UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

How do you intend to vote in the 2019 General Election if eligible?

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 30 4.3%
  • Conservatives

    Votes: 73 10.6%
  • DUP

    Votes: 5 0.7%
  • Green

    Votes: 23 3.3%
  • Labour

    Votes: 355 51.4%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 58 8.4%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 1.3%
  • SNP

    Votes: 19 2.8%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 6 0.9%
  • Independent

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • Other (BNP, Change UK, UUP and anyone else that I have forgotten)

    Votes: 10 1.4%
  • Not voting

    Votes: 57 8.3%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 41 5.9%

  • Total voters
    690
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
22,004
Unless you're Jewish, I don't think it's your place to tell a group of people what to be or not to be offended by.

The mistake he's made is not to engage with Jewish leaders over the perceived problem, basically ignoring the problem, dealing with any issues slowly and seemingly with reluctance, further alienating the Jewish community and confirming their worst fears.

I personally don't doubt that Corbyn himself isn't racist, however that doesn't mean that racist ideas haven't taken root on the far left of the party due to their antipathy towards Israel, and the lack of urgency and arrogance with which Corbyn has dealt with the problem has kept the issue running.

To put the problem to bed he just had to say, "what are your concerns, this is how I intend to deal with them, do you think that's appropriate" at the very start and problem goes away.
I'm saying if he applied the standard he is applying to May - that intent is necessary to prove anti-semitism - then there is no proof that Corbyn is one.
 

Sweet Square

ˈkämyənəst
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
24,203
Location
The Zone
Not celebrating Hitler for his genocide but his role in being the first the popularise the Chaplin stache.
Statue of former Italian leader Mussolini is unveiled.

Everyone - Well this seems pretty awful.

Big Brain @nickm - Embarrassing for sure but he isn't being celebrated for his fascism, but for his role in the Italian rail system.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The Frank Grimes effect with certain ''centrist types'' seems to be out in full for this election. The fact they've never being able to understand the political forces that came in play to give the British left the chance to take over most of the party in 2015 & 2016(Same goes for Leave winning the referendum) , has resulted in them being reactionaries in the purest sense. No matter what the left advocates it must be opposed by these centrist types, even if it makes them look like utter bell ends.

Left - Lets plant 2 billions trees in 20 years as part of giant plan to tackle climate change

Centrist- Er...did Diane Abbott come up with those numbers. Lolz..........(Bursts into flames)

Left - Workers create the wealth in companies, so they should also have a stake in it.

Centrist - Think you'll find that's theft. Oh Jezbollah

Left - Nazi statues are bad.

Centrist - Embarrassing for sure but she wasn't being celebrated for her nazi sympathies............




''Well, I don't need safety gloves, because I'm Jeremy Corb-!”
 
Last edited:

MoskvaRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
5,253
Location
Not Moskva
The Astor Tory hypocrisy angle seems counter-productive as it keeps the issue of anti-semitism in the spotlight. I doubt most voters care very much about the rights and wrongs of an American socialite MP who died 60 years ago.
 

Sweet Square

ˈkämyənəst
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
24,203
Location
The Zone
Dude, I may not be voting how you’d like but there’s no need to mock my life or work ethic.

I was self employed in my 20’s, got divorced in my 30’s and lost the lot! I’ve had to struggle to get back to where I am.

I got a job and have worked my arse off to live and to provide for my kids so I view my sloth like progress and what I have now with pride. Yeah, I’ve gone without and and can now finally feel comfortable. I’m fortunate.

Like I said, I have two houses, one was inherited but that 2nd house has changed my life. Yes I had to lose my parents to get here but my life is much easier now. Why on earth would I vote for a party that would actively stop me from making the same difference to my children’s life when I die?
you would rather line up with a party who not only holds you in contempt but wants nothing more than to destroy the social programs you are in favour of and someday your children might need.

Still going to vote for them ?
 

NWRed

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
1,196
I'm saying if he applied the standard he is applying to May - that intent is necessary to prove anti-semitism - then there is no proof that Corbyn is one.
No, and given the type of person he is I have no doubt that he personally isn't racist, what I was saying is he has created this problem himself by not acting quickly and decisively enough to accusations of anti-semitism within the party, not addressing his history of engaging with people the thought of as terrorists, not to mention the whole not accepting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism.

If he'd engaged with the Jewish community leaders on these issues properly instead of reacting with indignation the problem would not exist.
 

Cassidy

No longer at risk of being mistaken for a Scouser
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
31,735
No, and given the type of person he is I have no doubt that he personally isn't racist, what I was saying is he has created this problem himself by not acting quickly and decisively enough to accusations of anti-semitism within the party, not addressing his history of engaging with people the thought of as terrorists, not to mention the whole not accepting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism.

If he'd engaged with the Jewish community leaders on these issues properly instead of reacting with indignation the problem would not exist.
Doubt that

I do agree though that he should have handled this better
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
22,004
No, and given the type of person he is I have no doubt that he personally isn't racist, what I was saying is he has created this problem himself by not acting quickly and decisively enough to accusations of anti-semitism within the party, not addressing his history of engaging with people the thought of as terrorists, not to mention the whole not accepting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism.

If he'd engaged with the Jewish community leaders on these issues properly instead of reacting with indignation the problem would not exist.
We're talking past each other.
nickm said Theresa May cannot be anti-semitic because even though she unveiled the statue of a Nazi supporter, May did this because of her qualities other than Nazi support. That is, nickm claims to know what May's internal thought process behind the statue was. If that same standard, of assuming Corbyn's internal thought process, was used for his controversial actions, then the charge of anti-semitism would not stick.
 

T00lsh3d

T00ly O' Sh3d
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
8,767
Agreed and on the whole managers can't be arsed unless they have clear, short term, personal incentives. This isn't just a public sector problem, I have managers who do the bear minimum every day. They get "rewarded" with real term salary decreases every single year and active management/training to make them better (my incentive for managing them of course that their increased output increases my salary). The better managers get rewarded with real term increases every year, better company cars (we have 4 members of staff allocated for Model 3's in the next 12 months) as well as bi-annual bonuses that range from £1,000 to £10,000, to share the profit that they bring to the business. I don't offer a flat salary increases across the board with zero or non-incentivised bonuses because by definition that not only creates laziness, it actively encourages it. Why would anyone work their arses off when they get the same increase as someone who merely goes through the motions? Perfect example is I have two members of staff who started 5 years ago both with the same title starting on £28k... One now earns £55k (plus £5k bonus this year) whilst the other is under £30k (£0 bonus)

That's why part of the extensive NHS review should look at how we can integrate competition into the NHS and how we can pay people for their ability/contribution, rather than flat increases set by central government and pay bands that don't account for the fact that one person can contribute twice what another person might contribute despite exactly the same title. What do you think would happen if you were a consultant who was productive to the tune of £200k per annum in the open market, with the maximum NHS pay band being £108k? You'd leave. Likewise if you were a consultant with very minimal service but were exceptionally talented and outperforming someone with 15 years service? You'd be stuck on a 25% lower salary despite greater contributions. Again you'd leave.

It again shows the NHS incentivises their staff to be mediocre. As an NHS employee you have two choices: work to the bare minimum standard and earn the same as everyone else; or leave for the private sector to earn more. The best employee's leave, the worst ones stay and the service perpetually needs more money to provide a lesser service. If I ran my business this way I'd go out of business within 5 years as all my good staff would leave and the ones remaining would get the same pay irrespective of improvement. The NHS though can never go out of business as it merely requests (and invariably receives) more resources.

The solution will be complicated and varied and could be for example paying hospitals for every specific thing that they do (£x per CT scan, £x per MRI, £x per consultation; weighted for less populated regions) whilst giving the patient full choice of which hospital they want to attend; meaning NHS hospitals have to compete with each other to survive, giving full autonomy to the CEO to pay staff according to ability and for CEO pay to be directly related to the turnover of their hospital (bad hospitals would reduce in turnover, meaning the CEO salary would reduce. Good hospitals would grow turnover, possibly open new divisions and CEO salary increases). Online reviews I'm sure would be rife in this environment, with patients avoiding the 1 or 2 star hospitals and asking to be sent to the 4* or 5* ones.
Excellent post and I wholeheartedly agree. The reality is that in the private sector if you don’t perform you end up losing market share and dying off. You have to be exceptionally lucky to survive that. I resent the idea that you can run an inefficient public service and the remedy is a clamour for more resource. Conversely , run a lean operation and get your budget slashed. I know this is a huge generalisation, but my partner works in social care for the state, and the avoidable waste she encounters on a day to day basis makes my ears bleed. Yet a brief scan of the news is that the service is criminally underfunded. Anecdotal evidence is only worth so much, but it’s hard to discount when it’s right there in front of my eyes. It does make me wonder is If there is a finite amount of money you can pump into the service to make it work well, or whether it is a case of diminishing returns, ie the more you put in, the less you get for each £1 committed.

I’d love to hear the opinion of state workers on here, who will know a lot more about it than myself and will probably have contrary opinions
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
This is completely misleading and suggests either an attempt to deceive or a critical misunderstanding of the facts.

Debt [As % of gdp] was 40.4% in 1997, and 36.4% in 2008.It was 60% when the conservatives came to power. A 3% deficit was perfectly reasonable. Inflation was low and finance/property was driving it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

Of course there were small mistakes here and there, but to suggest 'labour ran up the deficit' is just junk. And don't dare mention manufacturing decline. That started pre-Thatcher, who destroyed it for good for the most part.

It was the conservatives who screwed the pooch. An expansionary policy in recession is pretty much Keynes 101. To start [when Brown was coordinating global response] bond yields were good, but based on flawed economic analysis at the time, the whole 'cut the deficit thing' became a thing, bond yields dropped, and boom. It was especially harsh in the light of our recent diversification into [mainly] US bonds.
Blair's spending wasn't a problem as a % of GDP as the economy was growing at a rate of knots, however it was a problem in that he increased spending drastically, whilst decreasing productivity on spend because that's what happens when you jizz money left right and centre without rhyme or reason.

"Taking into account the fact that real spending on these public services grew by more than inputs (and therefore by more than outputs), the average “bang for each buck” (outputs over spending) is estimated to have fallen by 13.4% between 1997 and 2007 – an average fall of 1.4% a year. Had “bang for each buck” in 2007 been at the same level as it was in 1997 then, according to these estimates at least, for the same level of spending 15.5% more could have been delivered. Alternatively the same quantity and quality of public services could have been delivered for £42.5 billion less spending. Of this £42.5 billion, £10.8 billion represents the decline in measured productivity (the fall in outputs divided by inputs) while the remaining £31.8 billion (numbers do not sum due to rounding) represents rising pay and prices relative to the general level of prices in the economy. "

I think it's absurd that we didn't have a budget surplus of at least £50b per annum by 2007.


 
Last edited:

Fingeredmouse

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
5,672
Location
Glasgow
Excellent post and I wholeheartedly agree. The reality is that in the private sector if you don’t perform you end up losing market share and dying off. You have to be exceptionally lucky to survive that. I resent the idea that you can run an inefficient public service and the remedy is a clamour for more resource. Conversely , run a lean operation and get your budget slashed. I know this is a huge generalisation, but my partner works in social care for the state, and the avoidable waste she encounters on a day to day basis makes my ears bleed. Yet a brief scan of the news is that the service is criminally underfunded. Anecdotal evidence is only worth so much, but it’s hard to discount when it’s right there in front of my eyes. It does make me wonder is If there is a finite amount of money you can pump into the service to make it work well, or whether it is a case of diminishing returns, ie the more you put in, the less you get for each £1 committed.

I’d love to hear the opinion of state workers on here, who will know a lot more about it than myself and will probably have contrary opinions
Social Work is criminally (literally) underfunded in Scotland, staff are paid very poorly (relative to the sane ranks in the NHS for instance) for a highly skilled and often dangerous job and it's incredibly hard to hire anyone as a consequence. I have no doubt that there are inefficiencies but it's way past the point of that being the primary issue. Children will die as a consequence and no doubt some overworked and underpaid social work will cop the flack for it.
There is no reason at all that the public sector can't be run with more efficiency and the only motivation to achieve that is most assuredly not personal gain. That is important. However, the issue of underfunding is real, serious and dangerous.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,590
Location
bin
but apparently laura and the BBC is all about the BJ and they are a corrupt biased conservative mouthpiece - im looking forward to the mental gymnastics to justify this
No mental gymnastics from me and I'm probably one of the biggest Beeboaners on here. Well done to them.
 

NWRed

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
1,196


 
Last edited:

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
50,922
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
I live in an area where the Tories could put Gary Glitter up as their candidate and he'd still win. I do vote but it feels like a waste of time.

I just googled to see when was the last time someone other than a Conservative candidate won, it was in 1918 when the Tories didn't field a candidate (it was won by the even more right-wing "National Party").
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
8,205
Location
Manchester
I was sceptical and wished that the PLP succeeded in getting rid of Corbyn, but it didn’t happen. I didn’t throw my toys out of the pram and abandoned what I stand for. You quitting doesn’t hurt Corbyn, it hurts the Labour party. And you know who it helps? The Conservatives, whose narrative you’re pushing about Corbyn being unelectable. Instead of pushing around propaganda maybe you should double down your help and efforts to get him elected. After all he is only a temporary custodian just like a football manager. Will you leave your club because you don’t like the next manager?

If another 5 years of Conservative government is a fair trade off for you to get rid of Corbyn then you should be ashamed to have ever considered yourself Labour.
Well said.
 

T00lsh3d

T00ly O' Sh3d
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
8,767
Social Work is criminally (literally) underfunded in Scotland, staff are paid very poorly (relative to the sane ranks in the NHS for instance) for a highly skilled and often dangerous job and it's incredibly hard to hire anyone as a consequence. I have no doubt that there are inefficiencies but it's way past the point of that being the primary issue. Children will die as a consequence and no doubt some overworked and underpaid social work will cop the flack for it.
There is no reason at all that the public sector can't be run with more efficiency and the only motivation to achieve that is most assuredly not personal gain. That is important. However, the issue of underfunding is real, serious and dangerous.
Ok, well as I said anecdotal experience only goes so far (hence me asking for some wider opinions) and I certainly can’t speak for the issues in Scotland.
One of the ones I see regards seasonal demand, and this public body’s refusal to use temporary labour. So, in a time of high demand, around this time of the year, there’ll be a hefty recruitment drive. When the demand tails off they’ll have people rota’d on who literally sit in the office all day without taking calls. I question this as, although it is a skilled position (more skilled than it’s given credit for) surely there must be an option for taking on pre/part qualified temps and getting them up to a standard, or sending them out on the mandatory double-up calls?
Sick time also seems to be a massive issue, that isn’t managed stringently, with a general culture that you can take the piss to a reasonable degree without it being eye-wateringly blatant.
I know I’m referring to an isolated and small part of public services, but my assumption is that it’s not confined to just the specific area I’m discussing, and the general points will probably apply further.
 

ThierryHenry

wishes he could watch Arsenal games with KM
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
13,748
Location
London Town
Fun day of debate in here. Particularly enjoyed the skewering of sun-tzu and Mike's defence of New Labour.

I'm basically happy to completely ignore the intra-left arguments of this election, believing that it's completely irrelevant, as the best we can hope for is a repeat of 2017. That would then presumably be followed by the resignation of JC, and I'm sure quite a rumble will then follow. But (thankfully) that's not the debate for today...

To the end of hoping for a repeat of 2017, I suppose there are two things that could still move the election;
1) The complete collapse of the Lib Dems in the polls. It already feels like support for the Lib Dems is collapsing, but we've a long way to go if the share of the vote is to reach 2017 levels. If that happens, I imagine the electoral map becomes more like 2017 than what's in the MRP poll? As in, there will surely be some Tory/ Lib Dem marginals that swing blue, but apart from that, you'll see better odds for Labour in Blue/Red swingseats.
2) The wrecking ball of Donald Trump coming to London, one week before the election date. I just can't see any way that that ends positively for the Conservatives.

If the above can help close the Labour/Tory gap by 2/3 points, we're back to likely minority government territory. I don't think that's a completely ridiculous outcome?

Finally:
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
13,188
Location
Stamford Bridge
Supports
Chelsea
No, and given the type of person he is I have no doubt that he personally isn't racist, what I was saying is he has created this problem himself by not acting quickly and decisively enough to accusations of anti-semitism within the party, not addressing his history of engaging with people the thought of as terrorists, not to mention the whole not accepting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism.

If he'd engaged with the Jewish community leaders on these issues properly instead of reacting with indignation the problem would not exist.
This. Absolutely fecking this. It’s basic crisis management and he totally ballsed it up.
 

Oo0AahCantona

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
5,348
being called an idiot or a disgusting human being? Of which I and the majority of voters (on both sides) are not... what’s the point in such language and attitude. It’s so very easy to ignore, I’m sure there are some valid points, but they get lost.

The repercussions of the financial crash (did you see I haven’t put in a pointless dig at the Labour Party...) could have been far worse, and we as a country didn’t suffer as much as some. Maybe that was luck, maybe that was action taken by the government?

the problem with a two party political system is it forces you to make a binary decision - no party will ever be representative of exactly what you want.

So it’s actually pointless for me to start listing the positives and the negatives of parties - the reality is most people would agree with elements of both parties. Simply put, my opinion is that a Tory govt would be better for this country at this time, given what they propose compared to what the opposition are presenting. I don't need to revert to insults, fake news, quoting articles that I find that conveniently reinforce my point of view - I dont need to justify it. I won’t be campaigning on the streets, I will have a sensible conversation with anyone, and unlike most people I won’t try and convince them that my point of view is correct.
This is the reason i resort to ad homs out of pure frustration and rage, there's just so much wrong with your response because i have to inductively reason from your inability to actually attempt to tackle ANYTHING i said in my post that you are a carbon copy of the type of NPC tory voters i mentioned. Why would you put a dig in at the labour party for causing the 2008 financial crash, your not serious? if you wanted an easy one you could have gone with blair's foreign policy and the iraq war which is something that haunts me still.

You either cant logically reason why you vote for them, or if you do, you refuse to say why because you know the ideology to which the party follows has a proven track record to cause demonstrable harm to majority segments of the country, both in recent memory, historically and in the near future as a continued trend of their current policy positions. It is also hilarious that your almost chalking the last decade of government policy as a positive under the circumstances? The depth of the austerity measures put in place were not the only economically viable option, and as a result the schism under the fabric of British society has only proceeded to widen to outcomes you can point to plain as day. Resurgence in gang violence in the capital and other major cities, work poverty, homelessness, straining NHS and public services, food banks, child poverty, widening gap in income inequality and social mobility, 0 hour contracts bolstering employment numbers, housing shortages, the Brexit vote and increases in bigoted and racial incidents. It's an absolute fallacy that we didn't suffer as a direct result of government policy over this period, and we now have an even further right iteration of the conservative party, i mean jesus the home secretary is one of the most vile politicians in recent memory.

The point is you do have to justify why your voting for them, by pointing to actual outcomes in society and their track record or to an identification with an ideology which you need to show fits your philosophical axioms. If you cant or wont attempt to convince people your point of view is correct perhaps its time to take a look at why that is.

I maintain your individual vote carries consequences because of the impact of the policy positions that you are empowering, and a vote for the conservative party out of either ignorance or you just don't care about people(which is actually fine in principle if you are able to ground your personal philosophy) which makes you either a useful idiot for their agenda, or a disgusting human being.

I implore you to do some research.
 

Grinner

Not fat gutted. Hirsuteness of shoulders TBD.
Staff
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
72,329
Location
I love free dirt and rocks!
Supports
Arsenal
Why doesn't Boris get asked why he needs others to decide if he sits down with Brillo Neill? He's the PM FFS, can't he decide for himself whether he will do an interview on the biggest network with the biggest interviewer in the run-up to an election?
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
You can use terms such as seizing private property all you like but there's no evidence this is the case and that those assets won't still legally belong to the firm even if they're not accessible.
the fact that labour proposed that tenants could purchase their rented property from a landlord against the landlords wishes and at a value not set by the owner of the property is an astonishing attack.

This is the reason i resort to ad homs out of pure frustration and rage, there's just so much wrong with your response because i have to inductively reason from your inability to actually attempt to tackle ANYTHING i said in my post that you are a carbon copy of the type of NPC tory voters i mentioned. Why would you put a dig in at the labour party for causing the 2008 financial crash, your not serious? if you wanted an easy one you could have gone with blair's foreign policy and the iraq war which is something that haunts me still.

You either cant logically reason why you vote for them, or if you do, you refuse to say why because you know the ideology to which the party follows has a proven track record to cause demonstrable harm to majority segments of the country, both in recent memory, historically and in the near future as a continued trend of their current policy positions. It is also hilarious that your almost chalking the last decade of government policy as a positive under the circumstances? The depth of the austerity measures put in place were not the only economically viable option, and as a result the schism under the fabric of British society has only proceeded to widen to outcomes you can point to plain as day. Resurgence in gang violence in the capital and other major cities, work poverty, homelessness, straining NHS and public services, food banks, child poverty, widening gap in income inequality and social mobility, 0 hour contracts bolstering employment numbers, housing shortages, the Brexit vote and increases in bigoted and racial incidents. It's an absolute fallacy that we didn't suffer as a direct result of government policy over this period, and we now have an even further right iteration of the conservative party, i mean jesus the home secretary is one of the most vile politicians in recent memory.

The point is you do have to justify why your voting for them, by pointing to actual outcomes in society and their track record or to an identification with an ideology which you need to show fits your philosophical axioms. If you cant or wont attempt to convince people your point of view is correct perhaps its time to take a look at why that is.

I maintain your individual vote carries consequences because of the impact of the policy positions that you are empowering, and a vote for the conservative party out of either ignorance or you just don't care about people(which is actually fine in principle if you are able to ground your personal philosophy) which makes you either a useful idiot for their agenda, or a disgusting human being.

I implore you to do some research.
I own multiple businesses, own over £3m in property and have an economics background. Now you know this, do you really think I don’t have a handle of the economic virtues of the parties vying for power?

I would be happy to speak to any rational person about the policies set out in this election. However, it doesn’t matter how many paragraphs you write, I don’t need to justify my view to you on anyone on a forum...

Do you expect everyone to justify the way they intend to vote? Is the purpose so that you can ridicule them if they don’t agree with you? It seems you want an argument rather than a discussion.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
22,004

Are you guys on whatsapp now? If this is true, then it's all over. There is no way to win back whatsapp voters.
 

Grinner

Not fat gutted. Hirsuteness of shoulders TBD.
Staff
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
72,329
Location
I love free dirt and rocks!
Supports
Arsenal
the fact that labour proposed that tenants could purchase their rented property from a landlord against the landlords wishes and at a value not set by the owner of the property is an astonishing attack.



I own multiple businesses, own over £3m in property and have an economics background. Now you know this, do you really think I don’t have a handle of the economic virtues of the parties vying for power?

I would be happy to speak to any rational person about the policies set out in this election. However, it doesn’t matter how many paragraphs you write, I don’t need to justify my view to you on anyone on a forum...

Do you expect everyone to justify the way they intend to vote? Is the purpose so that you can ridicule them if they don’t agree with you? It seems you want an argument rather than a discussion.
Well clearly voting conservative is in your best interest....if you don't give a feck about others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.