Should I vote Labour Mark 11

Roses you are being paranoid. I had no one in particular in mind and I really think about you rarely unless you have just pronounced on something as you do.

Talking of daleks, an article in the G2 recently said that only 15% of people surveyed had heard the term 'Strong and Stable'

Because she's in charge now?

I like the phrase "channelled her inner dalek".

She wants to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands

'sigh' She wanted to do that when she was Home Secretary and failed dismally How does she think the government will do any better now?

"With every passing day it’s clear we are facing a huge choice on 8 June. Theresa May has channelled her inner Dalek for the past three weeks; “strong and stable”; “strengthen my hand”; “coalition of chaos”. She’s maxed-out on the idea that this election is all about competence, and has virtually nothing to say on how she’d actually run the country, or deal with the contradictions brought about by Brexit: access to the single market, the damage to the economy, the Irish border.

In these past few days, though, we’ve been starting to learn what she’d do. It’s a powerful reminder why a May election victory would be a disaster for Britain, even if she is obviously not as extreme as Marine Le Pen. She wants to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, even though this would mean cutting off the supply of labour that has helped Britain recover from years of austerity. Where would the nurses, care workers, builders and high-skilled employees come from – or the overseas students who bring in so much revenue?

Amid all the crises Britain will face over the next few years, May thinks it’s time to promise a vote on foxhunting. She wants more grammar schools even though it’s clear to anyone who considers the evidence that this does nothing for social mobility. The only liberal policy May has – on energy pricing – is one she nicked from Labour and was trashing only two years ago."

Sorry, liberals, but this does make sense.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/12/jeremy-corbyn-liberals-labour-8-june-theresa-may-austerity

Caroline, I agree with what you say. Have you seen the link to www.tactical2017.com
I know you don't need it, but you could pass it on if you know anyone in a similar situation who doesn't know the best opposition candidate.

How many times have you said that, roses?

Since your long,long rant is but a thinly disguised attack on me GG for no particular reason than a long held grudge ( yes, all the posters here except new ones will know that) I think the kindest thing that I can do is laugh at it and now simply ignore anything at all that you write as not worth my time reading.

Hello caroline welcome

Hi everyone! I am a newbie but as I did read Politics at Uni many moons ago I am always sceptical of the ways that our news media choose to present such important issues... I take a practical view. This election is fairly easy I think because, if May's calculations are correct (and they probably are!) the Conservatives will win the election comfortably.
The reality of our government is that PMs have to deal with 'Events dear boy events' and do so mainly with the guidance of senior civil servants who provide the information on which they base their decisions. That being so we need to judge the person - potential PM in that role. The Manifesto however gives an indication pf what policies/legislation the PM will put through during their tenure - though it is a wish list and most will not get done!
Re this election however I will be voting to limit the size of the majority as then Parliament is less effective (and Conservative back benchers are not exactly know for standing up to their PM/front bench!) So in my constituency I vote Lib Dem on the basis of the party most likely to be runner-up or a threat to the Conservative candidate...it used to be Lib Dem.
I see this as the 'democratic' approach to voting!

At the beginning of this thread Maizie commented that "There was also something about the validity of 'personal opinion'." and added a comment about opinion without fact.

I think it was me who brought this up on the other thread but I was too tired to continue yesterday. However, I do think it is important. This quote sums it up:

"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts."

Many on here get cross and feel others are being rude because their opinion is challenged. They are also very rude and personal to people who do offer links to facts and to other peoples writing. They do not challenge the facts they challenge the person.

We hear the "I have a right to my opinion" brigade all over the internet and elsewhere and, of course, in as much as no one can stop them holding any particular opinion, they do have that "right". However, in an argument/discussion just offering you opinion without backing it with fact is a logical fallacy; it is not the other side of the argument.

Those who do this imply an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the acquired the relevant information are just part of the world of 'entitlement' we now live in and that 'entitlement can mean that false views have to be considered equal to factual ones.

Yes, we must be kind to those who are unable to research and find the facts but I would suggest that there are those on here and elsewhere who are quite capable of doing the research but are so arrogant they don't see why their side of the argument isn't equal to the side who have given facts. Of course there are two sides to every argument but meeting fact with prejudice is treating others in as contemptuously disrespectful a way as anything they are on the receiving end of.

Sorry if this is off thread but I do think it has needed saying for a long time. The arrogant among us are not those offering to back their argument.

Forestry Commission and Woodland Trust are different.
The Forestry Commission includes all the trees that you regularly see logged when driving through forestry plantations.
That's okay for the environment, but not for the ancient trees, the Northern Forest, etc.
The Woodland Trust grows native species to last for longer than us and our grandchildren, unless killed off by disease, obviously.

Oh? Not 3.9% then Anya? That's interesting to know.

actually going back to the original post ,the leaked manifesto has a lot of things the SNP are already doing here and no one in their right mind would call them "far left" they are (slightly) left leaning and as far as I can see thats exactly what the Labour manifesto is too.Renationalising the railways ,instead of letting them be run at huge profits which are then taken abroad ,makes perfect sense surely.We've all seen the buy local ads and this is just taking it to a different level.My disappointment with Corbyn is his support of Trident..now with a price tag of 205 BILLION ,as someone said to me recently if the only reason we're keeping it is jobs then lets give each worker £1 million and we'll STILL save hundreds of millions AND give these workers money to spend in the local economy.Those who thing Corbyn is bordering on communist need to go do some reading/research ...he's hardly even a socialist these days .

Forestry Commission Statistics, main findings are:

The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2016 is 3.16 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 18% in Scotland and 8% in Northern Ireland.

17 Mar 2017

www.facebook.com/saveirenenel

Labour would have more compassion for this woman. If she is returned to South Africa, she will die, as there is no treatment for her there, and she has no family living there.
She was been checked out by a Home Office doctor yesterday to see if she is fit to fly.

Very nice too. Pleased for you Durham.

Like I said previously, woodland only covers 3.9% of the land anyway. There's easily enough land for woods and houses.

Why not tell me, as you think it's a good idea?
I am a member, and have 'bought' hundreds of trees as presents over time.
We have half an acre of woodland in my husband's name,in a wood where we went quite often when he was alive.

Wouldn't tell you Durham!

Don't think anyone was questioning that 1 million trees was "too many" Durham, just puzzled where they would fit in with the 5 million houses also promised!

So are you going to join the Woodland Trust and do your bit for the trees, Chewbacca?

So Sainsburys and Ikea have already planted 3.5 million trees already Jalima? That's impressive. And makes the 1 million promised by the Labour party look a bit feeble, in comparison. Thanks for the link.

I had already mentioned that, Jalima, because a million was thought too many by someone.

It's better than selling off the national forest, which is what the tories want to do.

This is why Maybot called the election.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05/09/brexit-is-starting-to-bite-that-s-why-they-want-you-to-shut

Planting one million native trees is a good idea but just a drop in the ocean compared to the 64 million over 10 years which is the aim of the Woodland Trust:

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blogs/woodland-trust/2016/09/our-goal/

Don't worry, Diane will be counting each one of the million as they are planted to make sure we get the right number.