Barton77

Bolivia?

You're cynical Isn't Corbyn the MP for the area where the attack happened?! It would be pretty poor form if he didn't show up on the scene quickly and express his sympathy and support for the victims.

We could employ upstanding members of the community (the types who vote conservative) to stand outside polling stations and give them the authority to turn away voters that appear too feckless to vote - hippies, the un employed, the un intelligent, students etc..

Actually, a simpler system would be that you have to buy your vote. The more money you pay the more your vote is worth. One vote is £100, two votes £200 etc.. That way the poor become irrelevant and if you are mega rich you get to decide the outcome of an election. Not too dissimilar to the existing system in that way - just means the very wealthy don't need to own a tabloid newspaper to influence a democratic vote..

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” What happened to democracy and the will of the British people?

Pm sent

So why is nobody talking about Brexit during this election? Not much in the media, hardly gets mentioned in the debates, not much mention of it by the leaders in any detail, not even much talk of it on arbtalk. I thought it was the reason this election was called. All this arguing over which party will manage the economy best - leaving the EU is probably the single thing that will have the greatest impact on our economy in the coming years. Also impact on our security, our position within global politics, how our economy works, taxation, how we trade. Why is this not being discussed more between the parties if we are meant to be deciding the government who will be negotiating.. Is it because labour and cons want to negotiate for pretty much the same deal? - Lib Dem only party that offers an alternative on Brexit. Or is it too unknown to be worth discussing? And why doesn't the money we will save from leaving EU feature in any of the costings - how is that 350million a week going to be spent?!!

Interesting article here by John Pilger: TERROR IN BRITAIN: WHAT DID THE PRIME MINISTER KNOW?

Comments like that only sheepen the level of conversation on this forum. Sorry, thats the best pun i could come up with thinking on the hoof..

That picture cant be real, the polling hasnt happened yet. They must have been queing to vote brexit

Alright ill have a go at answering your questions.. The deficit does matter. Both Labour and Tory have pledged to reduce the deficit in their manifestos. The Tories since 2010 have been pledging to reduce the deficit and create a budget surplus but haven’t. My understanding is that labour want to borrow to invest in structural improvement to the economy - thats different from borrowing to prop up day to day spending which would add to the deficit. I am not sure if he can balance the books TBH, plenty economists believe labour economic policies make sense tho. But then i don't believe the tories have the will to do it, the economy as it is seems to be doing the Conservative party quite nicely. Do you think their economic policies so far have worked for the country? We are currently one of the slowest growing developed economies.. We are the only major developed economy where earnings have fallen as the economy rises post financial crash. I see austerity as a means to fulfil the conservative ideology - taking wealth from the public sector and putting into the hands of private individuals. Privatisation, selling off publicly owned assets, reducing spending on public services, meanwhile cutting taxes for the richest.. I don't see that as a sustainable economic policy (especially in the context of Brexit). They have always governed for the wealthy elite. What amazes me is how they persuade the people who they are screwing over to vote for them!! I don’t think throwing money at problems will fix them but i think the cutbacks the tories have made are the cause of lots of the problems - cutting police numbers a recent example. I think investing to grow the economy and properly funding public services may solve quite a few problems. Also worth remembering the global financial crash of 2007/8 was the cause of the economic situation that followed.. not out of control labour spending!! I don't know how the Tories have got away with that lie for so long! How are they going to pay for it - taxation and borrowing is the obvious answer i suppose - how any government is meant to pay for things. Just need to look at each parties manifestos (although the Tories haven't done any costings).

So by this logic cheap immigrant labour is a good thing (assuming immigration does drive down wages at the lower end)?! Keeping that bottom rung lower keeps all wages lower, which is good for business, which in turn benefits all of us? Dont really understand how it benefits anybody if people are not paid enough to survive without relying on welfare. If a business cant afford to pay its staff enough to live on maybe they should think about if they have a viable business.. When wages are driven up by reducing immigration it is a good thing for ordinary working people.. when its done through regulation/minimum wage its a bad thing for business and therefore bad for all of us. A few months ago we were at war against an ‘elite’ who wanted us to stay in EU for their own financial gain.. now the same people are defending the elites right not to contribute through taxation. I’m considering voting labour - i’m not sure if that makes me a champaign socialist, member of the cosmopolitan, liberal elite or a lazy, work shy scrounger who expects others to pay my way.

Thought this was a good article from Patrick Cockburn.. Manchester attack: It is pious and inaccurate to say Salman Abedi's actions had 'nothing to do with Islam' | The Independent

I think the Muslim population in the UK is just under 5%. Of that number I don't know how many believe the UK should be under Sharia law, but probably not a majority! So yeah, never! I wonder how many years before we have a referendum in bringing back hanging? UKIP seem pretty up for that one!

That's a very cynical outlook! Believe it or not plenty of people feel genuine compassion towards families who are escaping the living hell that is civil war. Surely it obvious most people don't have the means to take refugees into their home, doesn't make them hypocrites. Showing support for something you don't have the means to affect directly isn't a hollow gesture - it forms part of public opinion. Public opinion is the reason Thereasa May turned away thousands of Syrian children. We have a history of taking in refugees. We took in around 10,000 Jewish children in the 1930s/40s. That's something to be proud of in my opinion