Theresa May is sending Amber Rudd to the TV debates

[cannotbelievethistoday]

Ha ha ha ha ha.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/28/amber-rudd-to-stand-in-for-theresa-may-in-televised-leaders-debate

The PM is not capable of turning up on TV and debating policy, but I thought she was so very strong and so very stable??

Seriously?? So she is sending Amber Rudd???

This is madness. JC is looking more Prime Ministerial by the day.

Here's an excerpt from the interview with Andrew Neil:

AN: Alright, let me move on now, because many people have said your manifesto’s quite vague when it comes to how you’re going to pay for your spending pledges. So let’s see if we can get some clarity tonight. How are you going to pay for the extra £8 billion for the NHS?

PM: Andrew, when I go around the country and talk to people about what we’re going to do in government, what people want to know is are we actually going to have the strong economy that enables us to pay for the NHS and pay for the public services that people want? Now, in our manifesto we’ve put some examples of how we’re going to change the way money is used. On winter fuel payments, for example, we will means test that. That money will go into health and social care.

He then presses her some more but doesn't get a satisfactory answer, though she does at one point say that when the economy improves, they'll be in a better position to fund the NHS properly (she doesn't put it quite like that, but that's the gist.)
The full transcript is here: blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/andrew-neil-interviews-theresa-may-full-transcript/

Andrew, when I go around the country and talk to people about what we’re going to do in government, what people want to know is are we actually going to have the strong economy that enables us to pay for the NHS and pay for the public services that people want?
That's how they're going to pay for the NHS - by using a strong economy (partly through a decent Brexit) to fund it. Unlike Labour who are planning on buying back all the utilities at a HUGE cost and throwing money at everything they can think of without having any means of paying for it other than trying to get a few large companies to pay more CT (before they move out of the UK) & a few rich people to pay more income tax (before they either find ways of getting round it or move abroad). A strong economy is how a decent country funds its expenditure - not by borrowing because borrowing incurs interest and needs to be repaid at some point. It's the same idea as how an individual pays for their nice lifestyle - by earning a good income rather than bunging it on credit cards and then going bankrupt because they can't afford the repayments. Corbyn didn't even seem in his interview to understand that exchanging utility shares for government bonds was borrowing. If you put the country's economy into a good position as the Tory's want to do (and to a large extent have already done) then exports (what we sell) will exceed imports (what we buy), and firms in this country will generally be more profitable which means they'll pay more corporation tax WITHOUT having to put the tax rates up. The Torys have lowered CT rates for big and small companies over the last few years - that's great because it encourages business. Corbyn wants to change that round and make large companies pay more (and I'd bet that small companies will follow suit) which means that wages will suffer or prices will go up so end consumers suffer - how is that a good thing?

A strong economy where people aren't on zero hours contracts, where employment pays rather than having corporations exploit people, where the Government understands and cares about people.

Clue - that's not Theresa May and the Conservative party.

LadyPW, Andrew Neil didn't seem to want to admit he understood that the idea of government bonds in exchange for utilities shares is an extremely economically sound one. That is, if one has the interests of the UK population at heart rather than that of global capitalism. The utilities make money and they are a sound investment.

I live in France - ERDF which is the French nationalized energy company owns a good share of UK power utilities and the profits made by them in the UK go to the French economy. French citizens benefit from this but they think the UK is crazy for having allowed such a situation to come about!

Do you want money spent by the UK population on their transport and utilities to benefit the UK economy and government's ability to invest or do you want that money to go to France, Spain (via so called "Scottish" Power), etc?

The only way to stop that money from continuing to drain out of the UK is Corbyn's bond idea. You may want to call it borrowing but lots of us can see that it is investment. And it is a safe and sound one that will benefit the population on many levels.

May talks of capping energy prices in order to help the poor - that is a very weak idea compared to Corbyn's.

And it is not economically sound to have both low corporation tax and a high level of privatisation and foreign investment - which is Tory policy. And it is a policy which, combined with the banking crisis, leads to "austerity" AKA poverty for much of the population of a rich economy. And that isn't right. I'm sick of hearing that we can trust the Tories to manage the economy if what that means is a lot of money being made but that money being hoarded by an elite and allowed to drain out of the UK whilst average families struggle and we have shameful levels of poverty.

"If you put the country's economy into a good position as the Tory's want to do (and to a large extent have already done)"

LadyPW: I suggest you enlighten yourself by reading this:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/27/election-ignores-pressing-issue-economic-outlook-disastrous?CMP=fb_gu

Hackmum you do know that the Guardian is a paper that's completely biased towards Labour don't you? It's not exactly known for publishing unbiased articles

Hackmum you do know that the Guardian is a paper that's completely biased towards Labour don't you? It's not exactly known for publishing unbiased articles

Lmfao, really?!?

Unbiased its not but it has a neo liberal bias they are left leaning yes but more in a lib-dem/new labour direction

They've had 7 years though Lady and have admitted they've failed to meet their own targets and will need 10 years more than they said. They are failing.

It's not exactly known for publishing unbiased articles

Unlike the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Express.....

A nearby constituency has their Tory MP and candidate refusing to engage with any other candidates.
He's being ridiculed all over social media.

The Labour candidate has said he will debate any place, any location, any time. And the Tory candidate has just ignored him.

All the other candidates are campaigning around the constituency. The Tory candidate has just been replying you constituency emails saying "if you don't vote for me, fine but then you just want corbyn". The emails are being shared on social media.

The Tory strategy seems to be don't talk to anyone and pay for inflammatory anti-corbyn adverts on YouTube and Google to hide our dementia tax.

That's the adverts I've been getting.
Nothing positive.
Just saying "Do you want Corbyn"

Hackmum you do know that the Guardian is a paper that's completely biased towards Labour don't you? It's not exactly known for publishing unbiased articles hmm

What unbiased paper do you read??

LadyPW: "you do know that the Guardian is a paper that's completely biased towards Labour don't you? It's not exactly known for publishing unbiased articles."

On the contrary, the Guardian is much better than any other paper at publishing views from across the political spectrum. One of its regular columnists is the Tory Matthew d'Ancona. Another Tory, Ian Birrell, is a frequent contributor. In the 2010 general election, it came out in support of the Liberal Democrats.

And I'll tell you something else. I read a wide range of publications, including the Mail, the Times and the Spectator, as well as the Guardian. Unfortunately, you seem unwilling to read anything that might challenge your comfortable, small-minded bigotry. But you can't even spell "Tories", so what can we expect?

So here's my suggestion to you: read the article. You might learn something.

I'm guessing that you're all Labour voters - incapable of a rational discussion & relying instead on insults.
And I never said that other papers were unbiased, they all are. I'm pointing out that the Guardian currently primarily takes the Labour side.
Still, with any luck you'll not be so smug after the election.

Orlantina
Exactly. I'm centre left and would probably never vote tory. But I'm also not Corbyn's biggest fan.

Their entire campaign seems to be "labour is a mess son we'll call an election. Oh shit. People are seeing past Corbyn and considering policy. Run away and use the media to spout personal attacks and lies about corbyn".

My choices will always be green, labour or lib dem. But even if I was open to voting Tory then I'd be so put off by their behaviour. It is arrogant, full of lies and I can't stand the contempt they show for normal people.

LadyPW, in the interests of this rational discussion you're so keen to have, I'm checking this thread in the hope that you have commented on the direct question I asked you above.

Here it is again in case you missed it. Do you want money spent by the UK population on their transport and utilities to benefit the UK economy and government's ability to invest or do you want that money to go to France, Spain (via so called "Scottish" Power), etc?

Do you want money spent by the UK population on their transport and utilities to benefit the UK economy and government's ability to invest

Yes of course.

But nationalisation isn't the answer! Never has been and I'm old enough to remember when almost everything was nationalised and it was a complete fucking mess with the only beneficiaries the management and union leaders.

Look at Arthur Scargill and how he lined his pockets and all the other union bosses.

You are probably too young to have lived through this.

You are probably too young to have lived through this

Patronising much.

I'm old enough to remember when everything was nationalised too. And the miner's strikes were the backdrop to my growing up. I, like you no doubt, have childhood memories of the Winter of Discontent.

I can also remember Thatcher being elected and the promise that Conservative plans for privatisation, right to buy, the dismantling of heavy industry, etc were going to be the answer to everything and if everyone got on their bike and went out and got a job they would all prosper and do well.

I'm old enough to know very well what Tory governments' promises and policies do.

So how about a May supporter actually engages with the question about UK citizens money making profit for France, Spain and Germany when we pay for utilities that could be generating profit for our own state? (And if possible without making references to the 1970s a decade that none of us will live again - Arthur Scargill is not going to be running anything.)

And if you buy your electricity from ERDF as millions of British people do, you are buying it from a company which is 85% state owned. (And which makes nearly half of its turnover outside of that state in places like Britain).

I wonder what the French state does with all that foreign money? Perhaps they invest some of it in their excellent health service or extensive social housing stock?

The Tories love nationalised industries as long as they are run by other countries, France and China to name but two. Utilities, trains and new nuclear plants are all being run by foreign nationalised industries. So much for "taking back control" as promised by Brexit.

I'm very bored of being told I'm too young and too insulting to discuss things with. I'm nigh on 50 and try to remain polite in all these threads.

flatpack
The Tories love nationalising losses and privatising profits.

Their ideology is some bizarew fir of corporate socialism. No help for the poor but lots of subsidies for the rich.
Working tax credits get viewed as a handout to people on low incomes, it's not. It's a benefit to big companies who know they don't have to pay a decent wage because somebody else will top it up for them.

Why the state can't run railways and utilities for a profit and then use the profits to improve public services is beyond me.

Of course, you'd also have to look into how many private contractors are making a fortune from privatised prisons, security, NHS contracts etc.

The entire set up ensures anything potentially lucrative goes into private pockets, anything risky is handled by tax payer and if a private risk goes wrong then the tax payer foots the bill.

Hilarious that the Tories decided to run a campaign based on personality when that personality belongs to..........Theresa May. What a text book disaster it's been.

No doubt she will win. But I also have no doubt that those famed Tory knives are being sharpened against her as we speak.