General Election 2017

[HanoiVillan]

31 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Priti Patel tries to dodge the question from the audience about allowing the costing of their manifesto to be scrutinised and then gets absolutely burned by Jonathan Bartley.

Did anybody challenge her on her promises to Indian restaurant owners during the Brexit campaign, when she repeatedly promised that voting to leave the EU - an action many restaurateurs then followed - would lead to the government relaxing immigration rules on curry chefs from the subcontinent? An old story, perhaps, but worth digging up today in light of the increased charges employers will face to bring non-EU workers to the UK that are promised in the Tory manifesto. 

I distinctly remember that phase of the Brexit campaign. I even remember one or two posters on here telling me that I should be encouraged by Brexit, and that it if anything it would help me bring my Canadian wife to the UK. Well we finally submitted documentation on March 24th, and I paid roughly £450 for a 'priority' service that would provide a decision within 13 working days. Of course, we still haven't heard anything. Apparently the relevant department is snowed under by applications for documentation by concerned EU citizens. My wife and I have spent nearly 60 weeks married now - we've been on the same continent for 11 of them. 

Sorry, boring rant, but the long and short of it is - **** Priti Patel. 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sorry, boring rant, but the long and short of it is - **** Priti Patel. 

I'm not sure your marriage would survive.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Did anybody challenge her on her promises to Indian restaurant owners during the Brexit campaign, when she repeatedly promised that voting to leave the EU - an action many restaurateurs then followed - would lead to the government relaxing immigration rules on curry chefs from the subcontinent? An old story, perhaps, but worth digging up today in light of the increased charges employers will face to bring non-EU workers to the UK that are promised in the Tory manifesto. 

I distinctly remember that phase of the Brexit campaign. I even remember one or two posters on here telling me that I should be encouraged by Brexit, and that it if anything it would help me bring my Canadian wife to the UK. Well we finally submitted documentation on March 24th, and I paid roughly £450 for a 'priority' service that would provide a decision within 13 working days. Of course, we still haven't heard anything. Apparently the relevant department is snowed under by applications for documentation by concerned EU citizens. My wife and I have spent nearly 60 weeks married now - we've been on the same continent for 11 of them. 

Sorry, boring rant, but the long and short of it is - **** Priti Patel. 

I remember this exact debate too. I remember how I found it to be bizarre considering it used to take just as long to get people into the UK from India etc before EU. I saw no reason why that would change when we leave. Priti has no idea what she's talking about.

[snowychap]

And now I've turned This Week on to find **** Delingpole on it! Aaaaaaargh. Off!.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I remember this exact debate too. I remember how I found it to be bizarre considering it used to take just as long to get people into the UK from India etc before EU. I saw no reason why that would change when we leave. Priti has no idea what she's talking about.

I don't get everything right, and I'm happy to admit when I don't (by and large) - Trump's election being a particularly obvious example of me getting something totally wrong. 

That being said, I absolutely called it on the inevitably sour and reactionary anti-immigration tone to the debate after the vote. I saw this one coming from a mile off. Not that I blame curry house owners for being duped by politicians. That's on them that done it. 

[PompeyVillan]

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Did anybody challenge her on her promises to Indian restaurant owners during the Brexit campaign, when she repeatedly promised that voting to leave the EU - an action many restaurateurs then followed - would lead to the government relaxing immigration rules on curry chefs from the subcontinent? An old story, perhaps, but worth digging up today in light of the increased charges employers will face to bring non-EU workers to the UK that are promised in the Tory manifesto. 

I distinctly remember that phase of the Brexit campaign. I even remember one or two posters on here telling me that I should be encouraged by Brexit, and that it if anything it would help me bring my Canadian wife to the UK. Well we finally submitted documentation on March 24th, and I paid roughly £450 for a 'priority' service that would provide a decision within 13 working days. Of course, we still haven't heard anything. Apparently the relevant department is snowed under by applications for documentation by concerned EU citizens. My wife and I have spent nearly 60 weeks married now - we've been on the same continent for 11 of them. 

Sorry, boring rant, but the long and short of it is - **** Priti Patel. 

And another good example why the UK's obsession with immigration is a national disgrace.

[magnkarl]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't get everything right, and I'm happy to admit when I don't (by and large) - Trump's election being a particularly obvious example of me getting something totally wrong. 

That being said, I absolutely called it on the inevitably sour and reactionary anti-immigration tone to the debate after the vote. I saw this one coming from a mile off. Not that I blame curry house owners for being duped by politicians. That's on them that done it. 

Yeah, sorry to hear your story. The only thing I can say is that when I helped a Jamaican friend get his wife over here in the 70's it wasn't any easier. I know that's not much comfort but it at least shows you that it hasn't gotten any worse. It took something like half a year before his wife was allowed in after a whole bunch of money was paid to H.M. state.

[Demitri_C]

7 hours ago, darrenm said:

 

Can't agree sorry. Everyone knows he would destroy her but without her there he's got nothing to gain. The other parties are already insignificant so he can't gain against them and he can't get May to answer anything when not there. I'd love to see her being ridiculed by being empty chaired but it wouldn't help Corbyn.

That's fair enough but I completely disagree darren. Labour I feel have had a good week (when was the last time you can say that under Corbyn) imagine if he smashed it on that as well? That could have only been good for him. Big time cock up by Corbyn there in my opinion. 

Really if I was ItV I would have just put a empty chair with a cardboard cut out if may there. Mays a complete coward as well. At least Cameron had the guts to do one.

[darrenm]

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

That's fair enough but I completely disagree darren. Labour I feel have had a good week (when was the last time you can say that under Corbyn) imagine if he smashed it on that as well? That could have only been good for him. Big time cock up by Corbyn there in my opinion. 

Really if I was ItV I would have just put a empty chair with a cardboard cut out if may there. Mays a complete coward as well. At least Cameron had the guts to do one.

I doubt they would have done anything like that. ITV couldn't be seen to be ridiculing her.

There will at least be a semi leaders debate next week and the week after with audience members asking TM and JC questions. Just how much the questions and audience get vetted remains to be seen but Tories got ripped apart on QT last night.

Also, I think JC being able to constantly say she won't debate with me effectively nullifies her strong and stable pitch. It was obviously an early election strategy to show her as the strong choice in these uncertain times. It's backfired a bit with her election campaign coordinators being too worried to let her go against JC.

[mockingbird_franklin]

so having had time to digest 'her' manifesto, is it 

1) Mays manifesto of misery

or

2) The nasty partys' program of persecution

[TrentVilla]

 

I'm not so sure it's that they are too worried to do so but rather they don't really need to do so. In their position they don't really need a face off with Corbyn, they only have something to lose from doing so. 

Purely from a strategical point of view I think the Tories have made the right call. Even if I think it does make her look a little weak as you say. I'm sure though they would argue that not entering into TV slogan off's is part of being strong and stable...

As for Corbyn and Labour, I think he should have appeared. It would have given him a platform to attack the Tory manifesto and get some real, unedited air time to do it. There are constant complaints about his coverage or lack of and yet he turns down an opportunity like this.

I think he had far more to gain from appearing, not only in trying to take votes away from the Tories and the other parties but in trying to get the Labour vote out. I rather suspect there are a lot of Labour voters currently not intending to vote for Corbyn.

Opportunity missed in my opinion.

[markavfc40]

Corbyn would have been on a hiding to nothing had he have done last night’s debate without May. He’d have been the target for all the other parties and would have spent all his air time fending off their attacks rather than having the opportunity to attack the absent May.

As it was from the bits I saw most of the attacks were aimed at the Tories who knew/know they will struggle to defend their record in Government and in an open debate can't just focus on strong and stable Brexit, Brexit, Brexit bollocks.

[TrentVilla]

I don't agree, I think the Tories would still have been the main target had he been there.

[mockingbird_franklin]

54 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

That's fair enough but I completely disagree darren. Labour I feel have had a good week (when was the last time you can say that under Corbyn) imagine if he smashed it on that as well? That could have only been good for him. Big time cock up by Corbyn there in my opinion. 

Really if I was ItV I would have just put a empty chair with a cardboard cut out if may there. Mays a complete coward as well. At least Cameron had the guts to do one.

but Cameron was slick, Articulate and able to think on his feet and react and turn questions and debates in the direction he wanted with more subtlety than May could ever dream of , which meant he could convey some sense of being genuine, May is clunky, awkward and unbelievably false in her demeanor, oh and he had better scripted jokes and put downs, not great but way better than anything May gets given. May would struggle in an honest debate with Ed, who is also quite awkward and clunky let alone someone as comfortable in their own skin as Corbyn.

Cameron also had some stuff he could defend in his manefesto, Mays is a complete shitstorm

Edited May 19, 2017 by mockingbird_franklin

[Demitri_C]

8 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

but Cameron was slick, Articulate and able to think on his feet and react and turn questions and debates in the direction he wanted with more subtlety than May could ever dream of , which meant he could convey some sense of being genuine, May is clunky, awkward and unbelievably false in her demeanor, oh and he had better scripted jokes and put downs, not great but way better than anything May gets given. May would struggle in an honest debate with Ed, who is also quite awkward and clunky let alone someone as comfortable in their own skin as Corbyn.

Yeah very good points 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Demitri_C

[PauloBarnesi]

I suspect that Corbyn feared being piggy in the middle between May and Sturgeon. Unless Labour win big in Scotland its hard to see how they can win, and as far as I can see they haven’t got much traction there, and if anything the Tories, Lib/Dems are doing better north of the border. I suspect that the amount of uncomfortable skeletons in Corbyn’s cupboard mean he’s also fearful of being ambushed

[PauloBarnesi]

16 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

As for Corbyn and Labour, I think he should have appeared. It would have given him a platform to attack the Tory manifesto and get some real, unedited air time to do it. There are constant complaints about his coverage or lack of and yet he turns down an opportunity like this.

From what was being reported earlier this year*, Jeremy likes to make sure he has time in the week to relax (make jam, spend some time in the shed, facebook with DA, look at coal plates, drain covers, etc). So probably he’s been on TV on Saturday/Sunday, so took Thursday evening off

* In Private Eye, so it must be correct....

[mockingbird_franklin]

20 minutes ago, PauloBarnesi said:

From what was being reported earlier this year*, Jeremy likes to make sure he has time in the week to relax (make jam, spend some time in the shed, facebook with DA, look at coal plates, drain covers, etc). So probably he’s been on TV on Saturday/Sunday, so took Thursday evening off

* In Private Eye, so it must be correct....

whats wrong with that, who doesn't like looking at a few drain covers now and again

[MakemineVanilla]

It will be interesting to see how May's plan to end winter fuel payments for all but the totally brassic and end the triple lock on pensions, affects the vote.

Tories like David Willetts has been gagging to get at this low hanging fruit for a while, and he even wrote a book about it.

Cameron knew it was a vote-loser, which it is.

With the Tories so far ahead I have been waiting for their hubris to kick in but I didn't expect it this early.

Baby-boomers are about to be buggered, by the look of it.

[mjmooney]

8 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I helped a Jamaican friend get his wife over here in the 70's 

Crikey, you must be as old as me.