You can't compare May to Corbyn on leadership or Brexit...Well I suppose you can but then again you just supported Vegan's conspiracy theory so there you go.

Corbyn isn't even supported by his own MPs. The EU would laugh at him. He's a nice but incapable man.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2017 9.33am)

Can we talk about May's car crash interview with Andrew Neil on Monday yet.

She is crap. No wonder she doesn't want to debate with Corbyn.

God help us if weak and wobbly is in Charge of Brexit.

Corbyn isn't supported by Blairite tory lite labour mp's ftfy

Oh you mean that party that could actually win elections....oh sorry...I forgot you meant the talking shop where everyone talks b0llocks about policies they will never get to implement.

You can't compare May to Corbyn on leadership or Brexit...Well I suppose you can but then again you just supported Vegan's conspiracy theory so there you go.

Corbyn isn't even supported by his own MPs. The EU would laugh at him. He's a nice but incapable man.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2017 9.33am)

Saying it's a reasonable question is not the same as saying it was a false flag. So I haven't supported a conspiracy theory as you say. In fact I don't even think Vegan has said it was a false flag, just raised the question.

False flag events are rarely (if ever) carried out by Government...as these are simply temporary custodians of the country...they're carried out by the Military and secret services.

Agreed.
I was trying to negate the red v blue stances here.

Do they happen...of course they do...how often is clearly open to debate...it's also suggested that they're used for matters far far bigger than a bloody election

I believe the election (to a degree) is an irrelevance tbh. It's more about the continued control through fear of the masses.

...however to consider a false flag event would be initiated on Children...and then by a British born civilian is beyond teh pale in my book.

As i said, it is unsavoury, but it should never be fully dismissed.

Surely if one were to happen it'd be by a nationalised individual from overseas and on a bigger scale.(?)

The idea that you can tax the wealthy to the tune of 45 billion and still maintain investment.

The defence review and doubts over the commitment to nuclear deterrence.

The lack of a commitment to reducing immigration.

All of these points aren't accurate. The Funding Britain document which costs Labour's spending plans sets out extra revenue from income tax of £6.4bn. This is also adjusted downwards for uncertainty so is a conservative estimate. They also allow for £3.9bn reduction due to changes in behaviour.

The manifesto sets out a clear commitment to renewing trident. There is no ambiguity.

The manifesto clearly states that "freedom of movement will end when we leave the EU". The proposal is for a fair immigration system without arbitrary targets. They will crack down on unscrupulous employers who have migrant worker only policies and get away with paying below minimum wages and offering substandard working conditions. It would be a system based on needs of business but not giving businesses unfettered access to cheap labour. They would also set up a Migrant Impact Fund to target areas most adversely affected by migration. An actual sensible targeted policy to ensure we have sufficient labour but strain on public services are managed and improved. The Tories just have an arbitrary target.

PM not dictator. This point has been covered. He doesn't unilaterally set policy or make decisions. Trident would be renewed without doubt under a Labour government.