Snap General Election?

[hyphen]

Labour MP owned by Susanna Reid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/enthusi...

[mx-6]

Likes Fast Cars said:

mx-6: Bloody Labour are trying to have a bet all ways as they have zero policies or credibility...

I agree that they are lacking firm positions at the moment, at some point they are going to have to nail their colours to the mast and publish a manifesto, I'm waiting with baited breath...

[loafer123]

robemcdonald said:

loafer123 said:

robemcdonald said:

loafer123 said:

It means that Labour should be worrying about the rights of the British people in the EU before they worry about the rights of the citizens of EU countries who live in the UK.

And how will they do that?

By stating, as they have this morning, that their policy is to grant EU citizens right to remain in the UK whether or not the EU reciprocate.

But that is in the best interest of this country.

Without EU migrants a lot of services would just fail.

The Conservatives have even conceded that EU migration would need to carry on after Brexit.

No, what is in the interests of the nation is a reciprocal arrangement, not a unilateral one.

[Likes Fast Cars]

p1stonhead said:

funkyrobot said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

funkyrobot said:

It's so frustrating that nobody, simply nobody at the moment is good enough to provide decent opposition to the Conservatives.

not for me it's not

It's probably ok for now, but they might do something you disagree with. When they do, who will challenge them?

I can not think of a single situation where it a good idea to be wholly unchallenged.

I can.... queuing at the bar on a hot day trying to buy a cold beer, don't let anyone challenge me when it's my turn, that would be a bad move

[Likes Fast Cars]

hyphen said:

Labour MP owned by Susanna Reid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/enthusi...

Another thick Labour MP - and he's a shadow secretary! God help us if they should EVER win power again with twits like him on their benches.

[London424]

Likes Fast Cars said:

hyphen said:

Labour MP owned by Susanna Reid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/enthusi...

Another thick Labour MP - and he's a shadow secretary! God help us if they should EVER win power again with twits like him on their benches.

Speaking of thick MPs.

https://order-order.com/2017/04/25/soubry-and-morg...

Which has now led to

https://order-order.com/2017/04/25/open-britain-fa...

[p1stonhead]

Likes Fast Cars said:

p1stonhead said:

funkyrobot said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

funkyrobot said:

It's so frustrating that nobody, simply nobody at the moment is good enough to provide decent opposition to the Conservatives.

not for me it's not

It's probably ok for now, but they might do something you disagree with. When they do, who will challenge them?

I can not think of a single situation where it a good idea to be wholly unchallenged.

I can.... queuing at the bar on a hot day trying to buy a cold beer, don't let anyone challenge me when it's my turn, that would be a bad move

Unless the barman decides drinks are banned so you cant get one and he has no colleagues/bosses to challenge his decision.

Getting a bit obscure here

[Likes Fast Cars]

p1stonhead said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

p1stonhead said:

funkyrobot said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

funkyrobot said:

It's so frustrating that nobody, simply nobody at the moment is good enough to provide decent opposition to the Conservatives.

not for me it's not

It's probably ok for now, but they might do something you disagree with. When they do, who will challenge them?

I can not think of a single situation where it a good idea to be wholly unchallenged.

I can.... queuing at the bar on a hot day trying to buy a cold beer, don't let anyone challenge me when it's my turn, that would be a bad move

Unless the barman decides drinks are banned so you cant get one and he has no colleagues/bosses to challenge his decision.

Getting a bit obscure here

Oh yes we should get back over to some of those other threads now shouldn't we?

Back on topic then. Yes a strong and organised opposition is needed but when you look at the ineptitude of the Lib Dums, Labour and SNP one could argue having almost no opposition is a positive as it allows the government to get on with running things.

[turbobloke]

Likes Fast Cars said:

p1stonhead said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

p1stonhead said:

funkyrobot said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

funkyrobot said:

It's so frustrating that nobody, simply nobody at the moment is good enough to provide decent opposition to the Conservatives.

not for me it's not

It's probably ok for now, but they might do something you disagree with. When they do, who will challenge them?

I can not think of a single situation where it a good idea to be wholly unchallenged.

I can.... queuing at the bar on a hot day trying to buy a cold beer, don't let anyone challenge me when it's my turn, that would be a bad move

Unless the barman decides drinks are banned so you cant get one and he has no colleagues/bosses to challenge his decision.

Getting a bit obscure here

Oh yes we should get back over to some of those other threads now shouldn't we?

Back on topic then. Yes a strong and organised opposition is needed but when you look at the ineptitude of the Lib Dums, Labour and SNP one could argue having almost no opposition is a positive as it allows the government to get on with running things.

It sure does. If the MSM was unbiased, well-informed and did its job properly it wouldn't be so bad regardless of the Party in power. After all if a government has a large majority what exactly is HM Opposition going to do apart from expel hot air...when Blair won in 97 it would have made no difference to their penchant for spin and failure if the Conservatives had been led by a cross between Mother Theresa, Stephen Hawking and Chuck Norris. They would have screwed the country sooner or later no matter what Mother Stephen Norris said or did.

[Gargamel]

Yep - the idea of strong opposition if the ruling party has a 100+ seat majority is frankly a little ludicrous.

Anyway, it is all well and good having opposing "ideas" but what Labour are criminally short of is opposing POLICY. Evidence based, costed and an expression of the vision of Britain under Labour.

Essentially I think the outcome of JC having to fight leadership elections, the press, his own party and well pretty much everybody. It means they have not got the policy detail.

[confused_buyer]

Strong opposition has nothing to do with how many MPs you have but the quality of those MPs.

If you select average people as your candidates you get a load of very average lightweight MPs who are ineffectual.

It is policy, ideas, presentation and good old intellectual clout which matter. 250 very average people sitting there are certainly no more effective than 20 intellectual power houses.

[Robertj21a]

Gargamel said:

Yep - the idea of strong opposition if the ruling party has a 100+ seat majority is frankly a little ludicrous.

Anyway, it is all well and good having opposing "ideas" but what Labour are criminally short of is opposing POLICY. Evidence based, costed and an expression of the vision of Britain under Labour.

Essentially I think the outcome of JC having to fight leadership elections, the press, his own party and well pretty much everybody. It means they have not got the policy detail.

Unfortunately, they're not just short of POLICY, they're short of quality people who can explain policies, can understand the people - and can earn respect. It's now a lost Party, heading for the history books.

[Yipper]

Mother Theresa is looking like the best PM since Thatcher.

The Tories are on track at the election to:

1. Win overall dozens of extra seats;
2. Crush Labour into oblivion;
3. Crush UKIP;
4. Win several seats from the SNP in Scotland;
5. Win massively any second ScotIndy referendum (60% set to vote no);
6. Thrash Labour in Wales (worst result in a century);
7. Keep the nationalists from majority power in Northern Ireland;
8. Stop any NI independence vote;
9. Strike quick trade deals outside the EU (Australia, etc.);
10. Have a very strong UK negotiating position for soft Brexit (talk of hard Brexit is just bitter Remoaners).

And the icing on the cake -- looking increasingly likely -- Sturgeon will be forced to resign at some point, after likely losing general election seats plus a second referendum.

[robemcdonald]

loafer123 said:

robemcdonald said:

loafer123 said:

robemcdonald said:

loafer123 said:

It means that Labour should be worrying about the rights of the British people in the EU before they worry about the rights of the citizens of EU countries who live in the UK.

And how will they do that?

By stating, as they have this morning, that their policy is to grant EU citizens right to remain in the UK whether or not the EU reciprocate.

But that is in the best interest of this country.

Without EU migrants a lot of services would just fail.

The Conservatives have even conceded that EU migration would need to carry on after Brexit.

No, what is in the interests of the nation is a reciprocal arrangement, not a unilateral one.

If we need EU migrants, but the EU doesn't need UK migrants, why would a reciprocal agreement be in our best interest?
What if the EU throws out ex pats? Do we respond in kind and hamstring ourselves?
The phrase cutting your nose off to spite your face springs to mind.

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

If we need EU migrants, but the EU doesn't need UK migrants, why would a reciprocal agreement be in our best interest?
What if the EU throws out ex pats? Do we respond in kind and hamstring ourselves?
The phrase cutting your nose off to spite your face springs to mind.

Why do we need to guarantee anything? Why do we need EU migrants rather than other migrants?
Why can't we just decide who we want to accept and who we don't?

[WestyCarl]

Robertj21a said:

Gargamel said:

Yep - the idea of strong opposition if the ruling party has a 100+ seat majority is frankly a little ludicrous.

Anyway, it is all well and good having opposing "ideas" but what Labour are criminally short of is opposing POLICY. Evidence based, costed and an expression of the vision of Britain under Labour.

Essentially I think the outcome of JC having to fight leadership elections, the press, his own party and well pretty much everybody. It means they have not got the policy detail.

Unfortunately, they're not just short of POLICY, they're short of quality people who can explain policies, can understand the people - and can earn respect. It's now a lost Party, heading for the history books.

I reckon the "quality" rising stars are keeping their heads down until Corbin get's dragged out of his office. If it was me I'd certainly would be keeping well away from JC and his top team for fear of association.

[hyphen]

robemcdonald said:

If we need EU migrants, but the EU doesn't need UK migrants, why would a reciprocal agreement be in our best interest?
What if the EU throws out ex pats? Do we respond in kind and hamstring ourselves?
The phrase cutting your nose off to spite your face springs to mind.

If the UK opened its door today, Heathrow, Gatwick and all the other airports and ports would be full of migrants from all corners of the globe wanting to enter. EU migrants can easily be replaced, there is no shortage of supply of non-eu labour beyond what we place on it.

I frankly doubt the EU or the UK would not come to a deal, it is just negotiation dancing. There numbers are on the UKs side as there as considerably more EU migrants in the UK then expats abroad. The EU countries unemployment rates doesn't need the additional challenge of accommodating a few more returning millions.

It will never happen. The current EU residents will stay here, and many who are productive will successfully apply and get UK residency.

Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 25th April 12:01

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

But that is in the best interest of this country.

Without EU migrants a lot of services would just fail.

The Conservatives have even conceded that EU migration would need to carry on after Brexit.

No, what is in the best interests of this country is to make it easy for those that are required. No blanket guarantees to everyone.

No one has suggested there won't be migration post Brexit.

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th April 12:11

[Jockman]

Yipper said:

Mother Theresa is looking like the best PM since Thatcher.

The Tories are on track at the election to:

1. Win overall dozens of extra seats;
2. Crush Labour into oblivion;
3. Crush UKIP;
4. Win several seats from the SNP in Scotland;
5. Win massively any second ScotIndy referendum (60% set to vote no);
6. Thrash Labour in Wales (worst result in a century);
7. Keep the nationalists from majority power in Northern Ireland;
8. Stop any NI independence vote;
9. Strike quick trade deals outside the EU (Australia, etc.);
10. Have a very strong UK negotiating position for soft Brexit (talk of hard Brexit is just bitter Remoaners).

And the icing on the cake -- looking increasingly likely -- Sturgeon will be forced to resign at some point, after likely losing general election seats plus a second referendum.

[Burwood]

Jockman said:

Yipper said:

Mother Theresa is looking like the best PM since Thatcher.

The Tories are on track at the election to:

1. Win overall dozens of extra seats;
2. Crush Labour into oblivion;
3. Crush UKIP;
4. Win several seats from the SNP in Scotland;
5. Win massively any second ScotIndy referendum (60% set to vote no);
6. Thrash Labour in Wales (worst result in a century);
7. Keep the nationalists from majority power in Northern Ireland;
8. Stop any NI independence vote;
9. Strike quick trade deals outside the EU (Australia, etc.);
10. Have a very strong UK negotiating position for soft Brexit (talk of hard Brexit is just bitter Remoaners).

And the icing on the cake -- looking increasingly likely -- Sturgeon will be forced to resign at some point, after likely losing general election seats plus a second referendum.

I really do think she is excellent and her popularity is proof of that.