|
|
Post by busman on Jun 5, 2024 12:07:48 GMT
The ITV debate was so disappointing. Both leaders were reduced to 45 seconds per answer resulting in hollow soundbites and nothing of substance.
Sunak spent his time fear mongering (“forget the past 14 years of broken public services and endless tax increases, Labour wants to tax yer granny”). Starmer spent his time shaking his head and not really saying anything of substance. Overall I felt Sunak played the format better as it suits an aggressive style. Shouting pointy jibes and making fear inducing statements works well especially with very little time given to the opponent for scrutiny and counter attack. Starmer was left floundering on a few occasions.
Many people are fed up of the Tories and don’t believe an ounce of what Sunak says….but I’m not sure if Starmer really did enough to persuade those on the fence to vote Labour.
I’m interested in reading manifestos of each party before deciding who to vote for. I’m really conflicted at the moment. I’ve read the manifesto for the Reform Party and actually there is a lot that I like. I really don’t like the bit about opening up patient treatment to international companies…but there is a lot that I like. It’s between Labour and Reform for me. I await the Labour manifesto next week and will see what they plan to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 5, 2024 12:49:42 GMT
A surge of independents would create a non functioning government which would almost certainly crash this economy, make the country weak, ruin our currency value and leave us in a state worse than Liz Truss ever did. I'm not sure what people expect independents to do without any form of party backing. They form collations with other parties or independents. Seems to work well in Europe, but my not to the closed minded Brits. The most successful coalitions tend to be in countries where proportional representation is the voting system as parties are essentially forced to work together for the people and not necessarily for themselves. I have often suggested an overhaul of our two house system into a more German style of voting would be transformative for this nation, the London assembly also uses the MMPR model and it works there. Our upper house could then be reorganised based on the number of PR votes. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 6, 2024 7:07:50 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ddl304wzmo.ampSums it up perfectly the ills within Labour. Carol Vorderman is quite right about getting the Tories out. However, I hope there is a hung parliament with a huge surge of Independents. Then hopefully getting this country out of the dog's mouth. Onwards and Upwards A surge of independents would create a non functioning government which would almost certainly crash this economy, make the country weak, ruin our currency value and leave us in a state worse than Liz Truss ever did. I'm not sure what people expect independents to do without any form of party backing. The House of Lords functions much better than the Commons and they have loads of independents (known as crossbenchers). They tend to research and dedicate time to one area, eg Health, transport, education etc. Completely different to Commons where vote for what whips want without knowing anything about what consequences are. For Clarity the House of Lords is much better run, doesn't need reforming in way it works (but the system of peerages that keep some historic categories there, eg Bishops needs overhauling) |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 6, 2024 7:35:21 GMT
A surge of independents would create a non functioning government which would almost certainly crash this economy, make the country weak, ruin our currency value and leave us in a state worse than Liz Truss ever did. I'm not sure what people expect independents to do without any form of party backing. The House of Lords functions much better than the Commons and they have loads of independents (known as crossbenchers). They tend to research and dedicate time to one area, eg Health, transport, education etc. Completely different to Commons where vote for what whips want without knowing anything about what consequences are. For Clarity the House of Lords is much better run, doesn't need reforming in way it works (but the system of peerages that keep some historic categories there, eg Bishops needs overhauling) The House of Lords has whips who operate largely in the same function as their HoC counterparts. The main difference being the HoL whips have constitutional positions similar to ministers in the HoC. HoL whips will answer questions, lead debates and take leadership of a bill from the HoC to HoL. But they do lobby for what their party wants in the HoL and will bring others under their parties ideals. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 6, 2024 8:07:37 GMT
A surge of independents would create a non functioning government which would almost certainly crash this economy, make the country weak, ruin our currency value and leave us in a state worse than Liz Truss ever did. I'm not sure what people expect independents to do without any form of party backing. The House of Lords functions much better than the Commons and they have loads of independents (known as crossbenchers). They tend to research and dedicate time to one area, eg Health, transport, education etc. Completely different to Commons where vote for what whips want without knowing anything about what consequences are. For Clarity the House of Lords is much better run, doesn't need reforming in way it works (but the system of peerages that keep some historic categories there, eg Bishops needs overhauling) What's wrong with the Bishops? Surely they're arguably among the most important figures there to ensure that morality is followed with the laws, whether you're religious or not? The Lords does not govern so as a result does not need to be as functioning in the way the Commons needs to be. If a law effectively is moral it's unlikely to run into any issues at all in The Lords but the Commons often have political opinions mixed in which would make a swathe of independents just a group of opposition MPs that don't agree on anything. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 6, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
A surge of independents would create a non functioning government which would almost certainly crash this economy, make the country weak, ruin our currency value and leave us in a state worse than Liz Truss ever did. I'm not sure what people expect independents to do without any form of party backing. The House of Lords functions much better than the Commons and they have loads of independents (known as crossbenchers). They tend to research and dedicate time to one area, eg Health, transport, education etc. Completely different to Commons where vote for what whips want without knowing anything about what consequences are. For Clarity the House of Lords is much better run, doesn't need reforming in way it works (but the system of peerages that keep some historic categories there, eg Bishops needs overhauling) The Lords is a politicians be good to your friends. The Conservatives have added many Conservatives to the House of Lords, to get rid of the Labour majority from 2010. If Labour get in which they undoubtedly will, all those that have greased Labour's palms over the years will be appointed to the Lords to give Labour and overriding influence. I see the House of Lords as rewarding the cronies that have supported you, and will just continually get larger as each new government appoints their own obedient hounds in greater numbers than what is in the other pack. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 6, 2024 21:31:21 GMT
The ITV debate was so disappointing. Both leaders were reduced to 45 seconds per answer resulting in hollow soundbites and nothing of substance. Sunak spent his time fear mongering (“forget the past 14 years of broken public services and endless tax increases, Labour wants to tax yer granny”). Starmer spent his time shaking his head and not really saying anything of substance. Overall I felt Sunak played the format better as it suits an aggressive style. Shouting pointy jibes and making fear inducing statements works well especially with very little time given to the opponent for scrutiny and counter attack. Starmer was left floundering on a few occasions. Many people are fed up of the Tories and don’t believe an ounce of what Sunak says….but I’m not sure if Starmer really did enough to persuade those on the fence to vote Labour. I’m interested in reading manifestos of each party before deciding who to vote for. I’m really conflicted at the moment. I’ve read the manifesto for the Reform Party and actually there is a lot that I like. I really don’t like the bit about opening up patient treatment to international companies…but there is a lot that I like. It’s between Labour and Reform for me. I await the Labour manifesto next week and will see what they plan to do. Reform would put anything unrealistic in their manifesto as they know they would not come to power. It was like Labour a few years ago had all these weird and wonderful things they would do. Then over the past year when they realise they may now form the next government they have chopped and changed over so much things promised. I expect their manifesto also to be different. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jun 7, 2024 8:51:40 GMT
The ITV debate was so disappointing. Both leaders were reduced to 45 seconds per answer resulting in hollow soundbites and nothing of substance. Sunak spent his time fear mongering (“forget the past 14 years of broken public services and endless tax increases, Labour wants to tax yer granny”). Starmer spent his time shaking his head and not really saying anything of substance. Overall I felt Sunak played the format better as it suits an aggressive style. Shouting pointy jibes and making fear inducing statements works well especially with very little time given to the opponent for scrutiny and counter attack. Starmer was left floundering on a few occasions. Many people are fed up of the Tories and don’t believe an ounce of what Sunak says….but I’m not sure if Starmer really did enough to persuade those on the fence to vote Labour. I’m interested in reading manifestos of each party before deciding who to vote for. I’m really conflicted at the moment. I’ve read the manifesto for the Reform Party and actually there is a lot that I like. I really don’t like the bit about opening up patient treatment to international companies…but there is a lot that I like. It’s between Labour and Reform for me. I await the Labour manifesto next week and will see what they plan to do. Reform would put anything unrealistic in their manifesto as they know they would not come to power. It was like Labour a few years ago had all these weird and wonderful things they would do. Then over the past year when they realise they may now form the next government they have chopped and changed over so much things promised. I expect their manifesto also to be different. Yeah, I think you’re right. Some of the things in the Reform manifesto looks like crazy Trussonomics. For example their plan to stop the BoE paying interest on a loan….they don’t seem to consider the consequences of that and assume that it will go smoothly. Similar to how Farage batted away the Northern Ireland/Ireland border and trade deal issues ahead of the Brexit vote. They assume we can simply rip up existing international commitments and other countries will simply dance to our tune. Not sure if it is arrogance or ignorance but either way I’ll still wait for the Labour manifesto before I finally decide. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jun 8, 2024 5:13:14 GMT
Massive U-turn considering he only said as recently as Thursday on Question Time that he wouldn't be standing and that Richard Tice is a capable leader despite Farage being front and centre of everything Reform is doing. Hopefully, Clacton doesn't believe the nonsense from him and this party and votes for anyone else. I'd hate to be a voter in Clacton now. I'm all for tactical voting, but voting Conservative to keep Reform UK out is too big an ask for me. Some voters around Aberdeenshire and the Scottish Borders face a similar dilemma. They want the Tories out and do not want independence but the top 2 votes in some such seats are SNP and Tory. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jun 8, 2024 5:22:40 GMT
To be honest, I will not vote for Starmer. From what I have seen of his actions ( sacking a front bench MP for joining a picket line. Threating his front bench with the sack of they voted for a Ceasefire last year etc, actively blocking Dianne Abbott, suspending Jerremy Corbyn. Purging the left of the party). Labour and Conservative are now two cheeks of the same backside! I do find it odd when some folks label Jeremy Corbyn i.e communist, marxist etc. What did JC stand for: renationalisation of the railways, against the NHS being privatised. Helping the many not just the few. Well, if wanting a ceasefire in the Gaza, believing that all people deserve a voice. Being caring and compassionate is a "communist" or "marxist". I would wear that with pride! Greens and Workers Party for me So you would vote for the Green Party who initially wanted to pull the UK out of NATO and are not prepared to use our Nuclear deterrents, or for the Workers Party who have some dubious support for some terrorist organisations and also want to pull out of NATO? A ceasefire in Gaza is easy to say but not to do. It's easy to call for a ceasefire but then what happens? The First Past the Post nature of the General Election means that there's only two options for everyone in England and Wales, and three options for people in Scotland with the SNP. You have the choice between the incumbent in your seat and the opposition in your seat. This will probably in most cases be Tory vs Labour, but in many cases can also be Tory vs Lib Dem. A vote for any other party is effectively a vote for the current incumbent as you've not played an active role in a potential defeat. I have a right-leaning friend elsewhere who in her heart wants to vote Reform, but has committed to voting Tory, acknowledging that a Reform vote increases the ease for Labour to win the seat. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jun 8, 2024 7:46:33 GMT
The House of Lords functions much better than the Commons and they have loads of independents (known as crossbenchers). They tend to research and dedicate time to one area, eg Health, transport, education etc. Completely different to Commons where vote for what whips want without knowing anything about what consequences are. For Clarity the House of Lords is much better run, doesn't need reforming in way it works (but the system of peerages that keep some historic categories there, eg Bishops needs overhauling) The Lords is a politicians be good to your friends. The Conservatives have added many Conservatives to the House of Lords, to get rid of the Labour majority from 2010. If Labour get in which they undoubtedly will, all those that have greased Labour's palms over the years will be appointed to the Lords to give Labour and overriding influence. I see the House of Lords as rewarding the cronies that have supported you, and will just continually get larger as each new government appoints their own obedient hounds in greater numbers than what is in the other pack. I think it’s more about the size of the House of Lords rather than anything. For a country with 60m odd people do we need ~800 people in there (especially considering that the elected House of Commons has ~650)? When every wing of government and services are shrinking (and households are cutting back) makes little justification to have a burgeoning House of Lords which is ever increasing in size. We do need a House of Lords to avoid any single party shenanigans (either from tories or from Labour) but clearly size is key. Happy to be corrected but won’t a “slim” 250-300 member House of Lords serve the same function? Think about the saving in expenses, salaries, pension etc etc - all ostensibly can go into the nhs? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 8, 2024 7:56:52 GMT
The Lords is a politicians be good to your friends. The Conservatives have added many Conservatives to the House of Lords, to get rid of the Labour majority from 2010. If Labour get in which they undoubtedly will, all those that have greased Labour's palms over the years will be appointed to the Lords to give Labour and overriding influence. I see the House of Lords as rewarding the cronies that have supported you, and will just continually get larger as each new government appoints their own obedient hounds in greater numbers than what is in the other pack. I think it’s more about the size of the House of Lords rather than anything. For a country with 60m odd people do we need ~800 people in there (especially considering that the elected House of Commons has ~650)? When every wing of government and services are shrinking (and households are cutting back) makes little justification to have a burgeoning House of Lords which is ever increasing in size. We do need a House of Lords to avoid any single party shenanigans (either from tories or from Labour) but clearly size is key. Happy to be corrected but won’t a “slim” 250-300 member House of Lords serve the same function? Think about the saving in expenses, salaries, pension etc etc - all ostensibly can go into the nhs? That would fund the NHS for about 30 seconds. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jun 8, 2024 9:57:44 GMT
I think it’s more about the size of the House of Lords rather than anything. For a country with 60m odd people do we need ~800 people in there (especially considering that the elected House of Commons has ~650)? When every wing of government and services are shrinking (and households are cutting back) makes little justification to have a burgeoning House of Lords which is ever increasing in size. We do need a House of Lords to avoid any single party shenanigans (either from tories or from Labour) but clearly size is key. Happy to be corrected but won’t a “slim” 250-300 member House of Lords serve the same function? Think about the saving in expenses, salaries, pension etc etc - all ostensibly can go into the nhs? That would fund the NHS for about 30 seconds. That’s 30 seconds more than brexit though |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 8, 2024 10:08:50 GMT
That would fund the NHS for about 30 seconds. That’s 30 seconds more than brexit though Let’s be fair, 29.5 seconds 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jun 8, 2024 10:27:12 GMT
That’s 30 seconds more than brexit though Let’s be fair, 29.5 seconds 😂 lol fair enough! |
|
