The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Drew_TNBD

Heartfeltdawn said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Except that doing a thing without anticipating the consequences is completely different to observing someone doing something shitty and supporting them in it.

We're all cool with the rest of the members of the Lost Prophet's because we know they didn't support their singer in noncing, even if the existence of the band helped to facillitate it. We'd be much less sympathetic to them if we knew they supported him in it or even knew about it but did nothing.

Kind of an extreme example I suppose, but I think there is a big distinction between those Maggie examples you gave and the Corbyn examples given.

The majority of Pinochet's victims, both those murdered and those tortured were in the 1970's before Thatcher took office. Statistically you're talking a similar number dead to those in The Troubles. So Pinochet did something shitty and Thatcher never condemned him and later had reason to be thankful to him for some assistance in the Falklands. 

Next, Iraq. We sold arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War despite being officially neutral. If you really want to claim that the British government didn't anticipate that Saddam might use those weapons, we could be having a long night. 

Next, Pol Pot. The whole story is here. Short version: the SAS trained up forces for Pol Pot from 1983. He was a ruthless totalitarian dictator before Thatcher came to power and he was still a bastard when the SAS went in. 

So morally dubious support acts is hardly the domain of Mr Beardy Vest. 

Cool, I think I'm just a bit ignorant of that part of history. I'll do some reading.

Heartfeltdawn said:

Drew_TNBD said:

And that's not even necessarily true either. People are fine digging up IRA connections when it's a Conservative MP who has a past, despite her turning over a new leaf. But Corbyn and his supporters have been dodging these accusations for years!

I'm not people though, am I?

I hope not!! I took you for a fellow free-thinker!

Heartfeltdawn

There is no free will. It's all lies! If you ever get bored one night, start reading stuff by Roy Baumeister on free will. Eye opening, funny, not entirely right, not entirely wrong. In short, how life is. 

Emp_Fab

I think this could damage Corbyn if he comes out with anything that could be remotely interpreted as soft on terrorism now.  He need to grasp that he's been doing really well - unexpectedly so - recently, primarily because he's be out and about and shedding this image the media have painted of him of being a beardy-leftie who can't be trusted with the big job and the fact that Labour's manifesto is more popular and populist than the Tories' one.

He's got to realise that it's populism that has boosted his chances and populism that will keep him there.  No matter what the logic may be in his thinking about tackling terrorism, he needs to be seen to be as angry as the public over this, and - sadly - as vengeful in his stated desires to eliminate it.  If he doesn't play and tries that game of semantics again by refusing to condemn islamic fundamentalism in particular, he's finished.

We're now in the very odd territory where a Labour leader can justifiably attack a Conservative one for not putting enough resources into policing.  That's a pretty big weapon to have so close to the election, but not as big as the one I suspect he may use to shoot himself in the foot any day now - his own gob.

Axe_meister

I think Labour have made a mistake in our area having deselected the sitting Labour MP who has represented the constituency for the past 30years and have selected a Corbenista.
We also have a large Muslim population who are less likely to vote for a woman

Cirrus

ICBM said:

Snap said:

His stance on nuclear weapons is classic for this. He assumes (because is fundamentally arrogant) that his disarmament stance will make people listen, lead a swell of opinion. It won't, it will merely expose our bellies, and put thousands out of work.

Just to pick up on this - no it won't. Even if it became Labour policy to cancel Trident (which it isn't) he wants to spend the money on improving the conventional forces. That's actually *better* for jobs - both in the services themselves and in the defence contractors - than Trident.

It also again raises the point that for some reason, people can't seem to see beyond Trident if we want to retain a nuclear capability. There are other types of nuclear weapons systems, which while not as good for fighting an all-out WW3, are a more credible deterrent because they could possibly be used *without* starting WW3.

Trident is actually not a good deterrent because it's too powerful for the threat of its use to be taken seriously - like Polaris before it. Did Polaris deter General Galtieri from invading the Falklands? Or for that matter, has Trident deterred Putin from conducting a proxy war in Ukraine?

Not only that, Trident is not an independent deterrent - the missiles are American. Regardless of what they say about us having freedom of use, that means that we are still dependent on them for the actual delivery system - with both money going outside the UK, and a question mark as to how high we are required to jump when the US asks, in order to maintain them.

If we must retain nuclear weapons - which I actually agree we should, while they exist elsewhere in the world - it needs to be a truly independent, British-built, smaller-scale, submarine cruise missile or air-launched system.

Meanwhile May has said that she "wouldn't hesitate" to use nuclear weapons, even in a first strike. If so she's either bluffing or insane - using Trident in a first strike would start WW3, and undoubtedly destroy our country. Even using it in retaliation is questionable.

I'm just quoting this in case anyone tried not to read it. Top marks.

Cirrus

Emp_Fab said:

I think this could damage Corbyn if he comes out with anything that could be remotely interpreted as soft on terrorism now.  He need to grasp that he's been doing really well - unexpectedly so - recently, primarily because he's be out and about and shedding this image the media have painted of him of being a beardy-leftie who can't be trusted with the big job and the fact that Labour's manifesto is more popular and populist than the Tories' one.

He's got to realise that it's populism that has boosted his chances and populism that will keep him there.  No matter what the logic may be in his thinking about tackling terrorism, he needs to be seen to be as angry as the public over this, and - sadly - as vengeful in his stated desires to eliminate it.  If he doesn't play and tries that game of semantics again by refusing to condemn islamic fundamentalism in particular, he's finished.

We're now in the very odd territory where a Labour leader can justifiably attack a Conservative one for not putting enough resources into policing.  That's a pretty big weapon to have so close to the election, but not as big as the one I suspect he may use to shoot himself in the foot any day now - his own gob.

I'm inclined to agree, and I'm *very* interested to see what happens tomorrow when the campaigning resumes.

Jalapeno

Cirrus said:

Emp_Fab said:

I think this could damage Corbyn if he comes out with anything that could be remotely interpreted as soft on terrorism now.  He need to grasp that he's been doing really well - unexpectedly so - recently, primarily because he's be out and about and shedding this image the media have painted of him of being a beardy-leftie who can't be trusted with the big job and the fact that Labour's manifesto is more popular and populist than the Tories' one.

He's got to realise that it's populism that has boosted his chances and populism that will keep him there.  No matter what the logic may be in his thinking about tackling terrorism, he needs to be seen to be as angry as the public over this, and - sadly - as vengeful in his stated desires to eliminate it.  If he doesn't play and tries that game of semantics again by refusing to condemn islamic fundamentalism in particular, he's finished.

We're now in the very odd territory where a Labour leader can justifiably attack a Conservative one for not putting enough resources into policing.  That's a pretty big weapon to have so close to the election, but not as big as the one I suspect he may use to shoot himself in the foot any day now - his own gob.

I'm inclined to agree, and I'm *very* interested to see what happens tomorrow when the campaigning resumes.

Agree, will be interesting to see if he's made it from lower 6th debating society to realpolitik. He'll be chopped spam if he doesn't step up ....

fields5069

That's the shame of the political life in my opinion. People don't want a balanced view of terrorism / civilian casualties etc. Jeremy Corbyn quite rightly stated that he deplored all bombing, all terrorism. But people only like to see one side; one side to Churchill, one side to Thatcher, one side to Corbyn. Why condemn IRA violence if you're going to ignore loyalist violence? Now that IS 6th form.

fields5069

Snap said:

I've been thinking about how Corbyn's mind works, and this was prompted by the bomb in Manchester.

In the 70s, 80s and even 90s, when terrorist attacks by the IRA were relatively common, deaths by bombing were happening quite often and the British public were rightly sickened.

In the environment of that sentiment, and public feeling, Corbyn still made a judgement call to sympathise with the IRA and to buddy up with them. He was all over them, acting like their best mate. What I have a real issue with (with him) is the lack of judgement this shows, and what it says about his character.

There is an argument to be made that engaging with terrorists is necessary to get them to move past it. I disagree, but understand the arguments against my view.

But, and its a crucial but, his sense of timing, perspective and general sensibiliy appears to be shot. And I think this stems from an innate arrogance and unwillingness to see other people's views if they don't align with his.

I also think he gravitates to who he perceives to be the underdog, or the David vs Goliath. He is doing this with Hamas, Hezbollah. What he is seemingly blind to, is how these underdogs are making their voices heard.

I think he has serious judgment flaws and this is one of the reasons I think he is completely unworthy of the position of Prime Minister.

His engagement with terrorists over the years, and his showing of support and solidarity with agencies linked to terrorism, make him fit for nothing in my opinion.

I;d say anyone who thinks he's OK should have a long hard think about that, Momentum too.

Buddying up sounds like he rented them a lock-up in North London to store some guns and shit. Most terrorism stems from legitimate struggle, crushing terrorism doesn't change the legitimacy of the struggle, which will continue no matter what.

Fretwired

We actually need some politicians who have the balls to tell us what we don't want to hear. May nearly managed it with frail care, then bungled it and did a U-turn. Andy Burnham was a weak, lilly livered shambles ... he didn't want to use the 'I' word so as not to offend those who voted for him. Bad news Andy - people were murdered in cold blood by an Islamic Jihadi who had been radicalised and who was convinced he was waging a holy war against the infidels, which is us.

Even Corbyn's doing it. He knows Trident won't be replaced. The UK can't afford it and I think we are getting to the point where if it's pumping £40 billion into a missile system or the NHS and frail care the public will want the latter. Big Len wants Trident as its lots of well paid jobs for his members. The UK can neither afford or justify such an expense given the size of our debt and the state of public services. That's what Corbyn should be saying - it would win him millions of votes.

We have politicians without balls who listen to silver tongued spin doctors who are more worried about looking good on TV as opposed to have some conviction and real polices. I doubt the NHS would have been created today ..

thomasw88

Snap said:

thomasw88 said:

I really don't share your point of view at all.  When you say buddy up, you mean attempt to facilitate discussion with the aim of creating peace.

You do actually realise that the British government unofficially were speaking to the IRA all the time they were saying they weren't.

The Irish troubles came to an end round the negotiating table not by one side killing more than the others.

At the time of regular bombings, killing British citizens, indiscriminately, he was pictured at IRA member's funerals, making his respects. If you think that is fine, then that really is up to you. I don't, and I think there are millions of people who agree with me.

I mean buddy up in it's truest sense as well, not just facilitate discussions. I remember it at the time, he was all over them - in my opinion, his conduct, timing, judgment etc showed a total blindspot for public opinion and sentiment, and was hugely disrespectful of British victims. this is an MP, not a general member of the public.

Thankyou for pointing out how the Troubles were settled. As a 47 year old, whose ancestors were in the Easter Risings in 1916, members of the original IRA, who's old enough to remember seeing and hearing about terrorist activity almost daily through my youth, who was in Belfast on the day the agreement was signed, I know exactly how it worked. I had personal interests involved (family).

Corbyn was an unneccessary meddler, who did the opposite of help the peace progress IMO. A busy body self appointed controversy seeking do-gooder, who's actions were poorly judged.

It seems he has made a lifetime habit of misjudging many things. Trident and the military are another.

I admire people who take a stand, and buck convention. I like that. But....it needs tempering with common sense and realism. His stance on nuclear weapons is classic for this. He assumes (because is fundamentally arrogant) that his disarmament stance will make people listen, lead a swell of opinion. It won't, it will merely expose our bellies, and put thousands out of work.

His politics, his views, his judgement and his politcal behaviour are (IMO) immature and naiive. As I've said before, he's an idealist and an activist, nothing like a leader.

the difference is that you're intimating that he supports the IRA which I don't believe he does.   He's on record saying he condemns all the bombing in Ireland both the IRA and Unionist sides.
He also said that he was working on the peace process - which may or may not be true.   But if true then your statements above are incorrect.

I really don't understand your stance or the relevance for Nuclear missiles to this conversation.  Nuclear  bombs are a very emotive subject but they have never stopped any terrorist activity at all.  I'd personally do away with them, I guess you wouldn't.

As to common sense -  UK supports/supported Saudi Arabia/Egypt/ and has been involved in various other activities that  have directly or indirectly resulted in the rise of  ISIS, and other terrorist organisations.
Surely we should be addressing that as a concern, and to blithely ignore our own actions in the world is far more a sign of misjudgement than anything Corbyn has done.

thomasw88

Fretwired said:

We actually need some politicians who have the balls to tell us what we don't want to hear. May nearly managed it with frail care, then bungled it and did a U-turn. Andy Burnham was a weak, lilly livered shambles ... he didn't want to use the 'I' word so as not to offend those who voted for him. Bad news Andy - people were murdered in cold blood by an Islamic Jihadi who had been radicalised and who was convinced he was waging a holy war against the infidels, which is us.

Even Corbyn's doing it. He knows Trident won't be replaced. The UK can't afford it and I think we are getting to the point where if it's pumping £40 billion into a missile system or the NHS and frail care the public will want the latter. Big Len wants Trident as its lots of well paid jobs for his members. The UK can neither afford or justify such an expense given the size of our debt and the state of public services. That's what Corbyn should be saying - it would win him millions of votes.

We have politicians without balls who listen to silver tongued spin doctors who are more worried about looking good on TV as opposed to have some conviction and real polices. I doubt the NHS would have been created today ..

Trident will be replaced.   Always can find the money for bombs, and there is no sensible debate within the UK about it at all.

Fretwired

thomasw88 said:

Trident will be replaced.   Always can find the money for bombs, and there is no sensible debate within the UK about it at all.

We'll agree to disagree - the armed forces would rather spend money on conventional forces and advances in tech mean subs will become easy to find and destroy.

exocet

Fretwired said:

thomasw88 said:

Trident will be replaced.   Always can find the money for bombs, and there is no sensible debate within the UK about it at all.

We'll agree to disagree - the armed forces would rather spend money on conventional forces and advances in tech mean subs will become easy to find and destroy.

I reckon that despite what the armed forces may want, they'll get an American Trident replacement...the "Special Relationship" and promise of a quick trade deal will ensure that happens.

Fretwired

Theresa May’s poll lead has fallen to five points a fortnight before the general election — the smallest margin over Labour since she came to power.

A YouGov poll for The Times puts Labour on 38 per cent of the vote, up three points since the end of last week and the party’s best performance since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in September 2015.

The Conservatives are down one point to 43 per cent, the Liberal Democrats up one point to 10 per cent and Ukip up one to 4 per cent.

If the swing is replicated in every constituency Mrs May would lose seats and the Conservatives would have an overall majority of two, down from 17.

Corbyn could win ....

Brad

Fretwired said:

Theresa May’s poll lead has fallen to five points a fortnight before the general election — the smallest margin over Labour since she came to power.

A YouGov poll for The Times puts Labour on 38 per cent of the vote, up three points since the end of last week and the party’s best performance since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in September 2015.

The Conservatives are down one point to 43 per cent, the Liberal Democrats up one point to 10 per cent and Ukip up one to 4 per cent.

If the swing is replicated in every constituency Mrs May would lose seats and the Conservatives would have an overall majority of two, down from 17.

Corbyn could win ....

I reckon it'll be won or lost on his speech tomorrow. Sounds like it's going to be controversial.

Fretwired

Brad said:

Fretwired said:

Theresa May’s poll lead has fallen to five points a fortnight before the general election — the smallest margin over Labour since she came to power.

A YouGov poll for The Times puts Labour on 38 per cent of the vote, up three points since the end of last week and the party’s best performance since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in September 2015.

The Conservatives are down one point to 43 per cent, the Liberal Democrats up one point to 10 per cent and Ukip up one to 4 per cent.

If the swing is replicated in every constituency Mrs May would lose seats and the Conservatives would have an overall majority of two, down from 17.

Corbyn could win ....

I reckon it'll be won or lost on his speech tomorrow. Sounds like it's going to be controversial.

Could be right, but May's on the back foot and UKIP supporters are moving back to UKIP. From what I've heard of Corbyn's speech I think it will go down well (based on BBC Newsnight report).  Corbyn is building up a head of steam.

paulads

  I think calling an election will be seen as a disastrous decision unless May significantly increases her majority...which is perhaps looking unlikely. Could she survive that, politically?

Emp_Fab

Jalapeno said:

Cirrus said:

Emp_Fab said:

I think this could damage Corbyn if he comes out with anything that could be remotely interpreted as soft on terrorism now.  He need to grasp that he's been doing really well - unexpectedly so - recently, primarily because he's be out and about and shedding this image the media have painted of him of being a beardy-leftie who can't be trusted with the big job and the fact that Labour's manifesto is more popular and populist than the Tories' one.

He's got to realise that it's populism that has boosted his chances and populism that will keep him there.  No matter what the logic may be in his thinking about tackling terrorism, he needs to be seen to be as angry as the public over this, and - sadly - as vengeful in his stated desires to eliminate it.  If he doesn't play and tries that game of semantics again by refusing to condemn islamic fundamentalism in particular, he's finished.

We're now in the very odd territory where a Labour leader can justifiably attack a Conservative one for not putting enough resources into policing.  That's a pretty big weapon to have so close to the election, but not as big as the one I suspect he may use to shoot himself in the foot any day now - his own gob.

I'm inclined to agree, and I'm *very* interested to see what happens tomorrow when the campaigning resumes.

Agree, will be interesting to see if he's made it from lower 6th debating society to realpolitik. He'll be chopped spam if he doesn't step up ....

Oh no.... this is uncharted territory...  two of you agree with me.  That's like lightning striking twenty-seven times in the same place !

ICBM

And as usual, Corbyn is 100% correct if you actually listen to what he has to say…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40053427