the remoaners

I think this election will essentially be the referendum mk 2. If any remoaner (chortle) tories still think Brexit is a bad idea then I reckon it's far likelier they'll lend their vote to a pro-Europe party given it's such an all-consuming issue and has such stark consequences.

That's if the Tory manifesto is essentially to carry on the current course. If it's radically different and is more accomomdating of Europe, of immigration and of protecting our trade links then she may well appease lots of them though. But if the line is the simple Brexit means sticking to all this despite the dangers then I think those remoaner (chortle) tories will use their vote as a protest and go the other way.

Any vote that will mitigate the financial suicide that comes with Brexit is a worthwhile step

Financial suicide? You are George Osborne and I claim my £5

Apr 18, 2017 -- 4:52PM, FatherMaguire wrote:

Any vote that will mitigate the financial suicide that comes with Brexit is a worthwhile step

Seeing as you know the future can you give me the Winner of the 2000 & 1000 Guineas and we can all combine them in a win double, thus negating the effect of this imminent financial suicide that's going to happen.

Win : win!

Come on, spread the love!

I think this election will essentially be the referendum mk 2. If any remoaner (chortle) tories still think Brexit is a bad idea then I reckon it's far likelier they'll lend their vote to a pro-Europe party given it's such an all-consuming issue and has such stark consequences.

We know that happens in by-elections but how likely is it in a general election where voting for the Lib-Dems could risk handing over the government to J. Corbyn and co? A lot less likely imo.

Al Wukair & Pamplemousse

Foinavon - isn't that the point? To vote for May and increase her majority will be seen to embolden her and encourage on the course of hardest of hard brexits and all that entails. There might be a combination of those who want her to win but for it to be close enough for her to worry about how she behaves subsequently and those who genuinely would take a Labour or Lib Dem government as long as it meant we didn't go through with it.

I personally think there'll be more of them around. I think a fair few people would take 5 years of Labour in power if it meant we didn't leave the EU. The tories can always come back in 5 years and lower taxes, re-cripple the NHS etc while they may then be smart enough not to offer another referendum then.

I've been a Labour voter my whole life but will be waiting to see if Labour's decision alters before voting. Safe to say, if their wishy washy position stays the same as it has been then I'll be lending my vote to the Lib Dems in June. Got to be done frankly.

Isn't the point that an increased majority will allow her to threaten the hardest of Brexits if required? It doesn't mean she will actually go through with it but will be in a stronger negotiating position ( whilst allowing her to carry it out if that is the better option than what is being offered by the EU).

Spending on the NHS has gone through the roof.  Spending on housing has fallen through the floor. (thanks to Labour mostly)

I quite like my MP so I'll vote Tory as usual.  Were I in a marginal seat and the Lib Dems had a decent candidate I'd vote LDs this time round.  Tories will win by a landslide though and it'll be fun watching the Corbyn carnage.

But threatening a hard brexit isn't what a hell of a lot of people want. It may increase her hand but then again, it may not. If she has a mandate but still can't agree a deal with the EU and we slip to WTO terms then what was the point? I think a lot of people already despaired at her initial approach and its notable how much that softened when article 50 day came. The idea of her returning to the garden line may well appeal to some but I think plenty think it's the wrong play so any threat will simply 've athrwat of making a big mistake.

I hope one of the other parties runs with the sovereignty line btw. This was such a big part of the campaign and how our parliament must 've free to decide how we run our country. All of a sudden, the opposition and some back benchers do exactly what they should be doing in holding the government to account and she's looking to rip it up. Question is, do we want a parliament with a vocal opposition and mps free to represent their constituents and/or vote on an issue based on the facts as they see them, not by simply following the whip. Or is it too inconvenient when the PM doesn't just get her own way?

Just how much do you think should be spent on the NHS ?

Porcupine, i think you're crediting the average voter with much more intelligence than is reality.

The money invested into the NHS can only be allocated on what the current population is, anything else is just a guess.

bigmo, I think you'd have to know exactly why spending has gone through the roof and start from there.

Housing policy by the last Labour government was an absolute disgrace.  Did less house building in thirteen years than Thatcher did in one.

That's my whole point CLYDEBANK.

Well it would be good if the political parties explained this and gave detailed reasons, rather than the simplistic Corbyn soundbite "let's invest in the NHS, it's not getting enough"  because it can never get enough.  Maybe it's getting too much.  It gets a huge amount, is increasing exponentially and it has to be looked at.  Nuttall was right about that, but people prefer to bury their heads in the sand.

brexiteers like me should be very afraid
davis talking about maybe more migrants
barrista visa,s
torys not certain to put immigration down to 10,s of 1000,s in thseir manifesto
this looks like getting their ducks in a row for a backslide on immigration ,imo

Apr 19, 2017 -- 9:58AM, 1st time poster wrote:

brexiteers like me should be very afraiddavis talking about maybe more migrantsbarrista visa,storys not certain to put immigration down to 10,s of 1000,s in thseir manifestothis looks like getting their ducks in a row for a backslide on immigration ,imo

And yet you listen to Farron et al and we are getting a Theresa May-led hard Brexit  based on an emphasis on unfounded fears (like a British government suddenly becoming a dictatorship of 'untrammelled power') over real and existing democratic deficits inherent in the EU.

I happen to think that a government that has to answer to its own people every election is far more accountable than a bureaucracy that in large part never has to answer to any electorate.