Good point. The role of Prime Minister has crept into presidential status that was never intended when our parliamentary system was created. The chancellor used to be the one with the power, because they held the purse strings. The PM was more of a chairman for the cabinet, which was composed of independent MP's in the days before party politics took its stranglehold and created career politicians and single-party cabinets. What is the point of electing a parliamentary representative for your constituency if they have no voice in parliament, and no power to effect real change? Parliament shouldn't be a single voice for the party with the most MP's.
i do, because she's in the process of implementing a bigoted and know-nothing agenda. instead of showing some real spine (like she did pre-referendum), she caved to the worst of your country for power. funny that. we, like gb, control our own currency. we, like gb, have a single party in power. and yet, it's all falling apart. know-nothing, indeed. also to your "good luck" comment....if the usa enters a recession because of a shutdown, so does the rest of the world. and the usa is also gb's biggest export partner. so it's a spite your own face kind of sentiment you're relaying.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-puts-eu-ahead-of-britain-in-trade-queue-l7t8zwn7k I guess being in a large trading block, has some advantages for trading. What was the brexit plan again? trade with the world?
So after Tory MPs are calling for her resignation, loosing seats and now having to form a minority government with the support of terrorist sympathisers, The DUP, do you think this was still the right thing to do?
I know you weren't talking to me but. At the time it seemed like a fairly good idea as Corbyn appeared dead in the water , then ,Labour had the brain wave of saying there'd abolish uni fees (which they'd introduced) , even offering to back date them which engaged younger voters and May ran a , frankly , disastrous and lazy campaign . Now we find ourselves in a far worse position all round with the real chance of at least one leadership challenge/election and probably another general election in short order.
Having an election definitely gave both Corbyn and May a lot more exposure in the non biased media (mostly TV), the actions of the press have been terrible though, print medium is a dying market though. Its quite ironic to have May in a coalition with the bananas DUP, who actually were terrorist sympathisers. Anti abortion, anti evolution, anti global warming and, anti gay, its quite like having an irish UKIP.
So re brexit: Britain is actually £490 billion poorer than we thought ONS reveals If brexit is going to damage the economy this much, is it still worth it?
Hindsight is a wonderfull thing; but I doubt many people expected her campaign to be so awful, myself included. What's not so surprising is the amount of naive young people we have who fall for Corbyns Commie nonsense. He promised just about anything and everything he could to get people onside, it was so transparent and little more than complete fantasy. So I gues if you are dumb enough to fall for it, or not, you have to say Corbyn ran a brilliant campaign, And May about as awful as it gets - she couldn't have engineered it worse if she was literally trying her best !
Actual the age where your more likely to vote tory then Labour is now 47! And the majority of those promises are things that France and Germany already offer, or things the UK used to have. Amazingly many of us have had hindsight before the event. So anyway how do you find what's happening now, does it full fill your expectations? Source: YouGov | How Britain voted at the 2017 general election
Corbyn would be a disaster for this country, be careful what you wish for. And yes, I'm sure you do think you're amazing.
Could you explain why reversing neoliberal policies would be 'a disaster', because the IMF seems to be backing that direction of travel: IMF: higher taxes for rich will cut inequality without hitting growth '' Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said. The Washington-based IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to demolish the argument that economic growth would suffer if governments in advanced Western countries forced the top 1% of earners to pay more tax. The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth. But the influential global institution said: “Empirical results do not support this argument, at least for levels of progressivity that are not excessive.” The IMF added that different types of wealth taxes might also be considered.'' whilst as already posted '' Shock figures released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) show that Britain is £490 billion poorer than was thought. Britain’s stock of wealth has fallen from a surplus of of £469 billion to a net deficit of £22 billion. The UK has totally lost its reserve of foreign assets, and is actually in a much more vulnerable deficit, losing any safety margin just Theresa May’s government is attempting a breakthrough in a crucial stage of Brexit negotiations.'' is a pretty poor result, arising purely from an internal argument of the tory party. And in further news, this is what replying on trading with a trump led america will lead too: ''Bombardier: May 'bitterly disappointed' as US tariff puts jobs at risk PM says she will work to protect jobs at Canadian aircraft maker in Northern Ireland after US imposes 219% trade levy'' Bombardier: May 'bitterly disappointed' as US tariff puts jobs at risk
It works better then tax the poor. And we have a lot of rich in the UK. And the IMF isn't exactly a left wing organisation, they're literally the experts in this situation.
I'm fairly certain I have seen you on more than one occasion take offence at sweeping insults aimed at people more in line with your politics. Maybe if less people decided to view the other side in sweeping clumps we'd have a lot less divisiveness and we'd get a lot more done.
I'm pretty sure it's already been tried. I seem to recall Corbyn proposed a further 5% hike at the top rates. It's hardly some dramatic change of policy is it.
He was promising everyone what they wanted to hear, but without any coherent or workable plan to pay for it all. I'm sorry but you have to be pretty naive to fall for that act. It's one thing to be politically alligned with Corbyn and beleive in extreme Socialism, it's another to fall for his delusions. Actually, they may very well amount to the same. I guess there's no good way to put it.