General Election 2017

[Guest av1]

I know i will probably get laughed out of the thread for this, but given the choices are all equally as terrifying and incompetent (for me anyway). Does anyone think another coalition might be better than an outright party win?

[jon_c]

7 minutes ago, av1 said:

I know i will probably get laughed out of the thread for this, but given the choices are all equally as terrifying and incompetent (for me anyway). Does anyone think another coalition might be better than an outright party win?

I think a coalition whilst not great, is a better prospect than some of these parties getting Carte Blanche.

[bickster]

20 minutes ago, av1 said:

I know i will probably get laughed out of the thread for this, but given the choices are all equally as terrifying and incompetent (for me anyway). Does anyone think another coalition might be better than an outright party win?

Um, that would just be throwing yet more incompetence into the pot whether it be Lib Dem (no talent left) or SNP (most of them still wearing nappies)

[markavfc40]

17 hours ago, blandy said:

While you might be right that the tories are throwing whatever out of alarm, the rest of what I've quoted isn't fair. There are plenty of people, limited of thinking or otherwise, who believe that it's indicative of a man with hugely flawed judgement and a flawed moral compass. Those flaws are seen by many people on left and right as too serious to make him a viable choice for either a party leader or PM. Other people see his good points, his financial honesty, his living by his values, his independence from party whips, his desire for social justice etc and decide that's more than good enough for them, especially when the government is so vile and led by a hollow shell of a being.

Pete I think both your post above and Darren's that it was in response to both make valid points.

Corbyns views on the IRA, and other groups, cannot be overlooked. They can't be allowed to become the be all and end all either as there are other issues that are arguably of far greater importance.

Given the choices on offer it is highly unlikely anyone will be going into the booth on June 8th totally agreeing with a party or in tune with any leader. Many would say we are voting for the best of a bad bunch. For me personally I'll be looking at who is most likely to look after the NHS, who is most likely to ensure a decent level of education for all, who is most likely to solve the housing crisis to help ensue those generations behind mine have the same opportunity I did to get on the housing ladder and those that can't afford to have access to good social housing, who is most likely to ensure those who become ill, old and frail or who have a disability are well looked after by the state, who will ensure that those of us who hit on hard times will have a state provision in place to give us a leg up, who will ensure me and mine are kept safe and who will ensure the gap between the haves and the have nots closes.

I guess mine are all very internal issues. I don't have a burning issue with Brexit. I think who ever negotiates a deal will want one that ensures its gives us the best economic prospects and I don't see any party as more capable of being able to negotiate a deal although I am more concerned about this under the Tories.

I think given all of the above to coin a phrase that has been used a number of times in this thread then, despite having many reservations about them, for me it is a no brainer who to vote for.

Edited May 30, 2017 by markavfc40

[VillaChris]

Little prospect of another coalition this time.

Tories taking less than 50 seats and May will look very silly for calling the election early so public confidence will nosedive with here if not already amongst Tory supporters.

Labour can get in next time in 2022 (or before) if they properly sort themselves out.

Way it's always been in U.K politics, one party rules for around a decade and then people get bored of them and want the other party to have a crack at things. 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

ironically it's Brexit that creates the opportunity to bin the neo-liberal economic model we were previously locked in to

Well, it does in theory, and it is the case that Maastricht and Lisbon treaties entrench neoliberalism in a way which is seldom discussed among people on the left, for reasons that escape me.

However, if people like the current crop of tories are in charge of making arrangements for what happens after Brexit, there is zero chance of escaping neoliberalism.

Instead, we will tumble into ill-considered and massively damaging trade arrangements with the US and others, which will involve accepting things like their greatly inferior food standards (which Trump is already in the process of weakening further), opening up more of our public services to their parasitic corporations, and so on.  It will be driven by panic as the timetable for exit ticks along, and fuelled by the supine US-worship of fools like Liam Fox.  It will be an utter disaster.

[Awol]

19 minutes ago, peterms said:

Well, it does in theory, and it is the case that Maastricht and Lisbon treaties entrench neoliberalism in a way which is seldom discussed among people on the left, for reasons that escape me.

However, if people like the current crop of tories are in charge of making arrangements for what happens after Brexit, there is zero chance of escaping neoliberalism.

Instead, we will tumble into ill-considered and massively damaging trade arrangements with the US and others, which will involve accepting things like their greatly inferior food standards (which Trump is already in the process of weakening further), opening up more of our public services to their parasitic corporations, and so on.  It will be driven by panic as the timetable for exit ticks along, and fuelled by the supine US-worship of fools like Liam Fox.  It will be an utter disaster.

It could be, if they try to act as you suggest. Alternatively they may recognise chlorine washed chicken and an insurance based healthcare system will go down very badly indeed, badly enough to bring down a government via mass protest in the case of the NHS.

Knowing that, and on the basis that trade terms cannot be forced on to a counter party (even by the US) they may not be stupid enough to go down that route in the first place? 

The Americans do have free trade agreements with countries that don't involve the mass rape of public services, I know this having lived in one for the last seven years. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Awol

[theboyangel]

Sadly in probably our most important time for Great Britain in a long time, we have been dealt a shitty hand of politicians.

i cannot think of one or two MPs who I admire, believe and think want what's best for the country. 

Cannot stand Theresa May, the Labour Party is at odds which other and the rest aren't worth the vote.

its such a sad sad time.

 

[markavfc40]

22 minutes ago, Awol said:

 

The Americans do have free trade agreements with countries that don't involve the mass rape of public services, I know this having lived in one for the last seven years. 

I am sure plenty do mate. They didn't have a Tory government, who love nothing more than mass rape of public services, negotiating those free trade agreements though did they.

[TrentVilla]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

The Torygraph is reporting this today - yes a right wing paper but no denial that the story is true. It seems he went to a wreath laying ceremony for this particular terrorist less than a year before becoming party leader. Why on earth would he mourn someone involved in the brutal murder of innocent Olympic athletes? Not just that but Jews murdered in Munich, about as symbolic of anti Semitism as you could possibly get.

Strangely there doesn't seem to be a record of him attending funerals or ceremonies for innocent Jews killed by those same people he honours, invites to Parliament and calls "friends".

 If Corbyn supports terrorism he should at least be honest about it and drop this clear lie about being a man of peace. It's fair to say Shami Chakrabati definitely earned her peerage...

At what point will his supporters drop the pretence that JC is a kindly, benign & avuncular old chap and admit he is a partisan supporter of some really bad people and there is zero evidence of him changing those views? 

Does his judgement on these issues really not matter as long as he promises people lots of free stuff?

If a potential Tory PM had a history of supporting neo-Nazis and the KKK would Tory voters say "well yeah it doesn't really matter, that's all in the past and only the left wing media trolls care about it anyway"? 

Feels like we are through the looking glass and I honestly can't understand how this stuff doesn't matter to so many people, so could someone - anyone - please explain to me how and why Corbyn's record is okay? 

It was reported elsewhere yesterday also so there has been plenty of time for a rebuttal. Me thinks one won't be forthcoming.

I find it interesting he finds time for events like this but has twice reportedly been too busy to accept invitations to visit the Holocaust museum in Israel instead sending others in his place.

I find both his judgment and choice of friends disturbing and simply could never support his elevation to PM.

Those that support him seek to dismiss these things as being myths peddled by  the right wing press, the reality is quite different and it's not just those on the right troubled by his long standing associations with terrorists and terrorist organisations.

Simply saying 'but he is better than May' isn't good enough and frankly I'm not even sure it's true. (That doesn't mean I approve of May or her policies)

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, markavfc40 said:

Pete I think both your post above and Darren's that it was in response to both make valid points.

Corbyns views on the IRA,and other groups cannot be overlooked. They can't be allowed to become the be all and end all either as there are other issues that are arguably of far greater importance.

Given the choices on offer it is highly unlikely anyone will be going into the booth on June 8th totally agreeing with a party or in tune with any leader. Many would say we are voting for the best of a bad bunch. For me personally I'll be looking at who is most likely to look after the NHS, who is most likely to ensure a decent level of education for all, who is most likely to solve the housing crisis to help ensue those generations behind mine have the same opportunity I did to get on the housing ladder and those that can't afford to have access to good social housing, who is most likely to ensure those who become ill, old and frail or who have a disability are well looked after by the state, who will ensure that those of us who hit on hard times will have a state provision in place to give us a leg up, who will ensure me and mine are kept safe and who will ensure the gap between the haves and the have nots closes.

I guess mine are all very internal issues. I don't have a burning issue with Brexit. I think who ever negotiates a deal will want one that ensures its gives us the best economic prospects and I don't see any party as more capable of being able to negotiate a deal.

I think given all of the above to coin a phrase that has been used a number of times in this thread then, despite having many reservations about them, for me it is a no brainer who to vote for.

I agree. I think maybe I've caused some confusion by talking about my views on Corbyn (or May) when that's not really the choice when everyone goes to vote (apart from people in Islington or Maidenhead). All our choices are between individual party candidates, not the party leaders. So definitely, vote for the person representing what each of us wants to be the policies, or alternatively vote to stop the one you really don't want to win. Or vote for someone you happen to know and like, or respect, even if their party isn't "your" party, if you think they'll represent you well, or are a dedicated constituency MP.

I've tried to say I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, or persuade anyone - all I've been doing is writing down my thoughts on various stuff. Corbyn I find fascinating in a way, as much for the comments and views of his adherents as for him, himself.

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I am sure plenty do mate. They didn't have a Tory government, who love nothing more than mass rape of public services, negotiating those free trade agreements though did they.

My crystal ball is on the blink today mate so I couldn't say. What is certain is no party has anything remotely like dismantling the NHS in their manifesto so they can't do it without being brought down. 

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, theboyangel said:

Sadly in probably our most important time for Great Britain in a long time, we have been dealt a shitty hand of politicians.

i cannot think of one or two MPs who I admire, believe and think want what's best for the country. 

Cannot stand Theresa May, the Labour Party is at odds which other and the rest aren't worth the vote.

its such a sad sad time.

Yeah, I agree, apart from I think there are plenty of MPs who I do believe want what's best for the country. Just not many near the top of their parties (other than Caroline Lucas who seems to have not been "spoilt" by leadership/seniority).

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, Awol said:

they may not be stupid enough to go down that route

They are stupid enough, and that's the worry.

[wazzap24]

For those that think May and Corbyn are both hopelss, or different variations of evil, surely the answer is to vote not for the individual, but the party that best represents your overall views, or in your opinion - the best manifesto? 

When faced with the choice of two crappy figureheads, surely it's the only way to go? Both of them could be out of a job within 12 months, regardless of the result? 

[darrenm]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

The Torygraph is reporting this today - yes a right wing paper but no denial that the story is true. It seems he went to a wreath laying ceremony for this particular terrorist less than a year before becoming party leader. Why on earth would he mourn someone involved in the brutal murder of innocent Olympic athletes? Not just that but Jews murdered in Munich, about as symbolic of anti Semitism as you could possibly get.

Strangely there doesn't seem to be a record of him attending funerals or ceremonies for innocent Jews killed by those same people he honours, invites to Parliament and calls "friends".

 If Corbyn supports terrorism he should at least be honest about it and drop this clear lie about being a man of peace. It's fair to say Shami Chakrabati definitely earned her peerage...

At what point will his supporters drop the pretence that JC is a kindly, benign & avuncular old chap and admit he is a partisan supporter of some really bad people and there is zero evidence of him changing those views? 

Does his judgement on these issues really not matter as long as he promises people lots of free stuff?

If a potential Tory PM had a history of supporting neo-Nazis and the KKK would Tory voters say "well yeah it doesn't really matter, that's all in the past and only the left wing media trolls care about it anyway"? 

Feels like we are through the looking glass and I honestly can't understand how this stuff doesn't matter to so many people, so could someone - anyone - please explain to me how and why Corbyn's record is okay? 

I've got a keyboard so I'll respond. Normally this stuff can't be fully explained while tapping away on a phone.

All of what you, Trent and blandy post is concerning. If it's true. And by true I mean completely without distortion, in context, not misrepresented, without extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

The fact it appears in any of the Sun, Telegraph or Mail makes me instantly disbelieve it. In fact I'll actively think it's completely untrue such is my disdain for this disgusting shitrags. So I look it up and can't find it. The moment I find anything I can absolutely believe and then objectively appraise without any of the mitigation as above, I'll be wondering what he's playing at.

The simple explanation is - I don't know enough about any of this stuff to slam a judgement. I suspect neither does anyone else. Certain things are indefensible and are absolute. Killing people, abusing kids, blowing people up. Those things are terrible with or without context. Jeremy Corbyn sharing a stage / supporting / inviting for tea / introducing as 'our friends' some unsavoury characters doesn't quite hit my 'well there's nothing else to say, he's a rotter' mark. To me it's a bit like people believing in ghosts - those kinds of people who see a curtain move and say 'explain that then!' likes there's only black and white and nothing in between, and you can't but you know if could be lots of other things. It's the unknown unknowns. The nuance. I have enough distrust of the media to not fully believe anything I'm told, and enough trust in my own intuition and rationalisation to know that even if he's given too much carriage to some not very nice people, he's done it only from a point of view of wanting peace. Not that he hates his own country, the west, the British people, or anything like that, which just doesn't pass any kind of scrutiny.

I'd like Paxman to call him out on all of it tonight. Hamas, PLO leader funeral, tea with a holocaust denier. Here's your stage Jeremy, justify yourself.

[peterms]

Here's one for Pete (contains "Corbyn" and "wrong 'uns" in same sentence) 

 

[Dodgyknees]

3 hours ago, Risso said:

As poor as May and Co are, can you actually imagine a country run by Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott?  It would make Mugabe's running of Zimbabwe look the very model of competency.

Poor?

People killing themselves rather than cope with restrictions they are put under because they missed an appointment?

People killing themselves because mental health care needs investment but it isn't there?

People struggling to cope because social care is not available. Mums being told they are not getting extra help for their autistic child because the funding isn't there?

People going to collect food parcels weekly because their zero hour contract means they can only just cover rent?

POOR? Jesus wept.

[Awol]

26 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I've got a keyboard so I'll respond. Normally this stuff can't be fully explained while tapping away on a phone.

All of what you, Trent and blandy post is concerning. If it's true. And by true I mean completely without distortion, in context, not misrepresented, without extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

The fact it appears in any of the Sun, Telegraph or Mail makes me instantly disbelieve it. In fact I'll actively think it's completely untrue such is my disdain for this disgusting shitrags. So I look it up and can't find it. The moment I find anything I can absolutely believe and then objectively appraise without any of the mitigation as above, I'll be wondering what he's playing at.

The simple explanation is - I don't know enough about any of this stuff to slam a judgement. I suspect neither does anyone else. Certain things are indefensible and are absolute. Killing people, abusing kids, blowing people up. Those things are terrible with or without context. Jeremy Corbyn sharing a stage / supporting / inviting for tea / introducing as 'our friends' some unsavoury characters doesn't quite hit my 'well there's nothing else to say, he's a rotter' mark. To me it's a bit like people believing in ghosts - those kinds of people who see a curtain move and say 'explain that then!' likes there's only black and white and nothing in between, and you can't but you know if could be lots of other things. It's the unknown unknowns. The nuance. I have enough distrust of the media to not fully believe anything I'm told, and enough trust in my own intuition and rationalisation to know that even if he's given too much carriage to some not very nice people, he's done it only from a point of view of wanting peace. Not that he hates his own country, the west, the British people, or anything like that, which just doesn't pass any kind of scrutiny.

I'd like Paxman to call him out on all of it tonight. Hamas, PLO leader funeral, tea with a holocaust denier. Here's your stage Jeremy, justify yourself.

Much like Blandy has just posted I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but to understand what is in their mind.

Regarding whether it's true that Corbyn attended the wreath laying ceremony for the mastermind of the Munich murders, he himself wrote about it afterwards in Oct 2014 for the Morning Star (a slightly quirky newspaper that supported Soviet totalitarianism).

JC's fun in the sun

After wreaths were laid at the graves of those who died on that day and on the graves of others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991, we moved to the poignant statue in the main avenue of the coastal town of Ben Arous, which was festooned with Palestinian and Tunisian flags.

The guy killed in Paris by Mossad was Atef Bseiso, the PLO head of intelligence who participated in the Munich massacre. That's one of the people Corbyn was honouring.

An accident, maybe?

JC then went on to a conference with speeches made by Hamas and the PFLP and mentions: 

A very poignant and much appreciated speech came from Ramsey Clarke, a long-term campaigner for international justice and former US attorney general under Jimmy Carter’s presidency.

Ramsay Clark defended Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadic at The Hague, they were the genocidal leaders of Serbia and the Serbian enclave in Bosnia during the Balkan wars. They are the definition of evil men, butchers responsible for the only genocide in Europe since WW2. 

At Milosevic's funeral Clarke said:

"History will prove that Slobodan Milosevic was right," Clark said, drawing cheers in a eulogy that savaged the West for its "determination to dismember Yugoslavia."

This is insane, but also indicative of the type of people Corbyn both associates himself with and admires.

These aren't invented right wing lies, misrepresentations taken out of context or otherwise inaccurate statements. They are matters of recent historical record, and they are damning.

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

The fact it appears in any of the Sun, Telegraph or Mail makes me instantly disbelieve it. In fact I'll actively think it's completely untrue

Aye, it's a problem because those papers are so in hock to their owners, two of them in particular have a history of publishing utter drivel and lies.

It's also a problem I think for the reason that by doing what they've done, or maybe through other reasons some people (this isn't directed at you, Darren) refuse to countenance that JC or his chums can do any wrong, that they have in the past said some pretty abhorrent things, supported some horrible people, turned a blind eye to outrages.

So when everything gets so polarised - Tory supporters and the tory party and press making one set of extreme allegations (Milliband's [ex forces] father "hated" Britain, for example) and then other people doing the exact opposite - refusing to countenance any adverse comment, or non-partisan criticism of their man that reason and sanity just get completely lost and people trying to find a balanced view and pick truth from lies have a really hard time of it. It's getting a bit like America - President style elections concentrating on people not parties or policies, personal attacks being the norm and then on top of that we have leaders not willing to debate their policies etc. with each other, people lying to the media (Boris J). It's a sorry mess.