Theresa May

She has underfunded the police and all public services to dangerous levels. She is a serious threat to our security. Police numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19.5% since she became Home Secretary. She ignored and derided calls that this would endanger us and called it scare mongering. She has still refused to commit to increasing police numbers or even halt the cuts. May has funded Saudi Arabia, who fund IS. Firearms officers have decreased from 6,976 to 5,639 in her tenure. David Cameron's policy advisor, Steve Hilton, has laid the blame at her door and has said she should resign. John Major has attacked her Brexit strategy, which is basically bluster, and has said if you vote May, you have to accept she will underfund the NHS.

Whatever you think about either party, it is a great shame we have to pick between May and Corbyn. A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these.

With Labour promising to increase police numbers, increase spending on the NHS and public services, I think it's an absolute no brainer.

She has underfunded the police and all public services to dangerous levels. She is a serious threat to our security. Police numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19.5% since she became Home Secretary. She ignored and derided calls that this would endanger us and called it scare mongering. She has still refused to commit to increasing police numbers or even halt the cuts. May has funded Saudi Arabia, who fund IS. Firearms officers have decreased from 6,976 to 5,639 in her tenure. David Cameron's policy advisor, Steve Hilton, has laid the blame at her door and has said she should resign. John Major has attacked her Brexit strategy, which is basically bluster, and has said if you vote May, you have to accept she will underfund the NHS.

Whatever you think about either party, it is a great shame we have to pick between May and Corbyn. A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these.

With Labour promising to increase police numbers, increase spending on the NHS and public services, I think it's an absolute no brainer.

Of course Conservatives could promise exactly the same thing if they wanted to. Nothing at all to stop them making an identical statement, after all it is only intended to attract voters. Most would not believe them because they don't have a magic money tree either, but nothing to stop them saying it.

She has underfunded the police and all public services to dangerous levels. She is a serious threat to our security. Police numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19.5% since she became Home Secretary. She ignored and derided calls that this would endanger us and called it scare mongering. She has still refused to commit to increasing police numbers or even halt the cuts. May has funded Saudi Arabia, who fund IS. Firearms officers have decreased from 6,976 to 5,639 in her tenure. David Cameron's policy advisor, Steve Hilton, has laid the blame at her door and has said she should resign. John Major has attacked her Brexit strategy, which is basically bluster, and has said if you vote May, you have to accept she will underfund the NHS.

Whatever you think about either party, it is a great shame we have to pick between May and Corbyn. A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these.

With Labour promising to increase police numbers, increase spending on the NHS and public services, I think it's an absolute no brainer.

Of course Conservatives could promise exactly the same thing if they wanted to. Nothing at all to stop them making an identical statement, after all it is only intended to attract voters. Most would not believe them because they don't have a magic money tree either, but nothing to stop them saying it.

So you don't think the time has come to increase police numbers again? We have absolutely no choice? Surely. If we can afford Trident, we can afford to get more bobbies on the street.

We can use some of that money we got selling arms to a government that funds the terrorists... The Tories confirmed that Saudi Arabia is giving less money to IS, which is nice.

Depends where the police are allocated.

I'd hazard a guess that rather than employing more police what we ACTUALLY need is more ancillary staff to do the menial tasks that the police end up doing.

Even if we had more "bobbies on the beat" I doubt they could have stopped a terrorist attack much faster than we have managed. All 3 attacks have been over faster than say the bataclan. That has to be worth something?? 8 minutes to take out 3 terrorists.

Quote (petesmeat): "A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these."


Really????

The guy is an out and out pathological liar and has an awful lo to answer to regarding the current situation!

Theresa May and her cohorts are culpable in their actions to date but (sadly) a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour alternative is even less credible as things stand, even taking into consideration that Diane Abbott is unlikely to survive the cull as the once anti-Corbynites scramble to get back on board the SS Gravy-train!

She has underfunded the police and all public services to dangerous levels. She is a serious threat to our security. Police numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19.5% since she became Home Secretary. She ignored and derided calls that this would endanger us and called it scare mongering. She has still refused to commit to increasing police numbers or even halt the cuts. May has funded Saudi Arabia, who fund IS. Firearms officers have decreased from 6,976 to 5,639 in her tenure. David Cameron's policy advisor, Steve Hilton, has laid the blame at her door and has said she should resign. John Major has attacked her Brexit strategy, which is basically bluster, and has said if you vote May, you have to accept she will underfund the NHS.

Whatever you think about either party, it is a great shame we have to pick between May and Corbyn. A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these.

With Labour promising to increase police numbers, increase spending on the NHS and public services, I think it's an absolute no brainer.

Of course Conservatives could promise exactly the same thing if they wanted to. Nothing at all to stop them making an identical statement, after all it is only intended to attract voters. Most would not believe them because they don't have a magic money tree either, but nothing to stop them saying it.

So you don't think the time has come to increase police numbers again? We have absolutely no choice? Surely. If we can afford Trident, we can afford to get more bobbies on the street.

We can use some of that money we got selling arms to a government that funds the terrorists... The Tories confirmed that Saudi Arabia is giving less money to IS, which is nice.

I would not be against increasing police numbers, although that alone will not stop the sort of things we are seeing now. Times are changing. We don't see armed gangs with stockings on their heads robbing banks and using getaway cars any more. No need to take the risk when you can steal loads of money simply be being clever with computers. In all walks of life we are seeing places that once employed hundreds now operating more efficiently with just a handful of staff. Not that long ago cctv was virtually unheard of. Nearly every street corner is now monitored. Number plate recognition was a thing of science fiction and DNA was unheard of. The world is changing and what was relevant just 25 years back is outdated now. Reduction in police was always bound to happen with all these advances in technology, but now becomes an easy target because of recent events. Policing, NHS etc., all have to be paid for by us, and on top of all that the welfare bill continues to grow as we continue to live longer. I don't know what the answer is, but I know that all parties have a lot of problems to solve in the coming years.

Quote (petesmeat): "A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these."


Really????

The guy is an out and out pathological liar and has an awful lo to answer to regarding the current situation!

Theresa May and her cohorts are culpable in their actions to date but (sadly) a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour alternative is even less credible as things stand, even taking into consideration that Diane Abbott is unlikely to survive the cull as the one anti-Corbynites scramble to get back on board the SS Gravy-train!

A 1997 Blair. Not today's Blair. A charismatic leader would absolute walk this.

Also, if, and this is a big if, that Labour got elected, Diane Abbott would be a back bencher.

Calling Blair a pathological liar and not accusing May of being the same is funny

She has underfunded the police and all public services to dangerous levels. She is a serious threat to our security. Police numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19.5% since she became Home Secretary. She ignored and derided calls that this would endanger us and called it scare mongering. She has still refused to commit to increasing police numbers or even halt the cuts. May has funded Saudi Arabia, who fund IS. Firearms officers have decreased from 6,976 to 5,639 in her tenure. David Cameron's policy advisor, Steve Hilton, has laid the blame at her door and has said she should resign. John Major has attacked her Brexit strategy, which is basically bluster, and has said if you vote May, you have to accept she will underfund the NHS.

Whatever you think about either party, it is a great shame we have to pick between May and Corbyn. A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these.

With Labour promising to increase police numbers, increase spending on the NHS and public services, I think it's an absolute no brainer.

Of course Conservatives could promise exactly the same thing if they wanted to. Nothing at all to stop them making an identical statement, after all it is only intended to attract voters. Most would not believe them because they don't have a magic money tree either, but nothing to stop them saying it.

So you don't think the time has come to increase police numbers again? We have absolutely no choice? Surely. If we can afford Trident, we can afford to get more bobbies on the street.

We can use some of that money we got selling arms to a government that funds the terrorists... The Tories confirmed that Saudi Arabia is giving less money to IS, which is nice.

I would not be against increasing police numbers, although that alone will not stop the sort of things we are seeing now. Times are changing. We don't see armed gangs with stockings on their heads robbing banks and using getaway cars any more. No need to take the risk when you can steal loads of money simply be being clever with computers. In all walks of life we are seeing places that once employed hundreds now operating more efficiently with just a handful of staff. Not that long ago cctv was virtually unheard of. Nearly every street corner is now monitored. Number plate recognition was a thing of science fiction and DNA was unheard of. The world is changing and what was relevant just 25 years back is outdated now. Reduction in police was always bound to happen with all these advances in technology, but now becomes an easy target because of recent events. Policing, NHS etc., all have to be paid for by us, and on top of all that the welfare bill continues to grow as we continue to live longer. I don't know what the answer is, but I know that all parties have a lot of problems to solve in the coming years.

Ask the Police what they need, it isn't technology or anything else, it's numbers.

She has underfunded the police and all public services to dangerous levels. She is a serious threat to our security. Police numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19.5% since she became Home Secretary. She ignored and derided calls that this would endanger us and called it scare mongering. She has still refused to commit to increasing police numbers or even halt the cuts. May has funded Saudi Arabia, who fund IS. Firearms officers have decreased from 6,976 to 5,639 in her tenure. David Cameron's policy advisor, Steve Hilton, has laid the blame at her door and has said she should resign. John Major has attacked her Brexit strategy, which is basically bluster, and has said if you vote May, you have to accept she will underfund the NHS.

Whatever you think about either party, it is a great shame we have to pick between May and Corbyn. A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these.

With Labour promising to increase police numbers, increase spending on the NHS and public services, I think it's an absolute no brainer.

Of course Conservatives could promise exactly the same thing if they wanted to. Nothing at all to stop them making an identical statement, after all it is only intended to attract voters. Most would not believe them because they don't have a magic money tree either, but nothing to stop them saying it.

So you don't think the time has come to increase police numbers again? We have absolutely no choice? Surely. If we can afford Trident, we can afford to get more bobbies on the street.

We can use some of that money we got selling arms to a government that funds the terrorists... The Tories confirmed that Saudi Arabia is giving less money to IS, which is nice.

I would not be against increasing police numbers, although that alone will not stop the sort of things we are seeing now. Times are changing. We don't see armed gangs with stockings on their heads robbing banks and using getaway cars any more. No need to take the risk when you can steal loads of money simply be being clever with computers. In all walks of life we are seeing places that once employed hundreds now operating more efficiently with just a handful of staff. Not that long ago cctv was virtually unheard of. Nearly every street corner is now monitored. Number plate recognition was a thing of science fiction and DNA was unheard of. The world is changing and what was relevant just 25 years back is outdated now. Reduction in police was always bound to happen with all these advances in technology, but now becomes an easy target because of recent events. Policing, NHS etc., all have to be paid for by us, and on top of all that the welfare bill continues to grow as we continue to live longer. I don't know what the answer is, but I know that all parties have a lot of problems to solve in the coming years.

Ask the Police what they need, it isn't technology or anything else, it's numbers.

Everyone, not just the police will tell you they need more staff. I expect nearly every member of this forum who is employed by a big company or a public service will tell you they need more staff. Times have changed, and whoever you are employed by you will never require the amount of staff that was once needed to do the same job. The biggest expense to any company is staffing costs, and like it or not, someone has to pay this money. There is only so much juggling that can be done with a limited amount. No problem with extra money being spent on the police and the NHS, but that either means cuts elsewhere or we all pay extra.

Are we talking about the same Tony Blair who took us to war based on lies and also demanded that no criminal charges could be fetched against him if he gave evidence to the inquest ?

War Criminal.????

No problem with extra money being spent on the police and the NHS, but that either means cuts elsewhere or we all pay extra.

Over the past 7 years those at the bottom have more than paid their fair share, with public sector workers receiving 1% pay rises during that period including the hero health workers who saved lives at the Manchester and London terrorist attacks. The Tories have raised tax thresholds but that hardly helps those at the bottom who either don't pay tax or receive as little extra as result often under a £.

Those at the top have done very nicely out of the tax rise thresholds and the cut from 50% to 45% for higher tax rate payers. Also the large Corporations have use aggressive tax avoidance and then only pay 17% on the little profit the do declare and have benefit from billions of pounds which is not invested but simply pasted onto greedy shareholders some of whom don't even live in this country.

That's why Labours message is for the many not the few. It is time for those very rich people and Corporations to start to pay their fair share, then we can afford investment into public services.

No problem with extra money being spent on the police and the NHS, but that either means cuts elsewhere or we all pay extra.

Over the past 7 years those at the bottom have more than paid their fair share, with public sector workers receiving 1% pay rises during that period including the hero health workers who saved lives at the Manchester and London terrorist attacks. The Tories have raised tax thresholds but that hardly helps those at the bottom who either don't pay tax or receive as little extra as result often under a £.

Those at the top have done very nicely out of the tax rise thresholds and the cut from 50% to 45% for higher tax rate payers. Also the large Corporations have use aggressive tax avoidance and then only pay 17% on the little profit the do declare and have benefit from billions of pounds which is not invested but simply pasted onto greedy shareholders some of whom don't even live in this country.

That's why Labours message is for the many not the few. It is time for those very rich people and Corporations to start to pay their fair share, then we can afford investment into public services.

I agree and in theory it sounds good. However, they have tried before and it did'nt raise anywhere near the funds expected. As far as corporation tax is concerned, they have no idea how our economic climate will be during our Brexit talks, and therefore have no idea as to the sort of profits our big companies will or will not make. They may as well pluck a figure out of thin air as far as this tax increase is concerned, we are about to go through something no other country has gone through before. Take too big a chunk out of a company's profits, and they will recoup it by reducing their staff. Then, instead of these staff paying income tax, nat ins, vat etc., they are claiming benefits. They know this, or should do as they have tried it before and it has not worked. If there was a way of this country operating perfectly and everyone being happy, one of our parties would have found it a long time back. Whoever gets in, 5 years from now we will have the same problems we face today. Neither party can succeed because the money is simply not there.

I started this election with an anyone but Corbyn opinion through 30 years of observations of the man and his policies. However noble they are, they all stuff of fairy tales and every time a labour government leave office the county is shagged. I am not surprised to see how good he is at articulating his values and vision, the bloke means it and he does have the balls to stick by his principles. He is a toughened campaigner (protestor) and knows how to work the crowd. I just think he is in La La land.

Theresa May has been a massive disappointment. I was overjoyed that Cameron left and she stepped up, as I saw her as a competent, no nonsense, decisive, get the job done type. Not a media darling or a "spinner", just a bloody boring women who'll sort the country out......She has been terrible !!!!

Like last years US elections, these must be the two most incompetent leaders of political parties in modern history. I actually like Corbyn, but dislike his policies and dislike May, but believe the Conservatives are the most competent to get us through the next five years.

I am not sure if she is this meek, or her campaign is based upon not attacking Corbyn because that may make her look nasty and Tory. But, I firmly believe if she was up against an Andy Burnham (my first choice after Brown)we'd be seeing a labour government.

I am 49 and know one thing. Labour sound sincere and they do mean well, but the always leave the country in a worse state than which they found it.

I started this election with an anyone but Corbyn opinion through 30 years of observations of the man and his policies. However noble they are, they all stuff of fairy tales and every time a labour government leave office the county is shagged. I am not surprised to see how good he is at articulating his values and vision, the bloke means it and he does have the balls to stick by his principles. He is a toughened campaigner (protestor) and knows how to work the crowd. I just think he is in La La land.

Theresa May has been a massive disappointment. I was overjoyed that Cameron left and she stepped up, as I saw her as a competent, no nonsense, decisive, get the job done type. Not a media darling or a "spinner", just a bloody boring women who'll sort the country out......She has been terrible !!!!

Like last years US elections, these must be the two most incompetent leaders of political parties in modern history. I actually like Corbyn, but dislike his policies and dislike May, but believe the Conservatives are the most competent to get us through the next five years.

I am not sure if she is this meek, or her campaign is based upon not attacking Corbyn because that may make her look nasty and Tory. But, I firmly believe if she was up against an Andy Burnham (my first choice after Brown)we'd be seeing a labour government.

I am 49 and know one thing. Labour sound sincere and they do mean well, but the always leave the country in a worse state than which they found it.

I think they missed a trick by appointing the wrong brother as leader of the party. I feel the same as you about Andy Burnham. I think everyone on this forum all want roughly the same thing, but I don't believe either party will or can deliver on their promises. I am pretty sure we will all survive to complain about the same things five years from now. Good luck to whoever wins, they are going to need it.

Are we talking about the same Tony Blair who took us to war based on lies and also demanded that no criminal charges could be fetched against him if he gave evidence to the inquest ?

War Criminal.????

He isn't speaking of Blair's more recent credentials Jules. He's relating it more to the type of politician Blair was back in 97. Great speaker, and a man that the majority of the country could get behind.

Quote (petesmeat): "A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these."


Really????

The guy is an out and out pathological liar and has an awful lo to answer to regarding the current situation!

Theresa May and her cohorts are culpable in their actions to date but (sadly) a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour alternative is even less credible as things stand, even taking into consideration that Diane Abbott is unlikely to survive the cull as the one anti-Corbynites scramble to get back on board the SS Gravy-train!

A 1997 Blair. Not today's Blair. A charismatic leader would absolute walk this.

Also, if, and this is a big if, that Labour got elected, Diane Abbott would be a back bencher.

Calling Blair a pathological liar and not accusing May of being the same is funny

Please list Mays actual lies. .facts that she has lied about..not changes in opinion which we all have and are entitled to. keeps being said..so must be a list somewhere.

I'm intrigued to know what the lies are too. I'm also intrigued to know where they said they will privatise th NHS. And no. Selling off unused estate and buildings
Is NOT privatisation (naylor report).

There is so much hysterical screaming at the moment it's doing my head in

Quote (petesmeat): "A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these."


Really????

The guy is an out and out pathological liar and has an awful lo to answer to regarding the current situation!

Theresa May and her cohorts are culpable in their actions to date but (sadly) a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour alternative is even less credible as things stand, even taking into consideration that Diane Abbott is unlikely to survive the cull as the one anti-Corbynites scramble to get back on board the SS Gravy-train!

A 1997 Blair. Not today's Blair. A charismatic leader would absolute walk this.

Also, if, and this is a big if, that Labour got elected, Diane Abbott would be a back bencher.

Calling Blair a pathological liar and not accusing May of being the same is funny

I responded YOUR subject, which was specifically Blair and you are still wrong, I'm afraid

This may seem a small item to those not interested in the same leisure pursuits as myself but I watched Blair (flanked by that slightly less able actor Glenda Jackson and introduced as "the next British Prime Minister") PROMISE that motorcycling "would be an integral part of Labour Transport Policy in my first term of office".

He lied, as it was NEVER introduced and whilst that might mean nothing in the current climate, it meant a lot to those who were enthused by his speech on that day. He didn't stop lying the whole of his time in office and did the Labour Party in the UK untold damage as they became a middle class apologist Party intent on telling the so-called Working Class what they should and should not be doing whilst 'living it up' themselves (and Blair did that more than most)

It told me everything I needed to know about the man and all I saw in his tenure at No.10 was a wasted opportunity for a man who could (in the main) have had the British public eating out of his hands

He was/is a liar but there is a small excuse for him...because I believe that in his own head, he always MEANT it when he said it!

I'm intrigued to know what the lies are too. I'm also intrigued to know where they said they will privatise th NHS. And no. Selling off unused estate and buildings
Is NOT privatisation (naylor report).

There is so much hysterical screaming at the moment it's doing my head in

Looks like the biggest lie of all was Brexit. We were told our economy would be in dire trouble if we voted for Brexit, some politicians claimed our economy would fall off the edge of a cliff. If that is the case, British businesses are going to see their profits plummet, possibly see them losing money. Corporation tax is a tax on their profits. How do Labour intend getting all these extra funds from raising corporation tax if the British economy is going to collapse because we voted to leave the EU. Either they were scaremongering at the time of the referendum, or if they were'nt they are telling us porkies now.

No problem with extra money being spent on the police and the NHS, but that either means cuts elsewhere or we all pay extra.

Over the past 7 years those at the bottom have more than paid their fair share, with public sector workers receiving 1% pay rises during that period including the hero health workers who saved lives at the Manchester and London terrorist attacks. The Tories have raised tax thresholds but that hardly helps those at the bottom who either don't pay tax or receive as little extra as result often under a £.

Those at the top have done very nicely out of the tax rise thresholds and the cut from 50% to 45% for higher tax rate payers. Also the large Corporations have use aggressive tax avoidance and then only pay 17% on the little profit the do declare and have benefit from billions of pounds which is not invested but simply pasted onto greedy shareholders some of whom don't even live in this country.

That's why Labours message is for the many not the few. It is time for those very rich people and Corporations to start to pay their fair share, then we can afford investment into public services.

Tony i am sure everyone would endorse this theory if it was a reality.

Lets turn the rhetoric on its head and ask why do countries offer low corporation tax.......To encourage large corporations to either base themselves here or stay here and not have a bogus HQ in Dublin, Luxembourg, Malta or the Netherlands. When google HQ here, that brings lots of high paying EMEA executive jobs with them come the second and third tier roles all the way down to the one man band sole trader Sandwich van man.

One thing we know is that everyone is greedy......Just look at this page, everyone wants something better but are not willing to pay for it themselves, they want someone else to pay. This is also the case in large corporations. When choosing a location for your business you asses
1- Talent availability and cost - Does it have the skills and how much will it cost
2- Technical advantages - is the country a leader in what you do, how much will real estate cost
3- Taxation structures - How much much tax will the corporation and senior employees have to pay.

Now if you have compare those with Dublin, you can see why a lot of millennium tech companies set up in Dublin. A lot of English speaking grads were willing to move to English speaking Dublin.
The real estate was cheaper than London, it wasn't a leader in tech, but tech is global and ever moving, so it didn't have to be. And most importantly the Irish government bent over backwards in tax giveaway and super cheap i;e Zero tax to encourage Apple, microsoft and a host more to go there.
This caused a super boom, remember the tiger economy before the crash, everyone in Ireland were loaded the country was for the first time in its recent independent history as rich as the UK.

Leaving the EU will hurt us, no doubt. Whether this is short term with long term gains is another debate. But we need every advantage to get us through the next five years and scaring big business away is not the answer.

Borrowing money however you dress it up in bonds to nationalise the railway and royal mail to give he keys back to the unions is madness.
The trains are an overloaded London problem, but Jezzer hasn't an answer for Londons problem, because we all need to subsidise London cheap transport system. I just don't see why they don't give Southern rail and other failing commuter trains to Transport for London under the Mayors office and let them run it locally. Why privatise it ? Same with the mail service, is it even failing, i am quite happy with them.

Agree with everything Llan Bluebird has said. It's easy enough to say hammer the big companies with more tax. It's also easy to forget that these big companies employ lots of people just like us on this forum. Big hikes in corporation tax is not exactly an incentive for businesses to re-locate here, or to keep existing ones here either. Ultimately, the knock on effect this has is to place the very people Labour are supposed to stand for in a vulnerable position, because this sort of policy puts jobs at risk. As I have mentioned on another thread, pension funds are not just invested in cash, property etc. They are also invested in the shares of our major corporations, and once again the ordinary man in the street will be affected if these businesses see their profits drop due to tax increases. simple to say lets clobber the big companies but what you are actually doing is clobbering yourself.

Quote (petesmeat): "A politician like a 1997 Blair would wipe the floor with both of these."


Really????

The guy is an out and out pathological liar and has an awful lo to answer to regarding the current situation!

Theresa May and her cohorts are culpable in their actions to date but (sadly) a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour alternative is even less credible as things stand, even taking into consideration that Diane Abbott is unlikely to survive the cull as the one anti-Corbynites scramble to get back on board the SS Gravy-train!

A 1997 Blair. Not today's Blair. A charismatic leader would absolute walk this.

Also, if, and this is a big if, that Labour got elected, Diane Abbott would be a back bencher.

Calling Blair a pathological liar and not accusing May of being the same is funny

I responded YOUR subject, which was specifically Blair and you are still wrong, I'm afraid

This may seem a small item to those not interested in the same leisure pursuits as myself but I watched Blair (flanked by that slightly less able actor Glenda Jackson and introduced as "the next British Prime Minister") PROMISE that motorcycling "would be an integral part of Labour Transport Policy in my first term of office".

He lied, as it was NEVER introduced and whilst that might mean nothing in the current climate, it meant a lot to those who were enthused by his speech on that day. He didn't stop lying the whole of his time in office and did the Labour Party in the UK untold damage as they became a middle class apologist Party intent on telling the so-called Working Class what they should and should not be doing whilst 'living it up' themselves (and Blair did that more than most)

It told me everything I needed to know about the man and all I saw in his tenure at No.10 was a wasted opportunity for a man who could (in the main) have had the British public eating out of his hands

He was/is a liar but there is a small excuse for him...because I believe that in his own head, he always MEANT it when he said it!

Please see Blue Dredd's comments above: "He isn't speaking of Blair's more recent credentials Jules. He's relating it more to the type of politician Blair was back in 97. Great speaker, and a man that the majority of the country could get behind."

Blair walked 1997, and a charismatic leader for either party would absolutely walk this one. Both are absolutely shite.

My friend runs a business employing people.

Raising the minimum wage by 25% and raising corporation tax will absolutely hammer them. So much so in order to actually meet those imposed obligations they have 2 choices. Massively increase charges to customers or make a member of staff redundant. Which itself will get harder due to the planned changes in labour laws etc.
Jezza give zero real consideration to those trying to create employment. They just see them as cash cows to be milked.

The conservatives have not been perfect by any stretch. Who is? But I'll take my chances with them rather than get hammered by punitive taxation which WILL come because it has to. Land value taxation, creative stealth taxes. There won't be enough revenue to meet their spending commitments so they will have to turn their attention elsewhere. I'd bet fuel will shoot up before long.

Punitive taxation takes money off people meaning they have less to spend for themselves. The less they spend the less they can recirculate the money by purchasing goods and services. That means less VAT. The lower the demand for goods and services the less people are needed to
Meet them. That creates less employment and thus long term, less people paying tax.

Hell if we had more money we can, if we want, but in necessary luxury goods. Who cares if someone needs a boat or not for weekends for example?! I don't. But if someone wants one they need to buy from a dealer or have someone make it for them. They need to service it and maintain it. High value cars? Same thing. To many on here they may raise an eyebrow and think it's a total uncesessary waste of money. It's not for us to judge how someone choses to spend their money. But it does create employment and more tax revenue.

My friend runs a business employing people.

Raising the minimum wage by 25% and raising corporation tax will absolutely hammer them. So much so in order to actually meet those imposed obligations they have 2 choices. Massively increase charges to customers or make a member of staff redundant. Which itself will get harder due to the planned changes in labour laws etc.
Jezza give zero real consideration to those trying to create employment. They just see them as cash cows to be milked.

The conservatives have not been perfect by any stretch. Who is? But I'll take my chances with them rather than get hammered by punitive taxation which WILL come because it has to. Land value taxation, creative stealth taxes. There won't be enough revenue to meet their spending commitments so they will have to turn their attention elsewhere. I'd bet fuel will shoot up before long.

Punitive taxation takes money off people meaning they have less to spend for themselves. The less they spend the less they can recirculate the money by purchasing goods and services. That means less VAT. The lower the demand for goods and services the less people are needed to
Meet them. That creates less employment and thus long term, less people paying tax.

Hell if we had more money we can, if we want, but in necessary luxury goods. Who cares if someone needs a boat or not for weekends for example?! I don't. But if someone wants one they need to buy from a dealer or have someone make it for them. They need to service it and maintain it. High value cars? Same thing. To many on here they may raise an eyebrow and think it's a total uncesessary waste of money. It's not for us to judge how someone choses to spend their money. But it does create employment and more tax revenue.

And if your friend has to make someone redundant, that employee no longer makes any contributions to the treasury, he or she now has to claim from the state instead, a double whammy really. Imagine that replicated throughout the country. Exactly the same as last time, money will be lost and not gained. Not rocket science, you charge too much and you lose revenue. Most of us like a pint, but how many of the pubs we used 20 years back are still going. They increased their charges for many reasons, but instead of raking in more business they were forced out of business.

Exactly!!!!