Wonder how much closer it would be if JC had the full support of the more centrist MPs in the party for the last 18 months....

or that they'd win comfortably with Yvette as Shadow Home Sec? or xyz as leader (minus all the past security/terror view concerns)?

might not have the same manifesto or the same appeal to young/ non-voters but would get more marginal voters turned off by abbott/security views etc?

we don' t know, all hypothetical

Do you not think that labour under there centre lefts, who tended to be their big remainers, would have risked firing off the lib dem route and getting routed good and proper? The amazing act of this election is the labour manifesto dragging the fight from a head on fight over brexit, where the tories were going to rip them to shreds with no backup from remainers to a fight the tories werent ready for and have had no answers for other than to try to tear it down. I cant imagine a manifesto like this under anyone else. As Im not the first to bring up the nazis, the manifesto is the offensive answer to the brexit maginot line.

The best result of the election will be if young voters are to come out in big numbers, regardless of the result, tired of our elections being dictated by the old, the ones who dont have to endure it on all levels.

Enjoy your holiday, the thread is a credit to you.

Of course we will never know.

We don't know why Labour has made this so close when the Tories had a poll lead of over 20% when the election was called.

Is it down to genuine enthusiasm for JCs leadership and policies, or is it down to Theresa revealling just how useless and without vision she and her cabinet are?

If it's the latter, then it's fairly clear Labour would have won this election under Yvette Cooper (although it probably wouldn't have taken place if she was Labour Leader tbh).

Well think we can safely say they dont call the election.

Labour cabinet are equally tripe though so you have to apportion at least some credit to policy/voters warming to corbyn (his approvals going up this isnt necessarily linked to Mays reducing).

Wonder how much closer it would be if JC had the full support of the more centrist MPs in the party for the last 18 months....

or that they'd win comfortably with Yvette as Shadow Home Sec? or xyz as leader (minus all the past security/terror view concerns)?

might not have the same manifesto or the same appeal to young/ non-voters but would get more marginal voters turned off by abbott/security views etc?

we don' t know, all hypothetical

Do you not think that labour under there centre lefts, who tended to be their big remainers, would have risked firing off the lib dem route and getting routed good and proper? The amazing act of this election is the labour manifesto dragging the fight from a head on fight over brexit, where the tories were going to rip them to shreds with no backup from remainers to a fight the tories werent ready for and have had no answers for other than to try to tear it down. I cant imagine a manifesto like this under anyone else. As Im not the first to bring up the nazis, the manifesto is the offensive answer to the brexit maginot line.

The best result of the election will be if young voters are to come out in big numbers, regardless of the result, tired of our elections being dictated by the old, the ones who dont have to endure it on all levels.

Enjoy your holiday, the thread is a credit to you.

They are all bullshitters when push comes to shove at the end of the day...

In fairness if we didnt change our opinion in the face of facts, we would all be tories.

My partner has zero interest in politics.

Her question this morning - which of the parties is strongest on fighting terror? I want to vote for them.

I imagine this sort of question was asked across the country today. What's the answer?

BNP

have anyone that 'believes' sectioned

Tighty was right

might not be muslims but if it is, when we going to say islam is dangerous

What is your solution?

I have "O" Level Latin - can I play?

Raise an A level in general studies.

Looks like some "loser" has struck again.

Why are we continually being targeted over the US?

Perceived as an easy target when we keep cutting funding in Police and Border Control maybe?

Was more why we are suddenly a target though, especially when ppl quote the syrian attacks we were little more than a heads up on. Seems the timing has to link to our election but what point are they trying to make it, or is its presence or its disruption magnifying the point they are making.

I have "O" Level Latin - can I play?

Raise an A level in general studies.

Looks like some "loser" has struck again.

Why are we continually being targeted over the US?

Big hypothetical, apologies if this upsets anyone or thinks it's redundant nonsense. Had the German's won WW2 and are occupying. How long are we allowed to keep fighting back? How long until when we fight back we are condemned as terrorists?

Hypothetical, is it fighting back to blow is city centres in britain or germany murdering people taking no part in the invasion/occupation.

How can a guy advocating using a weapon designed and capable of removing cities and nations from the face of the earth be worried about murdering people who are taking no part? You pull the trigger on Trident you probably more murder people than have been murdered in all of human history combined. Surely these are massively conflicting positions?

Who advocates it? Think I was clear I dont. But if you are in charge of a party backing trident you have to be willing to pull the trigger or we shouldnt have it (also dont back trident). Its not what you believe in, its what your belief plus policy does.

Theres of course the fact that if you could nuke a german city they may think twice about invading you in your example where as if you bomb manchester and kill as many english as german you would achieve about the same as ISIS.

To be clear, hopefully. You should say you would use it but actually you shouldn't use it?

Don't think ISIS are relevant, religion and religious fanaticism are forms of insanity, not relevant here.

Yes, isnt that what every politician in any country since '45 have done. Hes already agreed to do such by fronting a party with trident in their manifesto.

forms of insanity like erm the nazis.

Big hypothetical, apologies if this upsets anyone or thinks it's redundant nonsense. Had the German's won WW2 and are occupying. How long are we allowed to keep fighting back? How long until when we fight back we are condemned as terrorists?

Hypothetical, is it fighting back to blow is city centres in britain or germany murdering people taking no part in the invasion/occupation.

How can a guy advocating using a weapon designed and capable of removing cities and nations from the face of the earth be worried about murdering people who are taking no part? You pull the trigger on Trident you probably more murder people than have been murdered in all of human history combined. Surely these are massively conflicting positions?

Who advocates it? Think I was clear I dont. But if you are in charge of a party backing trident you have to be willing to pull the trigger or we shouldnt have it (also dont back trident). Its not what you believe in, its what your belief plus policy does.

Theres of course the fact that if you could nuke a german city they may think twice about invading you in your example where as if you bomb manchester and kill as many english as german you would achieve about the same as ISIS.

anyone wanna aftertime that one?

I think Farron has to go. 

For who though, they had no really choice but to go with him and the obvious choice is bring back clegg, but he might lose his seat. Not really his fault, they had to go for remainers, who knew people would rather vote the party that caused it.

Stoke could just outbid Everton?? I don't get that one Arb

Stoke could outbid most clubs financially if they choose to.  Whether the players would actually come is an entirely different matter.  Stoke have way more financial clout owner wise than Everton and every club outside the big 6.  The owners are worth more than double Ashley for example.  21st on the uk rich list.  

If the owners start thinking cracking the big 6 would be worth the investment off the pitch to promote 365 as much as on the pitch then it will happen.  The club is a marketing tool globally for the cash cow.

Attempting to compete with the top 6 is a pointless task, it would mean investing 100s of milions in a business with very poor revenue outside of TV money. You are already batting way above your level, stoke in turnover terms are relegation fodder? Youd need to spend 100s of millions and set the club up as a huge loss maker with no guarantees as the top 6 also have huge spending power and far greater revenue to rely on. Think youve missed the boat here where chelsea and man city did this, if youd done it years ago when the top 4 were so weak, now six teams who compete financially with anybody in the world, it would cost you 150m-200m just to bridge revenue gap?


Rooney is a great signing when you have a club with tiny exposure and your business also relys on it. There will be 10s of millions world wide who realsie who stoke are and bet365 get huge exposure to drive business in new markets. Also think his physical ability decline is over done and his problems are as much mental as anything else. He could just be huge for someone willing to gamble on him, hes always struck me as able to play the sheringham role and he would still be playing now if he was bucking so many reality tv stars.

Had a nice chunk on the Oaks winner yesterday.

Just fancied joining in...

nice one, hope you got a better price by tipping up the favourite

probably should have put caspian prince up again this year....