General Election 2017

[peterms]

 

[Xela]

4 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Off topic but I'd like to see electoral reform. Many people don't vote because they don't think they can make a difference.

I'm not quite with @blandy when he says his vote doesn't matter, because it does. Every vote matters in my opinion, because that shows engagement with politicans. But in a similar situation to many, my vote won't make the slightest bit of difference to the result of the election. It feels futile to go to the polling station. 

I'm not clued up as to what the answer is though mind.

PR?

The problem with that is that based on the last GE, UKIP would have had 82 MPs! No one wants that!

[El Zen]

31 minutes ago, Xela said:

PR?

The problem with that is that based on the last GE, UKIP would have had 82 MPs! No one wants that!

Except for the people who voted UKIP, of course. 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, jon_c said:

This is absolutely Corbyn's biggest problem. Yes the Tories have similar issues (see Fallon) but Labour rarely put anyone on TV who isn't Abbott or McDonnell. They really need to push some of the other shadow cabinet. 

Actually that's quite wrong. I've seen lots of Angela Rayner, Barry Gardiner and Rebecca Long-Bailey who have all been excellent. I missed Marr with Abbott this morning but I can guess she wasn't great. Corbyn should just force her to keep off the media until after the election.

[peterms]

Just for info on the continuing debate on senior Labour figures' views on Irish Republican violence:

 

and on whether politicians who meet members of the IRA are to be condemned or whether it's a necessary part of a process:

Quote

Despite protestations to the contrary over the years, the British Government constantly maintained open channels with the IRA during the worst of the Troubles...

Arriving at the secret meeting at Cheyne Walk in London were Sean Mac Stiofain, the then IRA chief of staff, Daithi O Conaill, Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Seamus Twomey and Ivor Bell.

The well documented meeting was a disaster. Sean Mac Stiofain effectively demanded the withdrawal of British security forces and the right for "Irish self determination", the end of Northern Ireland as the IRA saw it, within a few years.

"Mr Mac Stiofain was very much in charge," reveals the prime ministerial briefing.

"He made it clear that the crucial item was the declaration of intent. If that was got right, the rest would follow. So it was only worth talking about that."

Viscount Whitelaw said the demands could not be met because they breached his obligations to act in accordance to the will of the people of Northern Ireland.

"The IRA leaders said the commitment should never have been given," records the paper. "What had been enacted by Parliament could be repealed by Parliament."

While there had been optimism after the first meeting, there was now a sense of failure.

"The Secretary of State admitted to being emotionally exhausted by the afternoon's work," the papers recall.

"He was clearly depressed at the outcome of the meeting and found the experience of meeting and talking to Mr Mac Stiofain very unpleasant."

 

[Stevo985]

46 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Off topic but I'd like to see electoral reform. Many people don't vote because they don't think they can make a difference.

I'm not quite with @blandy when he says his vote doesn't matter, because it does. Every vote matters in my opinion, because that shows engagement with politicans. But in a similar situation to many, my vote won't make the slightest bit of difference to the result of the election. It feels futile to go to the polling station. 

I'm not clued up as to what the answer is though mind.

This. 

I'll vote, but it won't matter. I'm in a MASSIVE Tory majority constituency, so I know they'll win here. 

The turnout for referendums show that people will vote when they think it will make a difference. 

The problem is, between the voting system and the fact that a lot of people view political parties as all as bad as each other (which is agree with for a large part) it's no wonder people can't be bothered to vote. 

 

I also think we need to get into the 21st century and change the way we vote. We don't need to go to a voting station and put an x in a box. 

Give an option to do it online. I'm sure there's lots of security issues but I know other countries have experimented with this. It must be possible. 

[peterms]

Jeremy "Hunt" and friends want us to have a healthcare system like the US.

 

[PaulC]

Labours downfall will be Corbyn's ex lover Abbott. she is a total embarassment to the labour party who makes blunder after blunder. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by PaulC

[Xela]

24 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

This. 

I'll vote, but it won't matter. I'm in a MASSIVE Tory majority constituency, so I know they'll win here. 

You are a true blue now mate! 

[peterms]

Douglas Hurd, then an Opposition backbencher, met IRA man Danny Morrison.  (he of "Armalite and ballot box" fame.

 

[Stevo985]

10 minutes ago, Xela said:

You are a true blue now mate! 

Unfortunately. 

Ironically I'm as anti Tory as I've ever been. I don't consider myself a member or a supporter of any party. I've had my issues with all of them, and my general opinion of politicians is as low as it can be. They're all words removed. We just vote for the party who seek less of a word removed than all the others. 

But this time I feel very strongly against the Tories, at a time when my vote against them will mean nothing. 

[magnkarl]

54 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

This. 

I'll vote, but it won't matter. I'm in a MASSIVE Tory majority constituency, so I know they'll win here. 

The turnout for referendums show that people will vote when they think it will make a difference. 

The problem is, between the voting system and the fact that a lot of people view political parties as all as bad as each other (which is agree with for a large part) it's no wonder people can't be bothered to vote. 

 

I also think we need to get into the 21st century and change the way we vote. We don't need to go to a voting station and put an x in a box. 

Give an option to do it online. I'm sure there's lots of security issues but I know other countries have experimented with this. It must be possible. 

I'm in the same situation as you are. It's important to me to vote but I am in a constituency that is so heavily Conservative that not even a landslide would change that. 

Also the local Labour party in Winchester are an absolute disgrace. If you think Abbott is bad go on Winchester/Chandler's Ford Labour twitter. All they do is slag off other parties instead of talk about their quite positive manifesto. Their account is like UKIP's before the referendum.

[magnkarl]

41 minutes ago, peterms said:

Douglas Hurd, then an Opposition backbencher, met IRA man Danny Morrison.  (he of "Armalite and ballot box" fame.

 

Do you still not see the difference? No one in the Tory party are saying "I never met IRA, I never supported IRA" like Corbyn lied about on TV the other day. Instead of owning up to things and admitting they were wrong he keeps trying to dodge the question, just like Abbott just did. No amount of trying to find out when Conservatives met with IRA people (for peace talks or otherwise) will change how badly this has been managed by Corbyn and Abbott. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by magnkarl

[Davkaus]

I see Amber Rudd is the sacrificial lamb to the slaughter, attending the BBC debate, because May is too much of a coward to take part.

Strong and stable leadership, that. We have an incumbent PM that's 'never been elected' (to use her own words), who's in hiding, terrified of any kind of public scrutiny.

And she says Corbyn isn't up to the job. He may not be, but she certainly isn't. How's she going to fight Britain's corner against the EU when she's too scared to go up against leaders of minor parties in the UK?

Edited May 28, 2017 by Davkaus

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I see Amber Rudd is the sacrificial lamb to the slaughter, attending the BBC debate, because May is too much of a coward to take part.

Strong and stable leadership, that. We have an incumbent PM that's 'never been elected' (to use her own words), who's in hiding, terrified of any kind of public scrutiny.

And she says Corbyn isn't up to the job. He may not be, but she certainly isn't. How's she going to fight Britain's corner against the EU when she's too scared to go up against leaders of minor parties in the UK?

A great point, we have two pretty unstable party leaders if you ask me. I don't see how any of them could handle the negotiations if they can't handle being questioned on their manifesto/past without quivering like leaves in the wind.

[magnkarl]

Oh my, Diane, go back in your box and let someone else talk. You are being dismantled verbally as soon as you open your mouth..

 

[peterms]

39 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Do you still not see the difference? No one in the Tory party are saying "I never met IRA, I never supported IRA" like Corbyn lied about on TV the other day. Instead of owning up to things and admitting they were wrong he keeps trying to dodge the question, just like Abbott just did. No amount of trying to find out when Conservatives met with IRA people (for peace talks or otherwise) will change how badly this has been managed by Corbyn and Abbott. 

I don't think you get it.

The tories are saying it is wrong to have met the IRA.  Leading figures in the tory party met the IRA, in their capacity as IRA members.  This is hypocrisy.

They are making big play out of Corbyn having met McGuinness.

McGuinness claimed to have left the IRA in 1974.  This is disputed.  Corbyn met him as a Sinn Fein politician, after he claimed to have left the IRA.  This seems to be the basis for Corbyn's claim.  Saying it's a lie would mean that it was untrue that MM had left, and also that Corbyn knew it to be untrue.  I can see why tories would claim this for political advantage, despite not knowing either of these things and regardless of the hypocrisy involved.  It is less obvious why a casual observer should buy that line so uncritically, having no basis for knowing either way.

It's even less obvious why tories would claim it's so bad to have met McGuinness.

Quite a few people seem to have done so.

 

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's even less obvious why tories would claim it's so bad to have met McGuinness.

Quite a few people seem to have done so.

 

McGuiness isn't even the big deal to me. The big deal is Corbyn meeting convicted bombers and sharing a platform with them. In 2000 in shared a platform with convicted bomber McKenna and in 2005 he shared a platform with Raymond McCarthy. These aren't Sinn Fein members - they are convicted terrorists. If he doesn't know the difference between someone who is arguably a politican (McGuiness) and people who are convicted of blowing innocent people up he doesn't deserve to be PM. I would say the same for any Tory MP running for office too. This is not a jibe to the Labour party - but one to the character of Abbott and Corbyn.

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

McGuiness isn't even the big deal to me. The big deal is Corbyn meeting convicted bombers and sharing a platform with them. In 2000 in shared a platform with convicted bomber McKenna and in 2005 he shared a platform with Raymond McCarthy. These aren't Sinn Fein members - they are convicted terrorists. If he doesn't know the difference between someone who is arguably a politican (McGuiness) and people who are convicted of blowing innocent people up he doesn't deserve to be PM. I would say the same for any Tory MP running for office too. This is not a jibe to the Labour party - but one to the character of Abbott and Corbyn.

Please spare me the concern about sharing platforms with bombers.  The British Government was directly paying people it knew to be actively involved in murders, over many, many years.  Politicians frequently meet, form relationships with, and seek to work with some very unpleasant people.

The idea of this orchestrated, pearl-clutching faux outrage dominating the headlines while our PM sells WMDs to Saudi Arabia to murder Yemeni children is frankly sick-making.

Don't play along with it.

[Risso]

19 minutes ago, peterms said:

I don't think you get it.

The tories are saying it is wrong to have met the IRA.  Leading figures in the tory party met the IRA, in their capacity as IRA members.  This is hypocrisy.

They are making big play out of Corbyn having met McGuinness.

McGuinness claimed to have left the IRA in 1974.  This is disputed.  Corbyn met him as a Sinn Fein politician, after he claimed to have left the IRA.  This seems to be the basis for Corbyn's claim.  Saying it's a lie would mean that it was untrue that MM had left, and also that Corbyn knew it to be untrue.  I can see why tories would claim this for political advantage, despite not knowing either of these things and regardless of the hypocrisy involved.  It is less obvious why a casual observer should buy that line so uncritically, having no basis for knowing either way.

It's even less obvious why tories would claim it's so bad to have met McGuinness.

Quite a few people seem to have done so.

 

You either don't get it, or are being deliberately disingenuous.  One of the two.

There's a BIG difference between supportive of the aims of the IRA, and over the years appearing at their protest marches, speaking at their rallies and meeting their members; to being in government and meeting them, whether in secret or openly in an attempt to bring about the peace process.  It isn't just that Corbyn met the IRA, it's that he, McDonnell and Abbott all very openly and publicly were in support of their eventual aim of a united Ireland.  At least McDonnell has been open enough to apologise for his remarks.  Corbyn's mealy mouthed defence of his record is stomach churning and just a bare-faced lie.