kowenicki

Hope so. But if Jezza cant win when he has bribed pretty much every section of society then socialism really is dead and he needs to go back to arguing with comrades in darkened rooms again, singing the red flag and attending rallies of empathy with terrorist groups.

do I favour a particular outcome...? yes do I like any of the outcomes, am I inspired by any of them...? no Politics and politicians in this country are truly awful. You are working for a particular party. Why would I (or anyone) listen to you? Your views are biased, preordained and inflexible. You will tow the party line whatever it is in the pursuit of power. That's why Corbyn has dropped and u-turned one every belief he ever held... for power. Power in his hands will be a disaster. I guarantee he will be an unmitigated disaster. I'd rather stick with the devil I know on this occasion.

yeah he is being a bit kind. she is just terrible in every regard. The police fed (effectively a union) need to be careful deflecting blame for cocking up on the London attack and blaming funding, they might end up with abbott as their boss... imagine that!

or must...deflect...from...diane...abbott... where is that other bloke with serious skeletons during this election.... he is only the shadow chancellor after all.

What a shocker...

a weak link... ha. She is incompetent, stupid and a bigot.

It is funny. Its also terrifying that this inept fool could be anywhere near government let alone HOME SECRETARY!

Diane Abbott.... just.... wow. Sky news tonight. Deary me.

Poll share won't matter though, these numbers are just polls. Vote share and seats will. If he can increase seats (he surely will) then he will stay. I actually think it may it may be very, very close. I don't see a landslide at all.

1.5% of the voting public. (Although 93m plus didnt even bother to vote... and who can blame them given the awful choice of a lying megalomaniac and a proper nutter) If Clinton couldn't beat Trump (even in that voting system) it should tell you a lot. Vile woman. Trumps election win is Obama's only legacy. Obama left a country more divided than ever. He let a LOT of people down... a potential lesson there for someone...

Yes.

I'm saying that there are many options open to firms if there is an increase in corp tax.

One last time... corbyn voted against every anti terror measure.

I knew this answer was coming . In the interest of balance.... then you make something up. You should know that is not how it works. Opposing MPs 'pair up' to cancel each other's votes out. It's not "not bothering to turn up". Or the vote was massively supported in 1st reading hence turning up for 2nd or 3rd reading is not required. Also he has voted against all of them. She too has voted against a couple. He has voted against all. This is correct, your spin is irrelevant and incorrect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329

Fair enough but I saw an interview on BBC news site from Nov 2016 where he says he is against it... Also.. he has voted against all legislation but wozzer ignored that part.

Ok wozzer, let's not be too myopic shall we. Not one of the 7 Home Secretaries (5 labour, 2 Tory) since 9/11 have done anything effective to tackle this issue. Not one. This is not party political, it's the whole political classes frightened of their own shadows sitting on their hands. But just to balance you a bit.... Khan, labour mayor of London. Terrorism is "part and parcel of living in a big city". 2016 This morning after the London attack.... Weak words and platitudes. He's an irrelevance in this debate because he won't deal with the real issue. Corbyn. Opposes shoot to kill policy of terrorists (shoot to kill worked very well last night imo). Has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation in the last 30 years. Yes. All politicians of all persuasions have been weak on this for years and years for fear of offence (I have no idea why). But at least now the PM has stated this needs to change and that this is Islamist terrorism. Some politicians won't even admit that yet.

I agree 100%. I think you will find there are others on here far more guilty of that. Whilst I agree with your point on arms, Saudi Arabian arms sales has nothing to do with some people following their perverted Islamist ideology in the UK, stabbing and running people over. Nothing.

This is Islamic terrorism. Politicians need to start calling it that and not saying it has nothing to do with Islam. That fool Burnham even saying the Manchester attacker wasn't Muslim. He was! Listen to this. Spot on. Haras Rafiq. Quilliam.

Utterly irrelevant. Have France, Sweden, Germany reduced police numbers? Have Australia, Canada? All have had attacks. Trying to score political points on this new form of random terrorism sickens me. How would extra police on the streets have prevented this. Do tell me. A man in a van mounts a kerb and runs people over, you simply cannot stop this in the traditional way. What is really to blame is the tolerance to multi culturalism that lead to ghettos in all of Western Europe. The only people really telling it how it is are the Quilliam foundation (particularly local lad Haras Rafiq). The Quilliam foundation are Muslims, who see this for what it is and aren't afraid to say it, whilst liberals hide their head in the sand and make excuses for the perpetrators, blaming foreign policy or some other totally bogus misdirection.

That is spectacularly naive of you.

That is spectacularly naive of you.

Sigh. Those people didn't want a nuclear holocaust.. obviously. It was a question of his pacifism. He is one. He may as well unilaterally disarm if you will never use it under any circumstances. The threat of having it as a deterrent is no deterrent if you openly say you will never use it. I see the whoopers and whistlers where in again happy clapping every single word and giggling at the weakest of weak jokes. Both poor again last night obviously. Independent observers stating that Corbyn struggled slightly more and I'd agree with that.

I haven't spent all day on here. I've dipped in and out. I know this because I've had 4 meetings, eaten with my family and had an hour in the pub at lunchtime with a mate. Thanks for your full answer, my reasons for not voting labour are almost identical.

A simple 'no they are not definitely correlated' would suffice. Because that is the only sensible answer anyone with even a bit of knowledge can give. Labours entire spending plans depend on them being correlated.