British PM May calls for early election on June 8

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Nothing to do with any law. Corbyn was elected leader according to the rules and procedures of the Labour Party and can only be removed according to those rules. Only physical incapacity might intervene.

well its an idea........

[SheungWan]

37 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Sad but true. But he's like a broken record and all he can repeat as nauseum is his vision to rid the UK of the 'rigged system' which although highly noble and badly needed, it aint gonna happen under his stewardship and highly unlikely in his lifetime.

That is not what is believed by his supporters in the Labour Party and that support is not going to be removed this side of the forthcoming General Election. Even if he loses there is no guarantee that he will resign or that the support will be withdrawn in the event of defeat.

[Johnyo]

This at least gives us a chance to get rid of the rump and tail  of Thatcher's Nasty Party.  The creation of the European idea was first done by Britain's greatest Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill in 1947 in speech at Zurich University when he proposed a United States of Europe. May's actions have been nothing  but a betrayal of all that Sir Winston Churchill stood for. In the 1950's he built millions of decent council homes for the heroes of WW ll. Thatcher sold them off. What have UK servicemen now got a charity called "Help for Heroes". It was the Labour and Conservatives who mishandled the free movement of labour and they had the nerve to blame Europe for
interfering with us. France Germany and Italy all put a 6 or 7 year delay on the movement of east European nationals. The UK's politicians did not, this is why a Brexit referendum should never have happened. It only covered up their mistakes and errors. The continuous argument about unelected commissioners making all Europe's decisions is false. They are the civil service of the European Parliament. UK's civil service likewise does the same job in the UK and no-one ever criticizes them of interfering of making the Laws they work on. After all if you cross a may flower with a may fly. What do you get? Something twice as nasty. Anyone who thinks Theresa May is a strong leader is wrong. Originally she is alleged to have been a remainers, but chose to appease and support the Brexiteers of her party. Appeasement number 2, when the UK had the chair of Europe to take she appeased Europe by giving it up. Appeasement number 3, like Chamberlain running to shake hands with Hitler, she could not wait to run and hold hands with Trump. Of course Davis in her party campaigned that trade with be able all to carry on as normal. Now when questioned about what happens if there is no agreement on trade he says  "I haven't a clue". This is not the way to run a country. When there was $4 to £ in the late 1940's billions of dollars were borrowed to rebuild the UK. It was finally paid off in 2006. There should be no austerity and no huge debt. What are our politicians doing with our money? You can't blame Europe for it.

Best post of this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Nobody had an opinion if they consider the British voter is any less clueless than they were for the Brexit referendum but with mainstream media headlining with the following nonsense,  not only is it unlikely but it doesn't really further anyone's cause.

 

General election: Theresa May has handed us our final chance to stop Brexit

Why is it nonsense? What strategy would you suggest opposition parties take. Frankly as part of the 48 percent I feel rather disenfranchised!

[Grouse]

This sounds like a reasonable approach

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/our-election-prediction-labour-dire-heres-how-party-can-prove-us-wrong

 

Without serious opposition or without the Cons being kept on a leash by a coalition partner, I see nothing good coming out of this.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

If she's so sure, she's speaking for many people. Why does't she stand in the coming election? After all she's got plenty of friends,who like her have plenty of money.

One of the reasons why I think May calling a quick General Election was such a good move from her point of view.

 

Very little time for the opposition to come up with credible alternatives.  They were left wrong-footed and scrabbling to come up with alternative policies that will appeal to the electorate.

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

One of the reasons why I think May calling a quick General Election was such a good move from her point of view.

 

Very little time for the opposition to come up with credible alternatives.  They were left wrong-footed and scrabbling to come up with alternative policies that will appeal to the electorate.

I'm sure, Dick, that you see the risk of allowing the Con Party unfettered control. I really fear what they will do if armed with a huge majority. Corbyn and Abbott need to be put where they can do no further harm so that a credible opposition can be mounted. Currently, labour has two flat left feet and as such are going in circles. 

 

It would be great to see Vince Cable taking a leading role with the Lib Dems 

Edited April 21, 2017 by Grouse

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, Grouse said:

This sounds like a reasonable approach

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/our-election-prediction-labour-dire-heres-how-party-can-prove-us-wrong

 

Without serious opposition or without the Cons being kept on a leash by a coalition partner, I see nothing good coming out of this.

I'd be very suprised indeed if this election ends up about anything other than brexit - and voters will want to know exactly where the political parties stand on this issue.

 

A manifesto stating that they'll 'do the best possible deal' (without an option of 'no deal' if the deal is bad for the UK) - is unlikely to win the day IMO.

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I'm sure, Dick, that you see the risk of allowing the Con Party unfettered control. I really fear what they will do if armed with a huge majority. Corbyn and Abbott need to be put where they can do no further harm so that a credible opposition can be mounted. Currently, labour has two flat left feet and as such are going in circles. 

 

It would be great to see Vince Cable taking a leading role with the Lib Dems 

Re. the first sentence-  I share the same concerns, but think all the political parties will be very wary of the electorate for a while to come, following the shock brexit result.

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'd be very suprised indeed if this election ends up about anything other than brexit - and voters will want to know exactly where the political parties stand on this issue.

 

A manifesto stating that they'll 'do the best possible deal' (without an option of 'no deal' if the deal is bad for the UK) - is unlikely to win the day IMO.

This from Paddy Ashdown chimes with my views

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/predicted-general-election-8-june-liberal-democrats-tim-farron-opposition-theresa-may-conservatives-a7692691.html

 

[dick dasterdly]

29 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'd be very suprised indeed if this election ends up about anything other than brexit - and voters will want to know exactly where the political parties stand on this issue.

 

A manifesto stating that they'll 'do the best possible deal' (without an option of 'no deal' if the deal is bad for the UK) - is unlikely to win the day IMO.

 

21 minutes ago, Grouse said:

This from Paddy Ashdown chimes with my views

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/predicted-general-election-8-june-liberal-democrats-tim-farron-opposition-theresa-may-conservatives-a7692691.html

 

An opinion piece from a remainer politician who is still unable to get over the referendum result - as shown by this opinion article - edit recommending everyone to vote for his party.....  Certainly took me by suprise .

Edited April 21, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[citybiker]

This at least gives us a chance to get rid of the rump and tail  of Thatcher's Nasty Party.  The creation of the European idea was first done by Britain's greatest Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill in 1947 in speech at Zurich University when he proposed a United States of Europe. May's actions have been nothing  but a betrayal of all that Sir Winston Churchill stood for. In the 1950's he built millions of decent council homes for the heroes of WW ll. Thatcher sold them off. What have UK servicemen now got a charity called "Help for Heroes". It was the Labour and Conservatives who mishandled the free movement of labour and they had the nerve to blame Europe for

interfering with us. France Germany and Italy all put a 6 or 7 year delay on the movement of east European nationals. The UK's politicians did not, this is why a Brexit referendum should never have happened. It only covered up their mistakes and errors. The continuous argument about unelected commissioners making all Europe's decisions is false. They are the civil service of the European Parliament. UK's civil service likewise does the same job in the UK and no-one ever criticizes them of interfering of making the Laws they work on. After all if you cross a may flower with a may fly. What do you get? Something twice as nasty. Anyone who thinks Theresa May is a strong leader is wrong. Originally she is alleged to have been a remainers, but chose to appease and support the Brexiteers of her party. Appeasement number 2, when the UK had the chair of Europe to take she appeased Europe by giving it up. Appeasement number 3, like Chamberlain running to shake hands with Hitler, she could not wait to run and hold hands with Trump. Of course Davis in her party campaigned that trade with be able all to carry on as normal. Now when questioned about what happens if there is no agreement on trade he says  "I haven't a clue". This is not the way to run a country. When there was $4 to £ in the late 1940's billions of dollars were borrowed to rebuild the UK. It was finally paid off in 2006. There should be no austerity and no huge debt. What are our politicians doing with our money? You can't blame Europe for it.

 

I agree in 'parts' to your post however I disagree that the Brexit referendum shouldn't have happened.

 

Cameron only held the referendum as he was arrogantly confident he'd win, politicians need reminding they're voted in to serve the electorate. Labour, for example didn't think the electorate were worthy of an EU vote thus never offered it. TM has a tough job ahead of her however I don't see anyone else capable.

 

The current status quo wasn't working, the EU vote was long overdue, warranted & fully justified.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

59 minutes ago, citybiker said:

 

I agree in 'parts' to your post however I disagree that the Brexit referendum shouldn't have happened.

 

Cameron only held the referendum as he was arrogantly confident he'd win, politicians need reminding they're voted in to serve the electorate. Labour, for example didn't think the electorate were worthy of an EU vote thus never offered it. TM has a tough job ahead of her however I don't see anyone else capable.

 

The current status quo wasn't working, the EU vote was long overdue, warranted & fully justified.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And I agree in parts to your post

 

Yes the majority were dissatisfied with the status quo (inequality being the main underlying reason IMHO). But, there is/was a sizeable minority who were content with the status quo or at least felt that on balance, remain was the better choice.

 

I fear that if the Con government succeed in their covert plan to crash out, many Brexiteers are going to end up even worse off ?

 

At the the very least we need strong opposition and I would prefer a coalition.

[citybiker]

And I agree in parts to your post
 
Yes the majority were dissatisfied with the status quo (inequality being the main underlying reason IMHO). But, there is/was a sizeable minority who were content with the status quo or at least felt that on balance, remain was the better choice.
 
I fear that if the Con government succeed in their covert plan to crash out, many Brexiteers are going to end up even worse off [emoji52]
 
At the the very least we need strong opposition and I would prefer a coalition.

I honestly didn't think that leave would succeed, especially after Jo Cox's tragic & unnecessary death, however we now move on from the result.

Also, I don't believe the Con's are aiming to crash out, covert or otherwise viewed as, unfortunately with the EU determined to make the UK an example to deter other's attempting to follow & May has regularly emphasised that what's best best for the country that matters.

Lastly, all the hard Brexit talk is deemed primarily from the left, media and any anti-Brexit source, although I do agree a strong opposition is needed but an SNP/Labour/LD coalition may sound inviting (but already squashed) it would involve further unnecessary infighting and less focus on ensuring the Government were bought to account to the wider more serious issues that Brexit contains. It's far too early to conclude if anyone is going to worse off however I'm a natural pessimist but also a staunch realist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

Wise words from The Economist

 

I think both Brexiteers (the sensible ones) and remainers can agree to the sentiment expressed here

 

I hadn't considered this angle - an increased majority would enable May to stand up the more rabid extreme Con Party hard brexiteers

 

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721140-theresa-may-hopes-landslide-victory-why-election-offers-chance-better-brexit

[Grouse]

And on Corbyn

 

The Economist is on form!

 

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21721217-labours-supporters-worry-only-uncertain-question-election-scale-their

[citybiker]

I've never been an admirer of The Economist or Bloomberg but after reading those 2 reasonable but not entirely flawless free articles I may need a sit down.

 

Yes, holding firm against the more 'extreme' hard Conservatives is akin to like JC attempting to crack the whip with 'Momentum' and 'Labour uncut'.

[mention=231957]Grouse[/mention] thanks for sharing.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

In the 1950's he (Churchill) built millions of decent council homes for the heroes of WW ll. Thatcher sold them off.

 Sold them to the tenants living in them, remember.

 

It was also nothing new;

Quote

“Nineteenth-century housing legislation required that council-built dwellings in redevelopment areas should be sold within 10 years of completion,” point out the historians Colin Jones and Alan Murie in their little-known but revelatory 2006 book The Right to Buy. During the 1920s council homes were sold “on a small scale”. During the 50s sales accelerated: 5,825 in May 1956 alone. (source)

What Thatcher did was extend the scheme so that all councils had to implement it.

 

If the principle of right to buy is so wrong, why during 13 years of power did Labour not abolish it?

 

Because, they agreed with the principle then and many still do today; not Corbyn and his supporters, though

 

Frank Field wrote the following piece in the Guardian in 2012: Extending the right to buy is a win-win policy

Quote

I tried to persuade Harold Wilson's government to sell council houses, but Britain had to wait for Margaret Thatcher's right-to-buy policy to transform the lives of some of the least affluent in society

.

Right to buy still exists in all parts of the UK except Scotland, where the SNP abolished it in 2016. A move not met with universal support!

 

The Herald supported the move; but even they had to admit right to buy had been popular: Residents lose the Right to Buy as Thatcher's flagship policy is scrapped

Quote

In the interim period there has been reports of a rush as those keen to get on the property ladder, or acquire a lucrative asset, rushed to meet the deadline.

In the year since it was introduced in 1980, a total of 494,580 council and housing association homes were sold under Right to Buy in Scotland.

In the UK as a whole about 1.5 million homes have been sold in this manner in the intervening 35 years, an indication of its popularity north of the Border

 

It also laid Sturgeon open to accusations of hypocrisy: Sturgeon's right to buy betrayal: Her parents bought their council house for £8,000 in 1984... so why won't SNP leader allow Scots the same privilege today?
 

Edited April 21, 2017 by 7by7
Correct typo

[William C F Pierce]

3 hours ago, citybiker said:

Also, I don't believe the Con's are aiming to crash out, covert or otherwise viewed as, unfortunately with the EU determined to make the UK an example to deter other's attempting to follow & May has regularly emphasised that what's best best for the country that matters

If May was going to do what was in the best interest of the country she would have stuck to her belief and principles to remain. On the basis the referendum was only advisory. Not become a Tory tart with no principles, with only a lust for power.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Sold them to the tenants living in them, remember.

 

It was also nothing new;

What Thatcher did was extend the scheme so that all councils had to implement it.

 

If the principle of right to buy is so wrong, why during 13 years of power did Labour not abolish it?

 

Because, they agreed with the principle then and many still do today; not Corbyn and his supporters, though

 

Frank Field wrote the following piece in the Guardian in 2012: Extending the right to buy is a win-win policy

.

Right to buy still exists in all parts of the UK except Scotland, where the SNP abolished it in 2016. A move not met with universal support!

 

The Herald supported the move; but even they had to admit right to buy had been popular: Residents lose the Right to Buy as Thatcher's flagship policy is scrapped

 

It also laid Sturgeon open to accusations of hypocrisy: Sturgeon's right to buy betrayal: Her parents bought their council house for £8,000 in 1984... so why won't SNP leader allow Scots the same privilege today?
 

Selling off public housing stock (often better built than private housing) was a disastrous move opening the door to unscrupulous landlords. The whole UK housing system is a disaster. We have low quality houses at astronomical prices. Too many have become wealthy just due to property inflation - it's almost bankrupted the economy. See how much better the German rental market operates. Danish housing is MUCH more affordable and MUCH higher quality. See how much more civilised the Danish mortgage system is. No, selling off the public housing stock was a crime against humanity, as bad as floating mutual societies ?

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Selling off public housing stock (often better built than private housing) was a disastrous move opening the door to unscrupulous landlords. The whole UK housing system is a disaster. We have low quality houses at astronomical prices. Too many have become wealthy just due to property inflation - it's almost bankrupted the economy. See how much better the German rental market operates. Danish housing is MUCH more affordable and MUCH higher quality. See how much more civilised the Danish mortgage system is. No, selling off the public housing stock was a crime against humanity, as bad as floating mutual societies ?

 So why was the move to extend the right to buy from those who chose to offer to all councils supported by many Labour MPs at the time?

 

Why did Labour not abolish it while in government?

 

Why did many Labour MPs support the extension of right to buy to housing association tenants?

 

Why do many Labour MPs still support right to buy?

 

Why did more Scots, in proportion, exercise their right to buy than the rest of the UK; including Sturgeons parents?

 

 

[William C F Pierce]

Just now, Grouse said:

Selling off public housing stock (often better built than private housing) was a disastrous move opening the door to unscrupulous landlords. The whole UK housing system is a disaster. We have low quality houses at astronomical prices. Too many have become wealthy just due to property inflation - it's almost bankrupted the economy. See how much better the German rental market operates. Danish housing is MUCH more affordable and MUCH higher quality. See how much more civilised the Danish mortgage system is. No, selling off the public housing stock was a crime against humanity, as bad as floating mutual societies ?

I entirely agree with you. That is why many young people cannot rent or buy a home. 80% of new apartment blocks are being bought up by foreign investors keeping them empty to sell at a later date. Thus only 20% of new homes are going to those who need them. Although in that 20%  ownership there is probably some British property speculators, which makes the total new ownership even less. Politician will maintain power by the promotion of policies they do not always intend to keep.

[7by7]

As Frank Field says in his 2012 article

Quote

High house prices are part of the reason for the social housing shortage, but there is also the low turnover of social housing. Social housing is an important source of community stability as well as a safety net for those who face homelessness.

 

However, while some social tenants need state support for life, others see their fortunes improve but remain in social housing long after they need it. In Westminster alone, more than 2,000 social tenants earn £50,000 a year or more, with around 200 on six figure salaries. Some even have second homes abroad.

 Surely it is better to sell those people their homes and use the money raised to build affordable housing?

 

Or would you two prefer them to be evicted?

[7by7]

19 minutes ago, William C F Pierce said:

If May was going to do what was in the best interest of the country she would have stuck to her belief and principles to remain. On the basis the referendum was only advisory. Not become a Tory tart with no principles, with only a lust for power.

 

By going forward with Brexit, May is following the will of the people as expressed in the referendum.

 

She has now given the people an opportunity to back her or sack her.

 

It's called democracy.

[William C F Pierce]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 So why was the move to extend the right to buy from those who chose to offer to all councils supported by many Labour MPs at the time?

 

Why did Labour not abolish it while in government?

 

Why did many Labour MPs support the extension of right to buy to housing association tenants?

 

Why do many Labour MPs still support right to buy?

 

Why did more Scots, in proportion, exercise their right to buy than the rest of the UK; including Sturgeons parents?

 

 

These questions are irrelevant. Deal with today's problems such as the 80% of new homes going to foreign investors and left empty for no real good reason other than a future assumed profit.

[citybiker]

If May was going to do what was in the best interest of the country she would have stuck to her belief and principles to remain. On the basis the referendum was only advisory. Not become a Tory tart with no principles, with only a lust for power.

Oh dear tsk.

'Tory Tart'?

To that end, I'll refrain from any further response.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, William C F Pierce said:

These questions are irrelevant. Deal with today's problems such as the 80% of new homes going to foreign investors and left empty for no real good reason other than a future assumed profit.

 Privately built homes, not the social housing built in part with the money raised from right to buy.

 

You do have a point, though. What would you suggest, something similar to Thailand where only citizens can own property and non citizens can only rent or lease?

[William C F Pierce]

5 hours ago, citybiker said:

 

I agree in 'parts' to your post however I disagree that the Brexit referendum shouldn't have happened.

 

Cameron only held the referendum as he was arrogantly confident he'd win, politicians need reminding they're voted in to serve the electorate. Labour, for example didn't think the electorate were worthy of an EU vote thus never offered it. TM has a tough job ahead of her however I don't see anyone else capable.

 

The current status quo wasn't working, the EU vote was long overdue, warranted & fully justified.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Europe was not just a problem for the UK, but also seen as a problem by electors in Holland, Germany, France and Italy. The UK had it's turn to take the European Chair for 6 months. It was an opportunity May capitulated on and gave it up. A chance to look at and tackle the problems that are not working Europe wide. This is a challenge lost by May's appeasement. Like Chamberlain running to shake hands with Hitler. She could not wait to run and hold hands with Trump. She is not as strong a leader as some people make out.

[Grouse]

23 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 So why was the move to extend the right to buy from those who chose to offer to all councils supported by many Labour MPs at the time?

 

Why did Labour not abolish it while in government?

 

Why did many Labour MPs support the extension of right to buy to housing association tenants?

 

Why do many Labour MPs still support right to buy?

 

Why did more Scots, in proportion, exercise their right to buy than the rest of the UK; including Sturgeons parents?

 

 

I don't know, ask them!

 

I give my personal views.

 

I am rather skeptical about MPs generally; who knows how they planned to benefit. 

 

I am not a Labour supporter.

[Grouse]

24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

As Frank Field says in his 2012 article

 Surely it is better to sell those people their homes and use the money raised to build affordable housing?

 

Or would you two prefer them to be evicted?

The revenues from sales are NOT ring fenced for replacement public housing

 

Human nature mitigates against your opinion. The strongest urge known to humans is not the urge to bear down during childbirth; it's to upgrade! Move to the right side of the tracks! They don't put bay windows in council 'ouses!

 

I reckon the urge to move up to Georgian windows and net curtains is a key societal engine. Making modest housing unaffordable is a key element in Brexiteer dissatisfaction with life, the EU and everything ?