Election day is imminent

[LordKenwyne]

It's a risk but it's a risk we have to take to stop people dying.

I guess you mean saving the NHS?. Which is fair enough. I trust Labour more on that. This labour government, not past.

But................

The level of debt corbyn is going to rack up could it be said to be simply kicking the can down the road?.

The NHS was terrible in my area in the past. It is terrible now. I hold absolutely no hope it will change.

People have had enough for austerity though. They want results now. The consequences have barely been discussed.

[LordKenwyne]

And If it all goes to shit, Labour voters will just say their efforts were commendable as they wanted a nicer future for the poorest. Nothing about it being reckless.

[Rjk]

I guess you mean saving the NHS?. Which is fair enough. I trust Labour more on that. This labour government, not past.

But................

The level of debt corbyn is going to rack up could it be said to be simply kicking the can down the road?.

The NHS was terrible in my area in the past. It is terrible now. I hold absolutely no hope it will change.

People have had enough for austerity though. They want results now. The consequences have barely been discussed.

Under both the Tory and labour plans, when reviewed by independent economists both return the defecit to surplus in the same year.

[LordKenwyne]

Under both the Tory and labour plans, when reviewed by independent economists both return the defecit to surplus in the same year.

We'll see.

Or, we'll never know!.

[Mrs Steve R]

I think the Labour campaign has been overhyped. I voted Labour and, while Corbyn has impressed me, it's still a party whose MPs are unwilling to support Corbyn. If he is, by some miracle, the PM in 24 hours, they will all go crawling back. It's a party of petulant people - including the man I voted for.

Mrs Steve and Organ Morgan often complain about the extra surveillance that now takes place here. One party is openly threatening our human rights to save us from rare acts of terrorism. I'm wondering why you don't feel the need to vote against that?

Where can I vote against that policy? I can't, I can vote against that party in the hope that they don't get in that's all, personally I don't think that's much of a say on an issue like that do you? I think we should be able to vote on the smaller things and shape the country how the public want it, not leave it in the hands of a chosen few who promise the world and do exactly what they like once they get in, they don't represent us at all after election day, consulting the public on new laws ect should be an ongoing thing imo

Anyway, I wasn't saying I'm not voting, I was just saying what a shower of sh*t they all are.

[lardy]

Where can I vote against that policy? I can't, I can vote against that party in the hope that they don't get in that's all, personally I don't think that's much of a say on an issue like that do you? I think we should be able to vote on the smaller things and shape the country how the public want it, not leave it in the hands of a chosen few who promise the world and do exactly what they like once they get in, they don't represent us at all after election day, consulting the public on new laws ect should be an ongoing thing imo

Anyway, I wasn't saying I'm not voting, I was just saying what a shower of sh*t they all are.

I'm not sure that having the people voting on laws is a good thing, even if I disagree with the surveillance stuff.

[Mrs Steve R]

I'm not sure that having the people voting on laws is a good thing, even if I disagree with the surveillance stuff.

Is voting for people to decide things for us much better? take the infrastructure bill for example, if the public had a vote on that there is no way it would have gone through, lots of people on here signed the petition against it, should we all have to sign petitions to stop the people that we elect to represent us from doing things that we don't want? that really does not sound right to me.

[lardy]

Is voting for people to decide things for us much better? take the infrastructure bill for example, if the public had a vote on that there is no way it would have gone through, lots of people on here signed the petition against it, should we all have to sign petitions to stop the people that we elect to represent us from doing things that we don't want? that really does not sound right to me.

Yeah, I'd say it's certainly better. I don't know which infrastructure petition you mean, I just googled and there are two - 491 signatures and 260.

The public are fatigued by just having one vote per year, the number of people regularly voting on bills would be tiny so instead of having people whose job it is to debate and sort things out* you'd have people with a bit of time on their hands who may or may not have read past the title.

My guess is that there are more MPs who are in it because they genuinely want to make the place better and represent their constituents than there are careerist tw*ts who will do whatever suits numero uno, but unfortunately the latter are the type who rise up. But at the end of the day, it's the people's votes who put them there, so how confident can any of us be that the people would vote any differently if it was on laws?


*and I do accept that it doesn't work brilliantly, you have big business lobbying, weak opposition, days when only about half a dozen can be arsed to turn up, etc

[Mrs Steve R]

Yeah, I'd say it's certainly better. I don't know which infrastructure petition you mean, I just googled and there are two - 491 signatures and 260.

The public are fatigued by just having one vote per year, the number of people regularly voting on bills would be tiny so instead of having people whose job it is to debate and sort things out* you'd have people with a bit of time on their hands who may or may not have read past the title.

My guess is that there are more MPs who are in it because they genuinely want to make the place better and represent their constituents than there are careerist tw*ts who will do whatever suits numero uno, but unfortunately the latter are the type who rise up. But at the end of the day, it's the people's votes who put them there, so how confident can any of us be that the people would vote any differently if it was on laws?


*and I do accept that it doesn't work brilliantly, you have big business lobbying, weak opposition, days when only about half a dozen can be arsed to turn up, etc

There were quite a few different ones at the time with different names, mainly about the privatisation of the Land Registry which I think they did remove from the bill in the end now I think about it actually.
I get what you're saying about people not reading past the title ect but those same people get to vote on who's elected too, like you say, scum always rises to the top and it could better but I'm sure tptb will read this and take note.