the media that best serves your narrative is the only truth.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52269001]I am glad you see it as opportunism.[/QUOTE] Apparently political opportunism, putting your career and personal interests before those of the public, is a good thing in whatever bizarre reality you come from. I'm not even surprised at this point. [QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52269001]If these are headlines in either of those tabloids then the tabloids are right then. You must be very small minded believing that the media that best serves your narrative is the only truth.[/QUOTE] "These tabloids are right because I agree with their politics" "You are an idiot if you believe the media that best favours your politics" :tried: You fancy responding to some of the points on the previous page yet? or is it just going to be business as usual with the whole ignoring anything that conflicts with your worldview and popping in only to make dumb personal attacks? Because this is getting boring.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52269101]Apparently political opportunism, putting your career and personal interests before those of the public, is a good thing in whatever bizarre reality you come from. I'm not even surprised at this point. "These tabloids are right because I agree with their politics" "You are an idiot if you believe the media that best favours your politics" :tried: You fancy responding to some of the points on the previous page yet? or is it just going to be business as usual with the whole ignoring anything that conflicts with your worldview and popping in only to make dumb personal attacks? Because this is getting boring.[/QUOTE] I don't see any valid points to answer, all I see is the usual dismissal with the usual accusations that are clearly opinion. If you are bored then move on.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52269539]I don't see any valid points to answer, all I see is the usual dismissal with the usual accusations that are clearly opinion. If you are bored then move on.[/QUOTE] I don't know. I see those as legitimate points and counter arguments. It seems moreover that you're ascribing to some sort of ignorance in order to paint your guys as the good guys with no evidence.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52269001]I am glad you see it as opportunism.[/QUOTE] Can you tell me the plan that the conservative party had during the referendum if the country voted to leave?

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52265674]What's scary is that this bullshit has managed to become such a popular nugget of propaganda despite being so obviously false. Not only is it factually untrue, with the entire "Corbyn the traitor!" myth being originally based on twisting his peace talks with the IRA (support of peace efforts) into supporting the opposite side- but the Conservatives literally have an ex-IRA member as one of their Councillors (South Croydon iirc) and nobody seems to care?[/QUOTE] The thing is that it isn't false. Whilst he might say now that he met with members of the IRA in order to facilitate peace talks, by looking at the views he has previously held, we can infer that wasn't his intention at the time. For Example for much of his political life Corbyn has been opposed to British and Western military deployments or even collaboration, whether they be entirely justified conflicts like the Falklands War or the First Gulf War. As he viewed any use of military power by the West as Imperialism. Therefore we can infer from these views that he probably did genuinely want the British out of Northern Ireland as he saw Northern Ireland as some colonial relic. With regards to the ex-IRA member as a Tory Councillor, since that Councillor is not standing to be the next Prime Minister of the UK. I think we can assume that the reason nobody talks about it, is because he has no significance whatsoever.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52270151]The thing is that it isn't false. Whilst he might say now that he met with members of the IRA in order to facilitate peace talks, by looking at the views he has previously held, we can infer that wasn't his intention at the time. For Example for much of his political life Corbyn has been opposed to British and Western military deployments or even collaboration, whether they be entirely justified conflicts like the Falklands War or the First Gulf War. As he viewed any use of military power by the West as Imperialism. Therefore we can infer from these views that he probably did genuinely want the British out of Northern Ireland as he saw Northern Ireland as some colonial relic. With regards to the ex-IRA member as a Tory Councillor, since that Councillor is not standing to be the next Prime Minister of the UK. I think we can assume that the reason nobody talks about it, is because he has no significance whatsoever.[/QUOTE] you're not allowed to point out facts if they've been reported in a tabloid though.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52270310]you're not allowed to point out facts if they've been reported in a tabloid though.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's a bad idea, they're garbage [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] may not actually be facts

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52270990]Yeah that's a bad idea, they're garbage [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] may not actually be facts[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. They're facts in spite of the fact that they're reported in a tabloid, not because of them.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52272666]You're missing the point. They're facts in spite of the fact that they're reported in a tabloid, not because of them.[/QUOTE] The """""fact"""""" was that Corbyn is a traitor. Thats bullshit spread by the tabloids to trick fine upstanding British citizens like UK Bohemian and yourself into voting against your own interests. Sorry but the ~fallacy fallacy~ doesn't work here. If you do somehow misconstrue peace talks with treachery then where do you stand on Tory MPs being ex members of the IRA? Where do you stand on the papers not reporting that? If the papers are misleading you about that what else are they misleading you about? Should you rethink your positions? [sp]up2u[/sp]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52272677]The """""fact"""""" was that Corbyn is a traitor. Thats bullshit spread by the tabloids to trick fine upstanding British citizens like UK Bohemian and yourself into voting against your own interests. Sorry but the ~fallacy fallacy~ doesn't work here. If you do somehow misconstrue peace talks with treachery then where do you stand on Tory MPs being ex members of the IRA? Where do you stand on the papers not reporting that? If the papers are misleading you about that what else are they misleading you about? Should you rethink your positions? [sp]up2u[/sp][/QUOTE] Ignorance is truly bliss when you can constantly dismiss facts with the same conspiracy that we are all tricked by the right wing media. David Icke would be proud of you.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52272677]The """""fact"""""" was that Corbyn is a traitor. Thats bullshit spread by the tabloids to trick fine upstanding British citizens like UK Bohemian and yourself into voting against your own interests. Sorry but the ~fallacy fallacy~ doesn't work here. If you do somehow misconstrue peace talks with treachery then where do you stand on Tory MPs being ex members of the IRA? Where do you stand on the papers not reporting that? If the papers are misleading you about that what else are they misleading you about? Should you rethink your positions? [sp]up2u[/sp][/QUOTE] I'm not saying that Tabloids don't exaggerate the facts or approach them with bias. The Sun and the Mail might call him a "Traitor" because of his past, and whilst that is a dubious claim to stake, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately he probably did have sympathies with the IRA because of their anti-colonialist rhetoric. I don't think Corbyn is a traitor to the country, I do however think that his "anti-imperialist" and "Anti-Neocolonialist" beliefs hamper his ability to make objective or pragmatic decisions with regards to foreign policy. His opposition to NATO, The Falklands War and the First Gulf War, demonstrate that. Say what you will about Theresa May's foreign policy, but at least she will make foreign policy decisions objectively based on what will be right for the country, rather than what will make her least directly accountable for the deaths of people overseas. Don't you think the "False consciousness" idea is a little clichè? I know exactly where my interests lie, and what the potential impact of my vote will be. If my vote lands me in a worse situation than where I am now, I will deserve it but at least it will have been my decision to make.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52272901]Ignorance is truly bliss when you can constantly dismiss facts with the same conspiracy that we are all tricked by the right wing media. David Icke would be proud of you.[/QUOTE] hey come on now i was being polite! and you didn't address my points, just called me ignorant and compared me to a lizard enthusiast. dont be a poor sport

[QUOTE=The mouse;52272902]I'm not saying that Tabloids don't exaggerate the facts or approach them with bias. The Sun and the Mail might call him a "Traitor" because of his past, and whilst that is a dubious claim to stake, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately he probably did have sympathies with the IRA because of their anti-colonialist rhetoric. I don't think Corbyn is a traitor to the country, I do however think that his "anti-imperialist" and "Anti-Neocolonialist" beliefs hamper his ability to make objective or pragmatic decisions with regards to foreign policy. His opposition to NATO, The Falklands War and the First Gulf War, demonstrate that. [B]Say what you will about Theresa May's foreign policy, but at least she will make foreign policy decisions objectively based on what will be right for the country, rather than what will make her least directly accountable for the deaths of people overseas.[/B] Don't you think the "False consciousness" idea is a little clichè? I know exactly where my interests lie, and what the potential impact of my vote will be. If my vote lands me in a worse situation than where I am now, I will deserve it but at least it will have been my decision to make.[/QUOTE] If Theresa May and the conservatives cared about what is right for the country in terms of foreign policy, they would never of allowed the Brexit vote. For Theresa May it is country < party

[QUOTE=The mouse;52272666]You're missing the point. They're facts in spite of the fact that they're reported in a tabloid, not because of them.[/QUOTE] It is difficult to trust someone when they lie most of the time, why should that be any different with a tabloid. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52272901]Ignorance is truly bliss when you can constantly dismiss facts with the same conspiracy that we are all tricked by the right wing media. David Icke would be proud of you.[/QUOTE] I am reminded of this tweet [media]https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/794217086599962624[/media] those darn gay ex-olympians

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52272904]hey come on now i was being polite! and you didn't address my points, just called me ignorant and compared me to a lizard enthusiast. dont be a poor sport[/QUOTE] Well you didn't address the previous point you simply dismissed it as bullshit. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52272908]It is difficult to trust someone when they lie most of the time, why should that be any different with a tabloid. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] I am reminded of this tweet [media]https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/794217086599962624[/media] those darn gay ex-olympians[/QUOTE] Yes proof right there.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52272902]I'm not saying that Tabloids don't exaggerate the facts or approach them with bias. The Sun and the Mail might call him a "Traitor" because of his past, and whilst that is a dubious claim to stake, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately he probably did have sympathies with the IRA because of their anti-colonialist rhetoric. I don't think Corbyn is a traitor to the country, I do however think that his "anti-imperialist" and "Anti-Neocolonialist" beliefs hamper his ability to make objective or pragmatic decisions with regards to foreign policy. His opposition to NATO, The Falklands War and the First Gulf War, demonstrate that. Say what you will about Theresa May's foreign policy, but at least she will make foreign policy decisions objectively based on what will be right for the country, rather than what will make her least directly accountable for the deaths of people overseas. [/quote] this is what im tlaking about! polite civilised discussion! I agree he has this whole anti colonialist thing. I think he over compensates a tad or perhaps its what tighty righties call "virtue signalling". I think he genuinely is a pacifist or at least tries to avoid unnecissary conflict, even if its means getting egg on his face and taking the unpopular stance. Is that not a sign of strength though? to stand by principles even if nobody agrees? What is right for the country is... a tad nebulous. What is right for the country? What's right for its people? Certainly not going off and dying in war. Certainly not over spending on military to threaten some sandy shithole 1000s of miles away. Alternative maybe it is invading a place and taking resources so your citizens thrive at others expense? Too grey a topic to give a black and white answer of "may will protect" "jc wont" [quote] Don't you think the "False consciousness" idea is a little clichè? I know exactly where my interests lie, and what the potential impact of my vote will be. If my vote lands me in a worse situation than where I am now, I will deserve it but at least it will have been my decision to make.[/QUOTE] I actually believe you. You have a house, you have a decent job, you have kids (i think??) you will probably do ok. However. The tories try to sell themselves as the party of the people, they try to appeal to the working class. They lie to get support. 2008 recession causes: lack of regulation (tories wanted less than new labour wanted) tories blame labour exclusively national debt tories blame labour despite the tories doubling it lack of jobs and stagnant wages (come together due to supply and demand) tories blame eu, labour and immigration. Reality is globalisation and automation (immigration a tiny bit but wages are stagnant even in fields without immigrants taking those jobs). EU is a bit of globalisation but alternative is far more globalisation, free trade with Brics and the US. Things will get worse if we go down this route and the scapegoating will just cause rising pressure and divided communities. May's (and tories in general see racist vans) repeated singling out of others to strengthen unity is creepy. Recently she accused the EU of being belligerents. Its in everyones interest to get a good deal, ideally with free trade, bank passports and paying less to eu. If we go in barking we'll leave with tail between legs and have to go begging to other countries for shitty trade deals. May +tories are obsessed with surveillance, arbitrary intrusion and regulation of internet. Maybe you don't care but I do and I think its a right for people to have privacy. If you've done nothing wrong then the gov should have no mandate to pry into your life. Privatisation vs nationalisation - I won't try to convince you here its sorta ideological. Just we privatised trains to get better service, now its bad service and more expensive with the profits going abroad rather than reinvested. immigration - again can't convince you but consider that tories have failed to keep none eu immigrants out for years now, no reason to think that will change. NHS - several people in tory have professed to wanting it privatised. Gove and Hunt co authored a book calling for it to be privatised. It is being steadily chipped away to private companies. It is being chronically underfunded by the tories (inflation and pop growth mean budget pc has gone down). Maybe you don't care about NHS but if you do then tories aren't in your interest. I do care about the NHS several family members have had cancer and my fam would be up shit creek if not for universal healthcare. The tories sell themselves are strong, authoritarian and caring. In reality they care not for the common man and are laughably incompetent. They are authoritarian though and in this troublesome state people seem to drift toward that. Common tactic of authoritarians to tell people its dangerous and scary and that they will be the ones to protect them. Like a shepherd looking after... people. blast i didn't even mention the austerity! maybe in next edition of mdeceiver rambles on tl;dr tories r bad for most ppl [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] oh ye and tories banned watersports in porn. how is that in anybodies interest? its some weird ass christian moral whatever-y and lol trying to ban encryption! they're clueless!

[QUOTE=The mouse;52272902]I'm not saying that Tabloids don't exaggerate the facts or approach them with bias. The Sun and the Mail might call him a "Traitor" because of his past, and whilst that is a dubious claim to stake, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately he probably did have sympathies with the IRA because of their anti-colonialist rhetoric. I don't think Corbyn is a traitor to the country, I do however think that his "anti-imperialist" and "Anti-Neocolonialist" beliefs hamper his ability to make objective or pragmatic decisions with regards to foreign policy. His opposition to NATO, The Falklands War and the First Gulf War, demonstrate that. Say what you will about Theresa May's foreign policy, but at least she will make foreign policy decisions objectively based on what will be right for the country, rather than what will make her least directly accountable for the deaths of people overseas. Don't you think the "False consciousness" idea is a little clichè? I know exactly where my interests lie, and what the potential impact of my vote will be. If my vote lands me in a worse situation than where I am now, I will deserve it but at least it will have been my decision to make.[/QUOTE] By the way, I will never claim Jeremy Corbyn is perfect. Some of his views are questionable, although it is very clear (it's been proven in studies) that some of those views have been exaggerated and focused on by the media. These opinions become a non-issue when you check the validity - many are outright false. Others, such as comments on the Falkland islands will not be an issue due to political pressure. Jeremy Corbyn has always been a politician but he has never had a politicians filter. He says what he believes. This comes to his detriment at times. I believe the few problems that come with Corbyn's personality are offset by his progressive policies that truly look out for the working class. I voted for the conservatives in 2015. I believes that they would be the best/safest option for me financially. I fell for the propaganda that Labour were not economically sound. They then proceeded to strip this country of everything that made it great, attempt to repeal the ban on Fox Hunting and increase university fees to £9,500. And to put the cherry on top, they took a gamble on Brexit to try and keep the party together and get extra votes. They never expected it to pass. They value party over country and for that they will never have my vote.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52272939]this is what im tlaking about! polite civilised discussion! I agree he has this whole anti colonialist thing. I think he over compensates a tad or perhaps its what tighty righties call "virtue signalling". I think he genuinely is a pacifist or at least tries to avoid unnecissary conflict, even if its means getting egg on his face and taking the unpopular stance. Is that not a sign of strength though? to stand by principles even if nobody agrees? What is right for the country is... a tad nebulous. What is right for the country? What's right for its people? Certainly not going off and dying in war. Certainly not over spending on military to threaten some sandy shithole 1000s of miles away. Alternative maybe it is invading a place and taking resources so your citizens thrive at others expense? Too grey a topic to give a black and white answer of "may will protect" "jc wont" [/QUOTE] Personally I think that to stand by your principles is a virtue, but unfortunately Politics is all about compromise and pragmatism. Now whilst I will admit that Corbyn has abandoned many of his principles since becoming leader of the Labour Party, such as abandoning his opposition to NATO, the EU and Trident renewal. There is still a question as to whether his core pacifistic beliefs remain and whether he would ever countenance any military action overseas. Yes, "What is right for the country" is entirely subjective, but my point was that I question his ability to reach a well reasoned, impartial view as to what British foreign policy should be. For example if a solution such as the First Gulf War were to arise again, where Britain is asked to join an international coalition in order to fight an aggressive foreign power. I don't have confidence that he would join it, despite such action being entirely justified. Corbyn may have been in the right to oppose the Iraq War. But when someone opposes every conflict, being right once does not mean that he would necessarily be right to oppose military conflict in the future. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52272939] I actually believe you. You have a house, you have a decent job, you have kids (i think??) you will probably do ok. However. The tories try to sell themselves as the party of the people, they try to appeal to the working class. They lie to get support. 2008 recession causes: lack of regulation (tories wanted less than new labour wanted) tories blame labour exclusively national debt tories blame labour despite the tories doubling it lack of jobs and stagnant wages (come together due to supply and demand) tories blame eu, labour and immigration. Reality is globalisation and automation (immigration a tiny bit but wages are stagnant even in fields without immigrants taking those jobs). EU is a bit of globalisation but alternative is far more globalisation, free trade with Brics and the US. Things will get worse if we go down this route and the scapegoating will just cause rising pressure and divided communities. May's (and tories in general see racist vans) repeated singling out of others to strengthen unity is creepy. Recently she accused the EU of being belligerents. Its in everyones interest to get a good deal, ideally with free trade, bank passports and paying less to eu. If we go in barking we'll leave with tail between legs and have to go begging to other countries for shitty trade deals. May +tories are obsessed with surveillance, arbitrary intrusion and regulation of internet. Maybe you don't care but I do and I think its a right for people to have privacy. If you've done nothing wrong then the gov should have no mandate to pry into your life. Privatisation vs nationalisation - I won't try to convince you here its sorta ideological. Just we privatised trains to get better service, now its bad service and more expensive with the profits going abroad rather than reinvested. immigration - again can't convince you but consider that tories have failed to keep none eu immigrants out for years now, no reason to think that will change. NHS - several people in tory have professed to wanting it privatised. Gove and Hunt co authored a book calling for it to be privatised. It is being steadily chipped away to private companies. It is being chronically underfunded by the tories (inflation and pop growth mean budget pc has gone down). Maybe you don't care about NHS but if you do then tories aren't in your interest. I do care about the NHS several family members have had cancer and my fam would be up shit creek if not for universal healthcare. The tories sell themselves are strong, authoritarian and caring. In reality they care not for the common man and are laughably incompetent. They are authoritarian though and in this troublesome state people seem to drift toward that. Common tactic of authoritarians to tell people its dangerous and scary and that they will be the ones to protect them. Like a shepherd looking after... people. blast i didn't even mention the austerity! maybe in next edition of mdeceiver rambles on tl;dr tories r bad for most ppl [/QUOTE] First of all, I'm actually a student. Second of all I'm not actually planning to vote Conservative (or Labour). Third of all I actually agree with most of that, I am by no means a fan of the Conservative Party, and I'm even less of a fan of Theresa May. However I believe that Labour would either make all of those problems either worse or not solve them at all. National Debt: Yes the Tories have doubled it, but it doesn't matter what the Tories really say or do because Labour will always increase it more than the Tories. With respect to Jobs and Wages: I actually think the more globalisation, the better. Freer Trade, means more products, lower prices and more jobs. I've always opposed the EU not because of the Globalisation element of it, or even the immigration element of it. But the governmental, supranational element of it. Whilst I think that Mass immigration has caused many problems in the past, the lack of jobs is not one of them. Surveillance: I completely agree with you, but Labour have supported all of the Tories' surveillance measures. Privatisation vs nationalisation: Again, I won't defend privatisation, or atleast the way in which it has been implemented. I think that the government should instead of owning the existing rail franchises however, should either build or incentivise the building of new rail lines to compete with the existing ones. The problem with rail privatisation is fundamentally that each private company has a monopoly on it's respective line and gets subsidised by the government in the process, therefore rail privatisation can only work as intended if there are more rail lines as then there will be genuine competition. NHS: I agree you with, on the caveat that both main parties have and will continue to mismanage the NHS and that simply putting more money into it is not a sustainable solution. Whilst I confess my ignorance as to how the internal structure of the NHS operates, or how it's funding is worked out. I believe that the NHS should instead of being centrally funded and run, should be run and funded entirely by local councils. Therefore if more money is needed for a local service/hospital etc... then the council can ask it's own people for it through higher taxes. If such a system were in place, ideally it would rid the NHS of it's bureaucracy, and funding issues. tl;dr I don't like the Tories but Labour have either no solutions or worse solutions.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52273118] For example if a solution such as the First Gulf War were to arise again, where Britain is asked to join an international coalition in order to fight an aggressive foreign power. I don't have confidence that he would join it, despite such action being entirely justified. Corbyn may have been in the right to oppose the Iraq War. But when someone opposes every conflict, being right once does not mean that he would necessarily be right to oppose military conflict in the future. [/quote] I suppose one the issues with war is the consequences are so hard to see. In Bin Laden's biography he states the first gulf war as being one of the biggest recruitment drive for him: "infidels in the holy land!!!". Peace isn't always the option but that doesn't mean a pacifist couldn't make good foreign policy [quote] First of all, I'm actually a student. Second of all I'm not actually planning to vote Conservative (or Labour). Third of all I actually agree with most of that, I am by no means a fan of the Conservative Party, and I'm even less of a fan of Theresa May. However I believe that Labour would either make all of those problems either worse or not solve them at all. [/quote] My bad I must have got you mixed up with some other guy. Who you vote for is up to you and it sounds like you're not falling for the "strong n stable" bs sold by may - which is cool. [quote] National Debt: Yes the Tories have doubled it, but it doesn't matter what the Tories really say or do because Labour will always increase it more than the Tories.[/quote] Not sure about this, while the economy is p complex the labour plans are fairly keynsian - government spending with the hope of the economy improving. [quote] With respect to Jobs and Wages: I actually think the more globalisation, the better. Freer Trade, means more products, lower prices and more jobs.[/quote] Globalisation has its upsides but if we were to trade with say america, we would have to adopt their standards (being a smaller, more desperate economy). So worse working conditions, less environmental protection, worse food regulations. If we didn't adopt those lower regs (race to bottom) our peeps would be outcompeted and we'd lose jobs. [quote] I've always opposed the EU not because of the Globalisation element of it, or even the immigration element of it. But the governmental, supranational element of it. Whilst I think that Mass immigration has caused many problems in the past, the lack of jobs is not one of them. [/quote] I think I'm sort of ambivilent to the gov thing, other countries like USA and Russia are federated states, we [i]could[/i] have been similar, but i guess thats a pipe dream now. It's sort of a necessary evil. free trade => common regulations => central gov. shared currency => common monitary policy => common fiscal policy => central gov [quote] Surveillance: I completely agree with you, but Labour have supported all of the Tories' surveillance measures. [/quote] I see you're not supporting tories so not much I can say bout this since I don't know other parties stances [quote] Privatisation vs nationalisation: Again, I won't defend privatisation, or atleast the way in which it has been implemented. I think that the government should instead of owning the existing rail franchises however, should either build or incentivise the building of new rail lines to compete with the existing ones. The problem with rail privatisation is fundamentally that each private company has a monopoly on it's respective line and gets subsidised by the government in the process, therefore rail privatisation can only work as intended if there are more rail lines as then there will be genuine competition.[/quote] Aye that is the problem with nationalisation, monopolies are bad and nationalisation is basically a government monopoly. I suppose if the gov is bad then the gov has to answer for it and might be voted out. One big pro of privatisation is it mitigates risk, the private investors make risks and if they fail its just an investor rather than the gov. There deffo needs to be competition but not sure how, maybe gov could continue to rent out railways or give permission to build more (not sure whod undertake that venture tho) [quote] NHS: I agree you with, on the caveat that both main parties have and will continue to mismanage the NHS and that simply putting more money into it is not a sustainable solution. Whilst I confess my ignorance as to how the internal structure of the NHS operates, or how it's funding is worked out. I believe that the NHS should instead of being centrally funded and run, should be run and funded entirely by local councils. Therefore if more money is needed for a local service/hospital etc... then the council can ask it's own people for it through higher taxes. If such a system were in place, ideally it would rid the NHS of it's bureaucracy, and funding issues.[/quote] Interesting idea, sobotnik suggested a similar thing a while back. Only issue I see is areas which are generally poor with high population (or lots of old people) would have lots of issues compared to richer areas. interesting to hear your views

on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52274293]on the the nationalisation subject let me just remind everyone that the NHS is nationalised and look what a clusterfuck that is and has been for both labour and the tories.[/QUOTE] The NHS is still one of the world's best and most efficient healthcare systems - if you want to look at a clusterfuck, take a look at the privatized market that is the US. So what exactly is the NHS supposed to illustrate? That government run institutions can provide equal quality at a much lower price?

Wales isn't alone. We're down to 8. [img]https://i.imgur.com/vsg7Bes.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Grizz;52274416]Wales isn't alone. We're down to 8. [img]https://i.imgur.com/vsg7Bes.png[/img][/QUOTE] This is actually great, at least it wont be the landslide majority they were hoping for if they do win

[QUOTE=Grizz;52274416]Wales isn't alone. We're down to 8. [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/vsg7Bes.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] The latest Yougov poll is even more frightening for the Tories [Media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/867848021182173185[/media] On these figures, they'd only have a majority of 28.

[QUOTE=Grizz;52274416]Wales isn't alone. We're down to 8. [img]https://i.imgur.com/vsg7Bes.png[/img][/QUOTE] How new is this because this was the same a few days ago

Nate ran this blog post back in april: [url]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-k-snap-election-is-riskier-than-it-seems/[/url] Labour getting closer to the Tories could have big implications because of that volatility, though if I were to make a guess, May will still be the prime minister half a year from now.