Voting quandry

DA made a mess of an interview where entrapment was the order of the day (although the figures were shown later to add up) while T May made a pigs ear of a dinner - her dinner so she should have been in control - where the very thing she has said we should trust her with was to the fore.

Which matters most I wonder?

She wasn't ill at all, later appeared on the Daily Politics and still trying to wriggle out of it and blame others.

Fitzy, I had the same thought unless it had not been fully discussed and she was trying to bluff it, there is a new promise released daily , unfortunate as shadow Home Secretary she messed up big time

That interview will likely 'go viral' Abbott had no clue as to the figures at all and was stalling for time and rustling papers while she frantically gave out ridiculous figures several times! the interviewer had more grasp of maths than she did.
The shadow home sec?

Revolting thought isn't it llovecheese , as she thinks he has formed a fantastic team around him I would guess she is away with the fairies

Anna I heard Dianne Abbot. I actually wondered if she was ill. But actually more importantly there was a subsequent conversation with a senior policemen discussing the correct figures. Labour have costed the proposal at £300m pa to be paid from reversing the CGT reduction. However, they have apparently neglected to include a number of consequential items - uniforms etc, and also training which alone would cost around £150m.

Anniebach Now I can't get the image of the Trump butt out of my head!

I am not so sure Corbyn will not be PM, he will be a disaster though . I was listening to am American being interviewed about trump, even if he fails with all his promises she will still want to kiss his butt! This caused me to think of the Corbynites, the excuses made for his mistakes .

For me I remain a member of the Labour Party but disassociate myself from the Corbynites here . I do not support the view that those who vote Tory are voting to have disabilities payments cut and all those nasty allegations made against those who do not vote for Corbyn.

There is the Labour Party and the Corbyn-Momentum party.

It's not just that they don't believe Corbyn could possibly be PM, but there doesn't seem to be any consistent costing for their proposed policies.

Dianne Abbott was all over the place when asked about Labour's funding to finance their pledge to put 10,000 more bobbies on the beat on LBC radio this morning.

So it seems to me we are condemned to another 5 years at least of right wing austerity, and a hard brexit.
A lot of people are saying they want Labour policies, including welfare and the NHS, but they won't vote Labour because Corbyn couldn't possibly be a PM.
That is a self fulfilling action. So it's "strong and stable" all the way down and god help Britain

The latest Briefing Report from the IFS about public finances:

*Two parliaments of pain: the UK public finances 2010 to 2017

Author: Carl Emmerson*

This briefing note provides background material for the 2017 General Election.

IFS Election 2017 analysis is being produced with funding from the Nuffield Foundation as part of its work to ensure public debate in the run-up to the general election is informed by independent and rigorous evidence. For more information, go to www.nuffieldfoundation.org.
Key findings

The financial crisis led to a sharp reduction in national income. Even more striking is the weakness of the subsequent recovery. Official forecasts suggest that GDP per adult in 2022 will be 18% lower than it would have been had it grown by 2% a year since 2008 – broadly the expected rate of growth at that time. This downgrade in expected income has adversely affected the finances of households and of the Government.
The deficit has fallen considerably since its peak in 2009–10. It is now back to the level it was at prior to the crisis, although this is still above the UK’s pre-crisis average. Current forecasts imply the deficit falling in line with what was implied by Labour’s 2015 election manifesto. Eliminating the deficit before a May 2022 general election would require a combination of further net tax rises and spending cuts worth £15 billion on top of what is already planned.
Both tax revenues and spending are slightly above their pre-crisis shares of national income. Revenues are forecast to continue growing to their highest level since 1986–87. Non-investment spending is forecast to continue being cut as a share of national income, while investment spending – which was cut during the first half of the 2010s – is forecast to increase.
The UK’s public finances compare unfavourably to other advanced economies, although this is true of other very large economies such as Japan, France and the United States. In 2016 the UK had the 5th largest deficit out of 35 advanced economies and the 6th largest debt out of 26 advanced economies.
The increase in revenues as a share of national income since 2009–10 has been driven by tax rises announced since May 2010. Fiscal events in the 2010 parliament contained measures that had the net effect of boosting revenues in 2017–18 by an estimated £10 billion. This figure arises from £60 billion of tax rises being offset by £50 billion of tax cuts. The net effect of measures announced since May 2015 has also been to increase tax. They are estimated to raise £15 billion (in today’s terms) in 2021–22. This figure arises from tax raising measures worth £35 billion being offset by tax cuts worth £20 billion.
On the spending side the striking fact is that after seven years of austerity public spending is only broadly back at pre crisis levels as a fraction of national income. Cuts to large parts of government spending have only resulted in the size of the state being broadly unchanged for three reasons. First, the financial crisis pushed spending as a share of national income up sharply, and this has been undone. Second, continued weak economic growth in recent years has meant that a given real-terms cut to spending has delivered a smaller reduction in spending as a share of national income relative to both history and expectation. Third, some elements of spending have risen as a fraction of national income, most notably spending on health, pensions and overseas aid, and so cuts have been required elsewhere.

election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/two-parliaments-of-pain-the-uk-public-finances-2010-to-2017

This is without taking into account effects of Brexit. The conclusion is that there need to be tax rises and/or further public spending cuts (including benefits).

Eloe they all had a vote but were a minority in most places and Protestant gerrymandering denied them any power in Derry where they were in the majority. Yes they had serious grievances, but comparable with the semi-slavery of, and daily brutality against, the huge majority of the population in SA? No.
Anyway, not a subject I really want to get emersed in so I'll sign off in this one now. You are welcome to the last word.

anniebach You said "NI citizens had a vote" and I was pointing out that many Catholics did not have a vote. There was terrible discrimination against Catholics. Unfortunately, people who are unfairly treated will tend to commit violent acts - that's not to commend it but to understand why it happens.

Eloe we all know this, but there is much, much more,. Why haven't you posted about the reason the army went in in the first place, and how they were welcomed by the Catholic population? Where are your posts about the IRA murders? Their punishment beatings and maimings of their own community? Do you have posts which implicate any murdered UK politicians in any illegal activities?
I am well aware of the rights and wrongs on both sides, and no way do the actions of the UK government over the recent troubles equate to those of the SA Government.

Eleothan, post whatever, You are comparing N.I. With Apartheid S.A. To try to prove Corbyn is a committed pacifist, even leaving Corbyn out of this no way could anyone in honesty claim what you are attempting to do, I realy have no wish to read your posts or hold any discussion with you. Join your mate on my ignore list , I am so shocked by your claims

I don't think it's quite a straight forward as that. Many Catholics were denied the vote and discrimination against them in jobs and housing was widespread:

BBC History
"In 1963, the prime minister of Northern Ireland, Viscount Brookeborough, stepped down after 20 years in office.

"His extraordinarily long tenure was a product of the Ulster Unionist domination of politics in the north since partition in 1921...

"By contrast, the Catholic minority had been politically marginalised. This was largely a product of Northern Ireland's two-thirds Protestant majority, but was exacerbated by the drawing of local government electoral boundaries to favour unionist candidates, even in predominantly Catholic areas like Derry.

"Additionally, the right to vote in local government elections was restricted to ratepayers - again favouring Protestants - with those holding or renting properties in more than one ward receiving more than one vote, up to a maximum of six.

"This bias was preserved by unequal allocation of council houses to Protestant families. Catholic areas also received less government investment than their Protestant neighbours.

"Police harassment, exclusion from public service appointments and other forms of discrimination were factors of daily life ......"

BBC News 2003
"Rogue elements within the police and army in Northern Ireland helped loyalist paramilitaries to murder Catholics in the late 1980s, the UK's most senior police officer has said.

"The Metropolitan Police Commissioner's report into collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries also found that military intelligence in Northern Ireland helped to prolong the Troubles.

"Sir John Stevens said informants and agents "were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes".

"The latest report, called Stevens Three, found that members of the RUC and Army colluded with the largest loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), to murder Catholics."

No Fitzy, I heard both sides of the story and realised they were both biased so ignored them.

No GG, I was one of the millions that saw the film! You must have missed it. I should say I quite like Corbyn, but not his economics. But he got caught out there with a serious porky!
Eloe, your question really deserves its own thread, but if you really feel that the murder of UK politicians in a government trying to keep the peace between two warring factions equates to the ANC struggle against the South African govt. then fine. But I have to say I don't agree.

Goodness Fitzy - Hold the Front Page - I didn't know you were there!

N.I. citizens had a vote , the black S.A. Did not , you think there is no difference between these? Any attempt to try to equal the Fight of the IRA and the ANC disgusts me

Why won't it wash?

Eloe, Corbyn was lying through his teeth in traingate! The train was "ram packed full" really meant "there are a lot of empty reserved seats but I'm too shy to sit on one." ? Really? Why not say that then? And trying to justify his support of the IRA by comparing it with the ANC just won't wash.

James I think it was the I'm all right Jack attitudes of the unions that built up over the decades to which you refer that led to Thatcher's success in the first place. No way do I want to go back to anything like that.
As to unity in Europe, the electorate told the govt. to negotiate our exit from the EU. I voted the other way, could hardly believe the result, but I have to accept that her hands are to some extent tied.
I can't say I'm that impressed with either side thus far in terms of attempting to reach a sensible settlement.

And which of your many, many points are you referring to Eleothan?

You prove my point anniebach.