Re: The 2017 UK General Election Thread - Last day to register to vote
Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 10:55 pm
Games and Stuff
https://grcade.co.uk/
Chris wrote:The Daily Mail will probably go with something about Corbyn.
KK wrote:Wrathy wrote: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.
DML wrote:Wrathy wrote: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.
BID0 wrote: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
Alvin Flummux wrote:How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?
Eighthours wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote: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 wrote:BID0 wrote: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.
Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Also I believe that last nights terriorist attack will only strengthen the Tory vote.
Moggy wrote:Eighthours wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote: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?
Eighthours wrote:Moggy wrote:Eighthours wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote: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.
Eighthours wrote:Moggy wrote:Eighthours wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote: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.
Eighthours wrote:Moggy wrote:BID0 wrote: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.
Corazon de Leon wrote:Eighthours wrote:Moggy wrote:Eighthours wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote: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 wrote:Corazon de Leon wrote:Eighthours wrote:Moggy wrote:Eighthours wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote: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.
Moggy wrote:Eighthours wrote:Moggy wrote:Eighthours wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote: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 wrote: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