Not an election please

It's not a mystery roses. Some people believe they, and the others they believe matter, are better off because of the Conservatives and most of us see things in great part from our personal view of the world, other people, and how we fit in that.

How we view things is just how we view things. Sometimes we can be shown something that will change our minds but basically by the Granny/Grandpa stage of life we will not change our views very greatly unless great change is forced on us. It's fine though as all those who think they should campaign for other parties will do so, those who want to keep finding what each party is saying will do so and those who think only one party (or even one version of a party) can be right, will stick with that.

No one is asking you to do anything you don't want to but it would be nice if you could extend that to others

And supporting Corbyn is supporting children struggling in huge classes, the loss of the NHS and deaths of the homeless and disabled

I suppose the Conservatives being 'good with the economy' is something like the Emperor's new clothes, if some people are told something by a posh bloke they will believe it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
The problem is of course by the time those people realise what is going on a generation of children will have struggled in huge classes, the NHS will have gone and the homeless.and disabled will be dying.

Taxes will go up daphne, it's just that different parties will expect different groups to pay them I suppose.

That's a mystery then isn't it, as millions and millions will be voting for them.
So, that means that there are plenty of people who do think the Conservatives are good with the economy, and further to that simply do not trust Labour under Corbyn under any circumstances.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, sadly, daphne. How anyone can still think the Conservatives are "good with the economy" is beyond me.

If NICs increase, I hope that some of them are paid by the main group, which could actually afford them and whose wealth has actually increased since the financial crisis.

When people go on about Labour Party spending, I hope they realise that the Coalition and Conservative Party have increased the public dept by billions, with very little show for it.

The Tories have indicated that tax, vat and NIC will increase.

You have to love the BBC. On the news they have just told us that Conservatives and Labour have 'opposing' policies. Jeremy Corbyn has said the will stand by the triple lock and May has refused to say anything - how can that be opposing policies?

There was no time for de selection which must have annoyed momentum ,

12 labour MP's have stood down

well presumably they have to put forward a candidate if they want to win the election.

Maybe they're deciding based on quality not quantity?

Apparently the Tories haven't chosen any candidates for at least 20 seats yet.

Thank you dbB

It is always good to see references dbDB77 and, as I thought any would show, this does indeed say it is for infrastructure investment - more like borrowing to buy a house than borrowing to meet everyday needs. Let's just see what they are proposing and in what steps, in their manifesto. The Cons printed money to scatter willy nilly so it doesn't seem so awful to actually invest in infrastructure to me but let's see the calculations on each manifesto.

What £500 billion borrowing Annie. No one has shown any evidence of this yet so it is still, as far as I am concerned, a figment of anti-Corbyn, anti-Labour imagination.

the Lib Dem were formed because Shirley Williams and Co left the Labour party she was so against the far left.

Have you lost it today Annie? You always talk of your knowledge of Labour political history but even you must know that the Liberal Democrats were not formed by SW and co!!! They formed the Social Democrats - and a large part of the reason for the formation was the EU as the 1981 Wembley conference committed the party to leaving. They were far more honest than the Blair lot taking over the Labour Party and moving it away from the party members they thought they could always rely on whatever they came up with. They then merged with the Liberals who were formed in 1859 so they are successors to two great reformist traditions in British politics and perhaps we are seeing another one evolve.

GGMK2 - John McDonnell proposed the £500 billion at last autumn's Labour conference - and it has been widely discussed. Here's one article from the Independent:
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/how-on-earth-will-labour-raise-500bn-to-make-britain-more-socialist-a7337651.html

And here's an extract from it:
And the economics author Paul Mason, who is close to the Labour leadership although he does not officially speak for the party, said on Sky News yesterday: “We can borrow it. And if we can’t borrow it we’ll print it”. The claim prompted the former shadow Chancellor, Chris Leslie, who was sitting next to Mason in the Sky studio, to wince as if in pain.

Can't believe you weren't aware of this Labour proposal GGMK2 - I've heard Andrew Neil ask Labour politicians about it many times.

Couldn't be a Lab Lib , Libs remainers, Corbyn wanted out even though majority if labour MP's were remainers. Libs wouldn't support the 500 billion borrowing .

the Lib Dem were formed because Shirley Williams and Co left the Labour party she was so against the far left.

I can't make any difference and it depends on how many seats the LibDems pick up and how many Labout lose (I think both are inevitable). I wouldn't want the LDs to go into another formal coalition with anybody, but it's possible they will hold the balance of power, much as they do now in the Lords. They could then pick and choose which bits they wanted to oppose. No, I don't think they would spend an extra £500 billion, but they have, for example, campaigned for more resources for mental health for a long time. They would hold the government to account for any post-Brexit moves, such as scrapping workers' rights. Labour has now said it will rubber stamp the Brexit deal. I'm absolutely sure the LDs wouldn't.

Not saying I'm right, but that's what I'd like to see.

Is John McDonald happy to borrow another £500 billion dbDB77? Where is the evidence for this and what does he intend to do with it? Borrowing is not an unreasonable thing to do, after all the Conservatives have got better and better at it over recent years (if you really think the Cons do good things). It is more important to know what is actually being borrowed and why.

I am not averse to going to double lock - if they do more for the poorest pensioners - but they won't will they. They are generally women and more often very old so unlikely to complain.

Mrs Mays head on a plate?

Just asking the posters on this thread who are advocating tactical voting - if this tactic is successful what Government do you envisage? A Labour/Lib Dem coalition? How would that work? The Jeremy & Tim show? Is Tim happy to borrow another £500 billion as John McD is proposing? SNP couldn't be involved because Labour & Lib Dem are both against Scottish independence - or would another Scottish referendum be part of a post-election coalition deal with the SNP? What do the tactical voters want other than "keeping the Tories out"?

So May has committed to the overseas aid at 0.7%.

Triple lock is going, so pensions will presumably still rise with inflation (CPI?)