[MashinBenzin]

I am a swing voter. Despite huge doubts over Corbyn and his cronies, there are several reasons that I might vote labour for the first time since Blair was removed.

Personally being affected by Theresa May's action in removing the right to judicial appeal for visitor's visas means that I cannot countenance voting Conservative. This undemocratic and unjust decision, combined with a politically motivated visa process, has had a huge affect on my family. This is the first time in my life where I have been genuinely affected by political policy (a few pence here and there on taxes is a completely pathetic triviality in comparison).

Secondly, campaigning on a platform of caring about mental health whilst actually ignoring the advice of senior NHS staff to safeguard mental health. This hypocrisy won't wash with me.

Thirdly, terrorist appeasement by sucking up to their financial and religious sponsors/promoters. I'm not for one second arguing that Corbyn was right to honour the IRA dead, but it's small beer in comparison to our courting of the Saudis.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by Daftasabrush

Technically yes, the actual 'infrastructure' is owned by network rail but realistically would you not consider a form of mass transport infrastructure?

Without those companies we have no rail system currently.

As I understand it though, most of the passenger companies own nothing of consequence, except a contract (franchise) to lease and operate rolling stock. The Government, via the Strategic Railway Authority (or whatever it's called now) has previously stepped in to take control of individual franchises during their terms and could do so again, paying whatever penalties that the contracts dictate.

It's the leasing companies that own the rolling stock and, hence, have real ownership of the 'system' alongside Network Rail. Who owns the leasing companies is something I haven't read up on for many a year, but HSBC was a leading player at one time.

Freight may be different as some of the big companies own significant fleets of locomotives.

Re-nationalising would be an incredibly complex and expensive process with so many players including operators, lessors and maintenance companies. Incomparable with the relative simplicity of taking over the 'big four' companies in 1948 to form British Railways.

[430GH]

The blues are the best of a bad bunch, if it was an option I would put a cross against "No Confidence"

[mcoops]

Isn't it depressing how many of us are resigned to voting for 'the best of a bad bunch'? I'd definitely include myself in that camp.

As posted elsewhere, I think Labour has some eye-catching policies, but they have jettisoned or alienated so many experienced people that I have no confidence they could execute those policies or run the country. On the other hand, other policies look terrible, e.g. defence.

Equally, I'm not fooled for a second by Tory posturing over Brexit. If we get a good outcome, it will be in spite of rather than because of their negotiation strategy. My fear there is that we are going to get spanked by the EU. Not sure any of the parties could deliver a great result though.

I've pretty much decided to vote based on the quality of my local candidates. In this case that means Lib Dem. I've no particular love for the Lib Dems or Farron. But I think the local candidate is great, and it's a seat where there is a half-decent chance of dislodging the Tories and therefore diluting their inevitable majority at national level.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by mcoops

Isn't it depressing how many of us are resigned to voting for 'the best of a bad bunch'? I'd definitely include myself in that camp.

Probably the most dispiriting election* that I can remember; no-hopers and second-bests in pretty much every position in every party. Labour have squandered what New Labour achieved and the Conservatives finally allowed the European issue to destroy the upper tiers of the party. Lib dems are a shadow of their former selves.

I've moved half a mile since the last election, which means I am now in an ultra-safe Conservative seat as opposed to the Labour-held but potential Lab/Con swing seat I was in previously. I'd be considering the libdems too if it was a better chance to unseat the tory.

*I'm talking GE, not counting Brexit - which was another level of dispiriting altogether

[Watsey]

I'll be voting Conservative. Not because I (almost) always have, but because I see a balance in and alignment to its core proposals. Strong, stable leadership may be getting pretty tedious, but the country is going to need that determination and strength of leadership over the next few years.

I see the exact opposite in Labour. Corbyn comes across as an apathetic appeaser, aimlessly traipsing from one idea to another and his Cabinet don't fill me with confidence at all. What are Labour's proposals for this election before a critical period for the UK ? Increase Corporation Tax by more than a third (a disaster for business and foreign investment), drag down the higher rate tax bands (which will raise more tax from a few, but won't raise anything like the tax income that a modest tax increase for all would generate), and to increase investment spending by £250Bn over the next 10 years. Investment in our country is obviously a great idea, but the proposed method to achieve it comes across as quite extreme to me. Corporation Tax, for example, would be a shock to the system for most businesses and business don't like shock, they like stability and medium-long range plans.

Of course people like the idea of 'better' but I think they also know the difference between realism and a dream.

[Kyuuseishu]

The only thing I am sure of is that I am not voting conservative. The education system has been smacked down repeatedly over the past several years due to funding cuts, ridiculous performance measures and the whole academy push. So much money has been wasted on their Academy and Free school system, money which should be used to support the thousands of schools which are struggling financially to the point that non-core subjects and support staff are being cut.

When the advice to save money is about changing supplier for electricity and different photocopiers, you are beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of efficiency savings because the only way schools will meet this 3bn target is through staff cuts and cutting the budgets of subjects.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Watsey

drag down the higher rate tax bands (which will raise more tax from a few, but won't raise anything like the tax income that a modest tax increase for all would generate)

This is an important point. As a top rate taxpayer, I wouldn't be delighted at paying more tax, but I'd be content to do it if I thought it would make a difference. Frankly, I wish Osbourne had never cut it from 50p in the first place - I would find it a lot harder to adjust now, whereas if he'd left alone it'd all be priced into my outgoings long since.

But the reality is that this is one of the few areas the Lib Dems have it right. If you're going to tax and spend, you probably have go big or go home. A bit from everyone will raise more, it's just a fact. But Labour are more concerned with the PR perception of fairness than the reality of what it takes to deliver better services. And as a party that's supposed to be what they are for.

[Bibbles]

I'm personally far better off with a Tory government but I can't bring myself to vote for May and the current bunch of cnuts. What they're currently doing to public services such as the NHS, Police and Schools is just ridiculous and not working at all. I really hope that if nothing else in this election, Gove and the Fuckwit Johnson lose their seats.

Then on the other hand you've got the clusterfuck that is the protesting grandad who couldn't effectively organise a protest rally in a trade union bar. Their manifesto is actually better, apart from the fact there is no way they'll ever have the money to do half the stuff in there even if they hadn't let Diane Abbott cost it. Brexit will cause a negative enough effect on the economy for years to come and they're going to load higher taxes for businesses and high earners. People and business will be looking to leave the country in droves and the country's deficit will skyrocket with the additional borrowing to nationalise what they want to.
That leaves me with Lib Dems Tim nice and dim, not someone who you'd want leading the country, although we'd all be high most of the time so not sure it would matter.
I'm left, as others have said, with voting for the local person I like the most who seems to want to tackle local issues.

[225]

Can you imagine Corbyn and more importantly Diane Abott dealing with the Machester situation? Makes your blood run cold.

While I agree local MPs are important even if my local Labour one was any good the general policies of the Government have too much of a baring on what they could do. So would never vote for them in current guise.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

You do know that most of the rest of the world have a privatised everything?

Really? I was only referring to healthcare and education, I agreed with most other privatisation.

So there aren't a significant amount of publicly provided healthcare and education systems left in the world?! I must have missed that.

[Edinburra]

Originally Posted by AndyEssex330d

He's a cunt.

Tosser, complete tosser.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by 225

Can you imagine Corbyn and more importantly Diane Abott dealing with the Machester situation? Makes your blood run cold.

While I agree local MPs are important even if my local Labour one was any good the general policies of the Government have too much of a baring on what they could do. So would never vote for them in current guise.

You credit the tories with too much influence. They'll just get reports of how the emergency services and intelligence services have dealt with it. Labour would get the same. Corbyn, no matter how big a cretin, would not mess with that.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by Alex440

You credit the tories with too much influence. They'll just get reports of how the emergency services and intelligence services have dealt with it. Labour would get the same. Corbyn, no matter how big a cretin, would not mess with that.

The office of Home Secretary comes with a fair bit of power / responsibility.

I cannot conceivably imagine a labour Home Secretary appointed by Corbyn allowing the army on the streets.

That would result in huge overstretched and burn out of armed officers.

I think you need to understand the process for signing off HM Forces to patrol while armed outside of crown property.

Corbyn and his ilk are utter cnuts and would apologies to everyone the first chance they get.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Brigand

The office of Home Secretary comes with a fair bit of power / responsibility.

I cannot conceivably imagine a labour Home Secretary appointed by Corbyn allowing the army on the streets.

That would result in huge overstretched and burn out of armed officers.

I think you need to understand the process for signing off HM Forces to patrol while armed outside of crown property.

Corbyn and his ilk are utter cnuts and would apologies to everyone the first chance they get.

In your opinion obviously.

I am no flag bearer for Corbyn. But I just disagree with far too many of the tories policies to be able to vote them. And I've always voted for them in the past.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by Alex440

In your opinion obviously.

I am no flag bearer for Corbyn. But I just disagree with far too many of the tories policies to be able to vote them. And I've always voted for them in the past.

No not in my opinion, it's a fact, the government must approve troops on the streets.

Your previous post replying about crediting tories with too much influence was factually incorrect.


Now yes in my opinion, Corbyn that has previously called for disbandment of the army etc, rallied against troops protecting airports, sided with the IRA against UK forces, called other terrorist organisations and their leaders friends, then yes I believe he would never allow HM Forces the ability to actively support the police.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Brigand

No not in my opinion, it's a fact, the government must approve troops on the streets.

Your previous post replying about crediting tories with too much influence was factually incorrect.


Now yes in my opinion, Corbyn that has previously called for disbandment of the army etc, rallied against troops protecting airports, sided with the IRA against UK forces, called other terrorist organisations and their leaders friends, then yes I believe he would never allow HM Forces the ability to actively support the police.

So, yes then, in your opinion. Which is what I said in the first place.

I wasn't referring to all of your post, just your views on Corbyn.

I don't really like him, but I don't think he'd mess too much with national security in this climate. That is my opinion, not yours.

All politicians are two faced, check out Theresa Mays change of heart on lots of policies.

It's strange, if you say you're voting conservative, you aren't force fed my opposition of your choice. I respect your choice to make it if you agree with more of their policies.

Anyone who declares even just a possible vote for Labour is jumped on and told they are wrong.

The media won't make my decision for me, individual politicians won't make my decision for me and contributors to a BMW website won't either. I am looking at the manifestos of both parties in with a chance and will vote for the party that sits most comfortably with me. Right now it is Labour.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Alex440

It's strange, if you say you're voting conservative, you aren't force fed my opposition of your choice. I respect your choice to make it if you agree with more of their policies.

Anyone who declares even just a possible vote for Labour is jumped on and told they are wrong.

I don't have an issue with what Labour is trying to achieve. We can debate how much of a welfare state there should be, and clearly there is no right or wrong answer.

However the key difference for me between Conservative and Labour is one of honesty in my view. The Conservative manifesto includes some unpleasant realities including that social care is completely unaffordable with an aging population. You may not agree with their approach, but they are trying to be responsible. It may not work, but they are trying.

The Labour manifesto is utterly dishonest in my view. It assumes a completely unsustainable level of spending, and offers more money for virtually everything. No tough choices - just lots of unrealistic promises. It is absolutely fair enough to prioritise the NHS, or social care, or schools, or tuition fees, but to promise vast sums for all of these is childish nonsense, and I struggle to believe that anyone with a brain could fall for it. The SNP are exactly the same.

I don't particularly like the Consevative Party, or most of their senior politicians, but they represent by far the least bad option to me,

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JD6

I don't have an issue with what Labour is trying to achieve. We can debate how much of a welfare state there should be, and clearly there is no right or wrong answer.

However the key difference for me between Conservative and Labour is one of honesty in my view. The Conservative manifesto includes some unpleasant realities including that social care is completely unaffordable with an aging population. You may not agree with their approach, but they are trying to be responsible. It may not work, but they are trying.

The Labour manifesto is utterly dishonest in my view. It assumes a completely unsustainable level of spending, and offers more money for virtually everything. No tough choices - just lots of unrealistic promises. It is absolutely fair enough to prioritise the NHS, or social care, or schools, or tuition fees, but to promise vast sums for all of these is childish nonsense, and I struggle to believe that anyone with a brain could fall for it. The SNP are exactly the same.

I don't particularly like the Consevative Party, or most of their senior politicians, but they represent by far the least bad option to me,

So now we move from persuasion to insults. Gee, this is just getting better.

I didn't say I agreed with all their policies. But, I 100% don't agree with privatisation of the NHS by stealth. And I don't believe in our current educational dictatorship. That's enough for me, I'm out. Insults or not.

Plus, there is the belief that the conservative way with the economy is the only way. Austerity austerity austerity. Yet many economists the world over think our economy has recovered despite austerity, not because of it. They believe it would be even better without it. The fact is that most countries have now dropped it as it is a failed and flawed policy.

In this country we only think in terms of debt and therefore spend less. It's simple, therefore it must be right. Yet a 14 year old doing an economics GCSE knows that isn't the only solution to debt and a faltering economy, but our brightest and best don't!?

[Daftasabrush]

Originally Posted by JD6

I don't have an issue with what Labour is trying to achieve. We can debate how much of a welfare state there should be, and clearly there is no right or wrong answer.

However the key difference for me between Conservative and Labour is one of honesty in my view. The Conservative manifesto includes some unpleasant realities including that social care is completely unaffordable with an aging population. You may not agree with their approach, but they are trying to be responsible. It may not work, but they are trying.

The Labour manifesto is utterly dishonest in my view. It assumes a completely unsustainable level of spending, and offers more money for virtually everything. No tough choices - just lots of unrealistic promises. It is absolutely fair enough to prioritise the NHS, or social care, or schools, or tuition fees, but to promise vast sums for all of these is childish nonsense, and I struggle to believe that anyone with a brain could fall for it. The SNP are exactly the same.

I don't particularly like the Consevative Party, or most of their senior politicians, but they represent by far the least bad option to me,

The conservative manifesto may look like it's trying to correct things, but pretty much all the things it's trying to correct were caused or made worse by them! I take their entire manifesto with a massive pinch of salt. Granted we have nothing but speculation with regards to the current Labour Party but the Tories just come across as two faced c**ts imo.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by JD6

I don't have an issue with what Labour is trying to achieve. We can debate how much of a welfare state there should be, and clearly there is no right or wrong answer.

However the key difference for me between Conservative and Labour is one of honesty in my view. The Conservative manifesto includes some unpleasant realities including that social care is completely unaffordable with an aging population. You may not agree with their approach, but they are trying to be responsible. It may not work, but they are trying.

The Labour manifesto is utterly dishonest in my view. It assumes a completely unsustainable level of spending, and offers more money for virtually everything. No tough choices - just lots of unrealistic promises. It is absolutely fair enough to prioritise the NHS, or social care, or schools, or tuition fees, but to promise vast sums for all of these is childish nonsense, and I struggle to believe that anyone with a brain could fall for it. The SNP are exactly the same.

I don't particularly like the Consevative Party, or most of their senior politicians, but they represent by far the least bad option to me,

This is exactly what I was trying to say in a previous post. You made a much better job of it than I did.
Also, regardless of any policy in any party manifesto, I have no understanding of how anyone can look at Corbyn and say 'yep, I want him to be prime minister of this country'

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by 73henny

This is exactly what I was trying to say in a previous post. You made a much better job of it than I did.
Also, regardless of any policy in any party manifesto, I have no understanding of how anyone can look at Corbyn and say 'yep, I want him to be prime minister of this country'

I agree with you. I don't look and see that.

But, unfortunately I don't look at Theresa May and see it either. Not one bit. She has/had principles that she changes daily dependent on the direction of the wind. She also appears almost aspergic and completely devoid of any empathy. You may find those perfect characteristics for a leader, but I do not and my opinion is equally as valid as your own.

Worst choice I think the country has ever had.

I'm probably naive, but I don't understand why our country can't be run by balanced intelligent individuals. It is a shame that we now only have more and more extreme left and right wing options.

I find the similarities to this picture more than just physical.