The 2017 UK General Election Thread - Voting open today from 7am - 10pm

[BID0]

twitter.com/john3ners/status/866590917347639296

[KK]

The Daily Mail will probably go with something about Corbyn.

That would be The Sun's decision instead...

[Hypes]

Exclusive, we've paid an 'Ex-IRA killer' for this story?

[Wrathy]

I'm starting to think May is deliberately trying to not get a huge majority or even hand this to Labour. There's no way a Conservative campaign would be this much of a car crash - almost everything in the past few weeks has been the antithesis of how they've managed their party to power so consistently. None of it is in character for them.

Well the conspiracy theorist would say they want Labour to win so they can take the blame for Brexit being a disaster and the Tories will storm back in again in 2022.

That's basically what influences this view for me - as if the penny has dropped that this is a totally poisoned chalice and that winning this general election is a kiss of death. You could argue Corbyn and Labour realised this last summer but I think that's much less convincing - Corbz hates the EU and the party is just resigned to his whims now.

I'm starting to think May is deliberately trying to not get a huge majority or even hand this to Labour. There's no way a Conservative campaign would be this much of a car crash - almost everything in the past few weeks has been the antithesis of how they've managed their party to power so consistently. None of it is in character for them.

What the F ing chuff are you talking about?

Since May came in they have been gaffe central.

Trying to push through Brexit illegally.
Brexit means Brexit.

This is standard gooseberry fool.

Seems a bit obvious now though. In a way that people who aren't massive politics followers can't help but notice. All this "Theresa May's team" and dementia tax and u turning during an election you called while not costing your own policies and other mad shite. I mean it's poor form when a handful of backbench socialists leading their party towards a historic low in polling can still look reasonably conpetent by comparison. There's no real incentive to win this election because it will destroy our economy, and it feels like they're just churning out whatever chaotic nonsense they can in an attempt to not have to drive it through.

[BID0]

The amount of people I've heard this morning talking about how May is the only one to keep us safe and that Corbyn condone's terrorism

[Moggy]

The amount of people I've heard this morning talking about how May is the only one to keep us safe and that Corbyn condone's terrorism

The Corbyn supports terrorism thing has been rumbling away for a while, it’s only going to get worse after the events last night.

It’s crazy to think either party can “keep us safe”. Terrorism will happen under the Conservatives, it will happen under Labour.

[Corazon de Leon]

Campaigning has been suspended until further notice.

[Eighthours]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

[Moggy]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

[Return_of_the_STAR]

I knew yesterday that the right wing papers would ignore yesterday's bad day for May. You could tell by the face that their websites were ignoring it. The only reference to the interview was the DM reporting how she had announced in the interview that she would be putting billions extra to the NHS.

Also I believe that last nights terriorist attack will only strengthen the Tory vote. Millions voted out of the EU under the belief that if we can control our borders then we can stop the terrorists from coming to the uk and that we would have more powers to deport suspects. A lot of these voters didn't tend to vote in general elections, which is why the polling was wrong, they could well return at the GE for the tories inspired by last night to in their minds keep our country safe.

[Eighthours]

The amount of people I've heard this morning talking about how May is the only one to keep us safe and that Corbyn condone's terrorism

The Corbyn supports terrorism thing has been rumbling away for a while, it’s only going to get worse after the events last night.

It’s crazy to think either party can “keep us safe”. Terrorism will happen under the Conservatives, it will happen under Labour.

But it's about the perceived effectiveness of reaction, isn't it? The policies pursued to help our security situation, contain terrorism as much as possible and undermine the ideology fuelling it. Corbyn has a problem in this area because he's seen as soft on terrorism. We could get into debates as to why, but that's probably off topic right now... His policy of talking to all sides isn't necessarily an inferior approach to to the UK's countless military interventions in the eyes of many, but his stated intent of leaving all decision-making to the UN is an obviously flawed approach in my view. The UN has been rendered a talking shop at this point by the veto rights of Russia and China, so any policy that relies on them coming to decisions comes across as kicking the terrorism issue into the long grass. Effectively ruling out military action in all circumstances (when asked in the past, Corbyn hasn't been able to conceive of a scenario where he would greenlight military action) isn't reassuring me either.

The question, I suppose, is whether having Corbyn in Downing Street would cause terrorists to ignore us or carry on just as before; whether his different approach would result in us being more vulnerable or less likely to be attacked. We really haven't had the situation yet where a Western leader doesn't respond to terrorism with the usual words and actions. Would such a thing be a help or a hindrance? Personally I reckon that terrorists would continue to attack a UK whose leader just talks and doesn't do anything about them, and indeed it might even encourage them, but that's just a hunch. None of us actually know whether it would make a positive or negative difference, we just know individually which rhetoric we prefer when the worst happens.

[Eighthours]

Also I believe that last nights terriorist attack will only strengthen the Tory vote.

On the other hand, the Jo Cox murder looked like it would help Remain last year but didn't. It's hard to predict whether or how the polls will move.

[Eighthours]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

[Corazon de Leon]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

It'd be political suicide for Corbyn to state that he supports a united Ireland, obviously. It opens the door to Northern Ireland leaving the UK, and also to Scottish and Welsh independence if he gets in.

[Moggy]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/22/jeremy-co ... s-6653633/

[BID0]

The amount of people I've heard this morning talking about how May is the only one to keep us safe and that Corbyn condone's terrorism

The Corbyn supports terrorism thing has been rumbling away for a while, it’s only going to get worse after the events last night.

It’s crazy to think either party can “keep us safe”. Terrorism will happen under the Conservatives, it will happen under Labour.

But it's about the perceived effectiveness of reaction, isn't it? The policies pursued to help our security situation, contain terrorism as much as possible and undermine the ideology fuelling it. Corbyn has a problem in this area because he's seen as soft on terrorism. We could get into debates as to why, but that's probably off topic right now... His policy of talking to all sides isn't necessarily an inferior approach to to the UK's countless military interventions in the eyes of many, but his stated intent of leaving all decision-making to the UN is an obviously flawed approach in my view. The UN has been rendered a talking shop at this point by the veto rights of Russia and China, so any policy that relies on them coming to decisions comes across as kicking the terrorism issue into the long grass. Effectively ruling out military action in all circumstances (when asked in the past, Corbyn hasn't been able to conceive of a scenario where he would greenlight military action) isn't reassuring me either.

The question, I suppose, is whether having Corbyn in Downing Street would cause terrorists to ignore us or carry on just as before; whether his different approach would result in us being more vulnerable or less likely to be attacked. We really haven't had the situation yet where a Western leader doesn't respond to terrorism with the usual words and actions. Would such a thing be a help or a hindrance? Personally I reckon that terrorists would continue to attack a UK whose leader just talks and doesn't do anything about them, and indeed it might even encourage them, but that's just a hunch. None of us actually know whether it would make a positive or negative difference, we just know individually which rhetoric we prefer when the worst happens.

At the risk of sounding like a hippy mannn, I actually think Corbyn or somebody of his mindset would be the only kind of person who could save us from terrorism. You can keep doing what currently happens where I imagine 99.9% of threats are defused without anyone knowing but they'll always be one that gets through at some point unfortunately. Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

None of those causes are things that May or The Conservatives even acknowledge so nothing can ever improve

[Moggy]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

It'd be political suicide for Corbyn to state that he supports a united Ireland, obviously. It opens the door to Northern Ireland leaving the UK, and also to Scottish and Welsh independence if he gets in.

That's why I said "support the idea of", I don't see anything wrong with being open to the idea that N Ireland might want to join the Republic one day. In fact I think that is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement, if the people of N Ireland want to rejoin Ireland, then they should be allowed to.

[Corazon de Leon]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

It'd be political suicide for Corbyn to state that he supports a united Ireland, obviously. It opens the door to Northern Ireland leaving the UK, and also to Scottish and Welsh independence if he gets in.

That's why I said "support the idea of", I don't see anything wrong with being open to the idea that N Ireland might want to join the Republic one day. In fact I think that is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement, if the people of N Ireland want to rejoin Ireland, then they should be allowed to.

I agree with you - was just rebutting Eighthours' point. If Corbyn does support the idea of a united Ireland(which I'm pretty sure he does), he's undoubtedly constrained from being able to outright say that, and so has to mince his words a little bit.

[Eighthours]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/22/jeremy-co ... s-6653633/

Yep, lots about his views on a united Ireland there.

[Errkal]

At the risk of sounding like a hippy mannn, I actually think Corbyn or somebody of his mindset would be the only kind of person who could save us from terrorism. You can keep doing what currently happens where I imagine 99.9% of threats are defused without anyone knowing but they'll always be one that gets through at some point unfortunately. Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

None of those causes are things that May or The Conservatives even acknowledge so nothing can ever improve

This, if the conservative and current ways of solving "terrorism" worked it would have worked by now. People lash out and think that "attack them because they attacked us" is the right approach, in a normal invasion type war maybe, but this is idiological, the attack is making a statement about something and ignoring that statement and just blowing them up a bit doesn't help at all, it just strengthens their resolve and makes it worse.