The 2017 General Election

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

lol, agreed, I appreciate that there's a few processes first. Maybe Ruth can move to Maidenhead or Uxbridge if one of the incumbent MPs steps down! Even Mick approves of Ruth despite her sensible stance on Brexit. But Ruth seems too clever too clever to get involved in the Westminster mess at the moment.

You can't have her, we need her here.

In all seriousness, she's said as much. She has a job to do here, and hopes to strengthen the Scottish Tories as the main opposition at the next Holyrood election in 2021.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Theresa needs to fall on her sword and let Ruth Davidson pick up the pieces. But Ruth is too shrewd to get extensively involved in the post-Brexit, ongoing austerity mess that the Conservative Party has inflicted on itself.

I like Ruth Davidson but she is not a member of parliament or the House of Lords so could not take part ithe government at the moment.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

Doesn't no border mean customs union?

By the way the dynamic that's changed is that May doesn't have the majority or statute to do whatever she wants. The Telegraph has reported Hammond made a demand that jobs and the economy should come first. Ruth Davidson has called for a softer Brexit too. There are enough MPs on both sides of this to cause problems given the size of the majority so the dynamic has changed now. Who knows what will actually happen ...

I can't remember what make up her last cabinet had but the new one has a strong Remain bias:

Prime Minister Theresa May remain
First Secretary of State Damian Green remain
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond remain
Secretary of State for the Home Department Amber Rudd remain
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Boris Johnson leave
Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon remain
Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis leave
Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox leave
Secretary of State for Justice David Lidington remain
Secretary of State for Education Justine Greening remain
Secretary of State for Business Greg Clark remain
Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt remain
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions David Gauke remain
Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Evans ?
Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling leave
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Sajid Javid remain
Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell remain
Secretary of State for Wales Alun Cairns remain
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland James Brokenshire remain
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Michael Gove leave
Secretary of State for International Development Priti Patel leave
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Karen Bradley remain


The new cabinet involvement in the Government policy making could "soften" previous "hard" Brexit negotiating goals ..

[Mr K]

Silly Boris, he seems to think the Tories won Clwyd South; they didn't !
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7785181.html

Originally Posted by Mr K

Silly Boris, he seems to think the Tories won Clwyd South; they didn't !
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7785181.html

Silly Jeremy, he seems to think Labour won the election, they didn't

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...-election-2017

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Err .. the point "House price inflation is good for the economy and creates growth" was the proposition that he then argues against!

I know. Read my point again.

So you give up and trot out the "mentally defective" summary .. inspired debating technique! Maybe Mother T use this strategy in the upcoming EU talks

It was giving up explaining why that mentally defectives points are mentally defective. I could have gone on but couldn't be bothered.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

Silly Jeremy, he seems to think Labour won the election, they didn't

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...-election-2017

There were no winners only losers after Thursdays election...

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I know. Read my point again.It was giving up explaining why that mentally defectives points are mentally defective. I could have gone on but couldn't be bothered.

Some people certainly think "House price inflation is good for the economy and creates growth". First link on a Google search:

How the housing market affects the economy

A look at how the housing market, and changes in house prices affects the rest of the economy. In summary:

Rising house prices, generally encourage consumer spending and lead to higher economic growth.
A sharp drop in house prices adversely affects consumer confidence, construction and leads to lower economic growth.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Some people certainly think "House price inflation is good for the economy and creates growth". First link on a Google search:

How the housing market affects the economy

In a general sense as that quote states it is true however when a country has an austerity led economy as we do the opposite applies.

Higher house prices = less available for economic growth as people are servicing their mortgages instead of spending money elsewhere in the economy.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Some people certainly think "House price inflation is good for the economy and creates growth". First link on a Google search:

How the housing market affects the economy

Wow! I wish I'd known that! What with owning 7 properties

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 ----------

From todays Telegraph letters page:

SIR – Regrettably this election has proved that so-called “British values” of support for democracy, the rule of law and tolerance of other beliefs are a delusion. Over 12 million people, including a majority of young electors, voted for a party that is anti-Semitic, with a leader who has promoted terrorists. They should be ashamed.

Says it all really

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have fallen into the trap of ignoring an argued response and just resorting to a crude parody to represent your opposition.

Andrew's link had reasoning & references in support of the points he was making. Let's have your article with reasoned arguments that refute that position ..

The argued response is so straight forward and obvious that I wasn't explicit enough? Really?

Obviously, if you keep printing money to bail out your economy, you will devalue your currency and investors will regard your country as being at higher risk. For short periods to deal with emergencies ( such as the recent crash) it is acceptable, but Jeremy Corbyn's plans clearly envisage a long term use of that mechanism to fund his crippling spending splurge.

Other countries have tried that, and look what happened. I did draw attention to Zimbabwe earlier, which is one of the prime examples that most people will know about.

---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

But the DUP and the British public don't want it. Hard Brexit is dead Mick, even soft Brexit isn't guaranteed. Keep the faith Mick if it makes you happy

Why do you say that? The main reasons people voted to leave were immigration, sovereignty and the ability to make our own laws. None of that is available with a 'soft' Brexit.

The two biggest parties following the election are the Conservatives and Labour. Both had manifestos committing to a reduction of immigration and an end to free movement. The EU has already said that we cannot avoid free movement if we wish to stay in the Common Market.

So where you get that idea from, that hard Brexit is dead, I really don't know.

[Ramrod]

When did British voters start rewarding anti-Semitism?

One of the interesting things about ‘diversity’ is that it allows almost anything to happen.

Consider Naz Shah, the MP for Bradford West. As I have said before, there is something strange about Bradford, because the city has managed in recent years to elect representatives of three parties. These include the Labour party (Naz Shah), the Liberal Democrat party (David Ward) and the Respect party (George Galloway). Fascinatingly all seem interested in similar themes. Why might that be?

Being a traditionally liberal and anti-racist country, someone who had a reputation for anti-Semitic outbursts would once have been punished for their stance by the public at the ballot box. Not today. And not in Bradford. This week Naz Shah managed to actually increase her share of the vote. By 10,000 votes. It is true that at a hustings she managed to say that she thought the Jews of the Middle East had a right to exist. And it is true that for this massive concession on her part, some of her potential voters accused her of being a Jew. But this is all just a demonstration of the rich diversity that Bradford now represents – a city where a person made most famous in the last Parliament for her anti-Semitism actually increases their vote when next putting themselves in front of the public.

Queen's speech has been delayed by a couple of days, looks like they are still in talks with the DUP.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Wow! I wish I'd known that! What with owning 7 properties

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 ----------

From todays Telegraph letters page:

Says it all really

You mean what a right wing Tory supporter says

The current Governemnt is trying to do a deal with a party that has terrorist associations, should they be ashamed as well?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You mean what a right wing Tory supporter says

Doesn't make it less true

The current Governemnt is trying to do a deal with a party that has terrorist associations, should they be ashamed as well?

As Osem already posted:
https://order-order.com/2017/06/11/l...with-the-dup/]