My problem with Corbyn is this: The manifesto is not hard left at all in a European context. But that is where he comes from. Him. Abbott and McDonnell. I've seen the hard left close -up, thank you very much and I detest them as much as I detest the hard right Tories. The hard left disguises its true intentions until it gains power. The hard left took control of the Labour party in the mid 80s and Liverpool is the place where you saw the result in practice. It took Neil Kinnock to root them out and John Smith to finish the job. "Hard" anything leads to authoritarianism, corruption and intimidation. It ought to have no place in British politics.
Of course there are many young people (on CL too) who have no idea what I am on about. But Corbyn is older than me. I remember him from those days. I don't believe for one minute he or McDonnell have changed. Abbott has the further disadvantage of being thick. That "change of hairstyle" comment was just crass.
Yet unfortunately, he will count my vote for Clive Efford as a vote for him. And if he keeps her majority down, we will be stuck with him and the entire Momentum crew (for which read Soshulist Workah) as the main opposition for five years. What a grim scenario.
One aspect of the debate is to suggest that indeed everybody works hard. However the disparity of reward for hard working people is a bit of an issue. I once worked on a building site where there was this strong Danish hod carrier. I have never seen anything like it, the sweat would drench him as he raced to keep the bricklayers supplied, he would put in an astonishing days work, but his pay was very modest compared to others like the site foreman, who also worked hard with his maps and drawings and overview and such like. The hod carrier and foreman were interdependent it seemed to me.
Are you suggesting they should be paid the same?
Philosophically a hard day's work is a hard day's work isn't it? I accept that people can't live without differentials, but I have a problem with a hard working Premier League footballer earning more in one week than a hard working care worker would earn in four years.
Seems like there's a lot you don't agree with in this current age, which is good. Out of interest do you watch football on sky or BT? I'm not trying to dig anything out of you I just know people who refuse to watch Premier league football because of the obscene money involved.
The truth is I watch football not free to air on a dodgy stream like cricfree, at the moment I am watching Reading v Huddersfield on ripple.is dodgy stream so I accept any criticism I deserve for that. I pay to see live footballer the Valley, or with Dulwich Hamlet or the U23's. Do you remember the Liam Ridgewell photo? There is indeed a lot I don't agree with these days, but have to accept and adapt to, although the more it goes on the more pleased I am that I never got on to twitter or Facebook.
In what way is he a hypocrite and May not? And in what way does her bench have quality?
On record that Corbyn has bullied his backbenchers into voting the way he instructs when his record as a backbencher voting against the whip is totally unbelievable. Screams hypocrisy to me.
His Home Secretary should he win will be Diane Abbott and chancellor John McDonnell. Both of whom are poor choices in my opinion. As for conservative front bench they are not any better.
With you all the way on Abbott but McDonnell seems at least OK.
McDonnell might look like someone's favourite uncle but he is an outright Trot. What's worse is that he now won't admit or let on exactly just how extreme his views are.
My problem with Corbyn is this: The manifesto is not hard left at all in a European context. But that is where he comes from. Him. Abbott and McDonnell. I've seen the hard left close -up, thank you very much and I detest them as much as I detest the hard right Tories. The hard left disguises its true intentions until it gains power. The hard left took control of the Labour party in the mid 80s and Liverpool is the place where you saw the result in practice. It took Neil Kinnock to root them out and John Smith to finish the job. "Hard" anything leads to authoritarianism, corruption and intimidation. It ought to have no place in British politics.
Of course there are many young people (on CL too) who have no idea what I am on about. But Corbyn is older than me. I remember him from those days. I don't believe for one minute he or McDonnell have changed. Abbott has the further disadvantage of being thick. That "change of hairstyle" comment was just crass.
Yet unfortunately, he will count my vote for Clive Efford as a vote for him. And if he keeps her majority down, we will be stuck with him and the entire Momentum crew (for which read Soshulist Workah) as the main opposition for five years. What a grim scenario.
That is true of my generation and younger (35 and below) - I've never known what it was like to live under a true socialist, hard left government. Blair's labour was never hard left. My mum who is 61 said you pretty much couldn't move a pen in offices of some sectors without the Unions saying so.
Can't help but think we live in this imperial age of conservatism for some reason now. It's become very fashionable to be an entrepreneur. The levels of smugness and pull the ladder up have risen quite considerably imo. It is considered that the Tory party are the party of the business person. I don't think we people that choose a career in public service get anywhere near the credit they deserve. If you're not aspiring to work for some start up fintech that work on a campus rather than a building (so wanky), you're not part of the brave new world.
I still have to listen to conversations amongst peers and people my age or a little bit older creaming themselves about how much their house has gone up in value. That they have their 2 holidays a year blah blah. It's especially rife in London and the south east. I'm not begrudging people their achievements or their fortune at getting on the housing ladder and enjoying interest rates of point silly percent, just seems in all this self indulgence I think a lot of people have forgotten that there is another very sobering and horrible side to their increased wealth.
I think the problem is most of the top 5% don't realise how much society has helped them to reach the level that they have.
Sure they 'worked hard', but no harder than anyone else in a decent 9-5 job. Anyone that truly believes you can transform yourself out of poverty into earning £70,000+ just from hard work is living in a dream world.
The education, job opportunities, healthcare, transport services, housing all available to them for far cheaper than it is in today's world.
Why shouldn't they pay a little extra back to the country that has helped them enjoy the comforts that they do? So that the next generation maybe can follow in their footsteps.
My job isn't 9-5 for starters.
I start at about 7:30 in the morning and usually get home at 10 or 11. So I don't see my kids 5 days a week.
There are plenty of other people who are less fortunate than me - in terms of earnings and hours.
But my sacrifice is seeing my kids less than a friend of mine who is in shared custody of his children after splitting from his wife.
And in terms of pay a little extra back. We have had this discussion. We already have a fair and proportionate tax system. The top 5pc already pay a lot more.
Sounds like a similar day to a teacher, who spends most evenings marking and planning and not seeing own children.
My sister in law is a secondary school teacher. We have often had conversations where she has described my hours as "utterly ridiculous".
She has told me that he hours come in fits and spurts. When they at bad they are bad - but then again she has about 5 times more holiday than me per year which she realises she is so lucky to get.
It's horrible when I see my Facebook feed full of people in the summer home doing a BBQ and having a beer at seven a clock at night.
Personally I would have more sympathy with the nurses and doctors of this world working crazy long shifts than teachers who also have an incredible pension waiting at the end of the day paid for by the taxpayer (admittedly for educating our children and the next generation).
I think the problem is most of the top 5% don't realise how much society has helped them to reach the level that they have.
Sure they 'worked hard', but no harder than anyone else in a decent 9-5 job. Anyone that truly believes you can transform yourself out of poverty into earning £70,000+ just from hard work is living in a dream world.
The education, job opportunities, healthcare, transport services, housing all available to them for far cheaper than it is in today's world.
Why shouldn't they pay a little extra back to the country that has helped them enjoy the comforts that they do? So that the next generation maybe can follow in their footsteps.
My job isn't 9-5 for starters.
I start at about 7:30 in the morning and usually get home at 10 or 11. So I don't see my kids 5 days a week.
There are plenty of other people who are less fortunate than me - in terms of earnings and hours.
But my sacrifice is seeing my kids less than a friend of mine who is in shared custody of his children after splitting from his wife.
And in terms of pay a little extra back. We have had this discussion. We already have a fair and proportionate tax system. The top 5pc already pay a lot more.
Sounds like a similar day to a teacher, who spends most evenings marking and planning and not seeing own children.
My sister in law is a secondary school teacher. We have often had conversations where she has described my hours as "utterly ridiculous".
She has told me that he hours come in fits and spurts. When they at bad they are bad - but then again she has about 5 times more holiday than me per year which she realises she is so lucky to get.
It's horrible when I see my Facebook feed full of people in the summer home doing a BBQ and having a beer at seven a clock at night.
Personally I would have more sympathy with the nurses and doctors of this world working crazy long shifts than teachers who also have an incredible pension waiting at the end of the day paid for by the taxpayer (admittedly for educating our children and the next generation).
Nurses are another good example of people who no doubt work as hard as bankers and business people, like teachers, and earn much less. Neither have an 'incredible pension' and probably don't get to have a BBQ or a beer at seven o clock, but probably don't really see that as a measure of working hard.
Peter Oborne, writing in yesterday's Daily Mail, has made an astonishing suggestion, which must require frank and honest answers from, among others, Theresa May.
His claim is that MI6 allowed "hundreds" of British citizens to travel to Syria and Lybia to join Jihadist organisations, during the early part of the Syrian War. The intention was to destabilise Bashir al-Assad and secure his overthrow; and to help remove Gaddafi. These British jihadists were "free to join terror groups in the Middle East and North Africa — organisations with links to Al Qaeda and other terror outfits". And, as well as being enemies of Assad and Gaddafi, these organisations were also enemies of the West.
As and when the surviving British jihadis returned to the UK, the decision was made to lift control orders on them.
One of the "British jihadis" who fought, as a sixteen year old, with his father, in the Libyan overthrow of Gaddafi is the Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi.
So this prompts a few questions.
1. When Theresa May was Home Secretary, who in the Home Office gave the instruction that British jihadis like Salman Abedi were not subject to control orders?
2. Who made the decision that MI6 would facilitate British jihadis being made welcome back in the UK, but that MI5 would not be given the resources to keep them on watch? Was that decision made by the Home Secretary at the time (Theresa May)?
3. Was the Prime Minister, Theresa May, kept aware of the extent to which those jihadis allowed back into the UK by the home Secretary at the time (Theresa May) were not being followed?
4. And, was this weekend's smear of Jeremy Corbyn by Boris Johnson (ie that he is dangerous because he "lied" about "meeting IRA members") intended to reduce the heat on Theresa May who (1) sold the Saudis arms (2) sat in Cabinet as Cameron presided over a plan to provide British mercenary reinforcements to train and fight in Syria and Libya(3) allowed the return of British jihadis and (4) failed as Prime Minister to ensure MI5 had the resource to watch the terrorists that she, as Home Secretary, allowed back in the UK?
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
I just bought that liar liar song. Thought it might be a cover of the Castaways song (it's not) but either way aren't I the rebel? Stuck it to the man. I won't even need to vote now
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
Not the place to open this particular can of worms but it is exactly the knowledge that the UK will strike back that might well stop the initial attack.
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
And this is the reason Corbyn gets attacked personally. The labour party's official party policy is to support the renewal of trident and a mutually assured destruction deployment of them - ie we only will strike if we are to be struck by nuclear weapons.
Corbyn has repeatedly and deliberately gone against this official labour policy in the press, so who is there left to blame at this ridiculous "I'd employ the submarine but wouldn't arm them with weapons or use any nuclear weapons under any circumstances"? Corbyn of course.
I don't buy the "the press are attacking Corbyn because they're scared of him" nonsense, it's because he's an easy target because he just makes it easy for them with gaffes like the above. The press have every right to scrutinise, and if they wish, mock any politician they choose. It's a cornerstone of free press.
Corbyn can't even get a full shadow cabinet together and has patched it up with incompetent left wing allies. Where are the moderates in the shadow cabinet - where are all parts of the Labour Party represented? This is a giant red flag in a leader, why isn't he able to compromise? And it's something Theresa may has also been quite rightly criticised for in her "vote may" rather than "vote conservative" campaign.
It's also worth noting owain jones had roughly the same policies as Corbyn in the leadership revolt.. why would the PLP want to replace one socialist with another if they're so right wing or Tory lite? Maybe because Corbyn is incapable of doing what a statesman should do - compromise whilst also achieving their objectives.
Having said all that I've been quite impressed with labours bold manifesto, and Corbyn's campaign so far, and seriously underwhelmed with may's shambolic panicked one.
But then again, Corbyn has been campaigning all his life - that's what he does, and he's very good at it. But would I want him running the country? No.
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
Exactly the sort of answer that will lose Labour the election I'm afraid
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
If they have evidence that that is a credible answer with the electorate then fine.
My problem with Corbyn is this: The manifesto is not hard left at all in a European context. But that is where he comes from. Him. Abbott and McDonnell. I've seen the hard left close -up, thank you very much and I detest them as much as I detest the hard right Tories. The hard left disguises its true intentions until it gains power. The hard left took control of the Labour party in the mid 80s and Liverpool is the place where you saw the result in practice. It took Neil Kinnock to root them out and John Smith to finish the job. "Hard" anything leads to authoritarianism, corruption and intimidation. It ought to have no place in British politics.
Of course there are many young people (on CL too) who have no idea what I am on about. But Corbyn is older than me. I remember him from those days. I don't believe for one minute he or McDonnell have changed. Abbott has the further disadvantage of being thick. That "change of hairstyle" comment was just crass.
Yet unfortunately, he will count my vote for Clive Efford as a vote for him. And if he keeps her majority down, we will be stuck with him and the entire Momentum crew (for which read Soshulist Workah) as the main opposition for five years. What a grim scenario.
I heard a take, sort of, on this, the other day, that I had not considered before. I actually forget who it was who was speaking, but their take was that landslide defeats for parties in elections actually have a tendency to make them more extreme in their views. Their logic for this being that safe seats tend to go to politicians more aligned to the party's historical core values (Labour left, Tory right) and marginal seats go to more moderate politicians. In landslide defeats, marginal seats are nearly all lost and with them go the moderate voices in parliament. I think you could argue we've seen that in the Tory party which to my mind has been moving steadily right since 1997.
So, counter intuitive as it might seem, this person's logic was that if Labour do well it may actually serve to move the party towards the centre as the number of moderate voices on their side of the house would be increased.
Make of it what you will, but your vote may help to achieve that by this person's logic at least.
I'll also say again, such a same that the Lib Dems don't have someone more like Nick Clegg as leader now rather than on 2010. I know their actual results were not as strong as they had hoped in 2010, but Clegg was able to connect with voters in a way Farron just hasn't. I've always felt that a strong Liberal party, occupying a slightly left of centre position would be a good fit for the way that an awful lot of British people think. Maybe labour kind occupied that position for the last few elections, but for whatever reason it's just never really taken hold (I admit I don't know the history of why they haven't won an election since the early 1900s).
My problem with Corbyn is this: The manifesto is not hard left at all in a European context. But that is where he comes from. Him. Abbott and McDonnell. I've seen the hard left close -up, thank you very much and I detest them as much as I detest the hard right Tories. The hard left disguises its true intentions until it gains power. The hard left took control of the Labour party in the mid 80s and Liverpool is the place where you saw the result in practice. It took Neil Kinnock to root them out and John Smith to finish the job. "Hard" anything leads to authoritarianism, corruption and intimidation. It ought to have no place in British politics.
Of course there are many young people (on CL too) who have no idea what I am on about. But Corbyn is older than me. I remember him from those days. I don't believe for one minute he or McDonnell have changed. Abbott has the further disadvantage of being thick. That "change of hairstyle" comment was just crass.
Yet unfortunately, he will count my vote for Clive Efford as a vote for him. And if he keeps her majority down, we will be stuck with him and the entire Momentum crew (for which read Soshulist Workah) as the main opposition for five years. What a grim scenario.
I heard a take, sort of, on this, the other day, that I had not considered before. I actually forget who it was who was speaking, but their take was that landslide defeats for parties in elections actually have a tendency to make them more extreme in their views. Their logic for this being that safe seats tend to go to politicians more aligned to the party's historical core values (Labour left, Tory right) and marginal seats go to more moderate politicians. In landslide defeats, marginal seats are nearly all lost and with them go the moderate voices in parliament. I think you could argue we've seen that in the Tory party which to my mind has been moving steadily right since 1997.
So, counter intuitive as it might seem, this person's logic was that if Labour do well it may actually serve to move the party towards the centre as the number of moderate voices on their side of the house would be increased.
Make of it what you will, but your vote may help to achieve that by this person's logic at least.
I'll also say again, such a same that the Lib Dems don't have someone more like Nick Clegg as leader now rather than on 2010. I know their actual results were not as strong as they had hoped in 2010, but Clegg was able to connect with voters in a way Farron just hasn't. I've always felt that a strong Liberal party, occupying a slightly left of centre position would be a good fit for the way that an awful lot of British people think. Maybe labour kind occupied that position for the last few elections, but for whatever reason it's just never really taken hold (I admit I don't know the history of why they haven't won an election since the early 1900s).
As some one who's probably naturally a lib dem (but has never voted or intends to vote lib dem) I do feel we got clegg about 10 years too early. The centre ground is ripe for the taking and a charismatic and articulate leader like clegg would've made the lib dems a serious force - perhaps just squeezing opposition status after this election.
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
Exactly the sort of answer that will lose Labour the election I'm afraid
Amend 'what's the fucking point' to 'I guess we'll make sure everyone gets wiped out, hooray!' then
Here's what Tony Blair had to say in his autobiography 'A Journey' on the 2007 decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapon system:
"We agreed to the renewal of the independent nuclear deterrent. You might think I would have been certain of that decision, but I hesitated over it. I could see clearly the force of the common sense and practical argument against Trident, yet in the final analysis I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defence. I did not think this was a 'tough on defence' versus 'weak or pacifist' issue at all. On simple, pragmatic grounds there was a case either way. The expense is huge, and the utility in a post-Cold War world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existent in terms of military use. Spend the money on more helicopters, airlift, and anti-terror equipment? Not a daft notion. In the situations in which British forces would most likely to be called upon to fight, it was pretty clear what mattered most. It is true that it is frankly inconceivable we would use our nuclear deterrent alone, without the US - and let us hope a situation in which the US is even threatening use never arises - but it's a big step to put that beyond your capability as a country.
"So, after some genuine consideration and reconsideration, I opted to renew it. But the contrary decision would not have been stupid. I had a perfectly good and sensible discussion about it with Gordon, who was similarly torn. In the end, we both agreed, as I said to him: imagine standing up in the House of Commons and saying I've decided to scrap it. We're not going to say that, are we? In this instance caution, costly as it was, won the day"
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
Exactly the sort of answer that will lose Labour the election I'm afraid
Amend 'what's the fucking point' to 'I guess we'll make sure everyone gets wiped out, hooray!' then
You make a lot of well thought out posts . I don't always agree with you but ha Ho. But Corbyn had better have some better answers than what you have just come out with
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
Exactly the sort of answer that will lose Labour the election I'm afraid
Amend 'what's the fucking point' to 'I guess we'll make sure everyone gets wiped out, hooray!' then
You make a lot of well thought out posts . I don't always agree with you but ha Ho. But Corbyn had better have some better answers than what you have just come out with
Yeah I know, 'anyone who uses such force against British citizens invites it upon their own', my point is that a post-nuclear scenario doesn't really matter either way. But yeah, politically expedient to act the bulldog, sure (while guaranteeing no first strike, as that vile moron Piers Morgan seemed to be implying might be a necessity in some completely insane scenario when he interviewed Diane Abbott about it)
I mean, it does matter - I'd hope we didn't retaliate and thus allowed more people and creatures to remain alive in a doomsday scenario - but I know I'm in a minority here
I hope the people running the Labour campaign have provided Corbyn with a credible answer to the question he will get about nuclear arms tonight. The mealy mouthed non answer Corbyn and his surrogates have been peddling so far is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and will be ridiculed by Paxton.
How about 'there is no scenario conceivable where the UK would make a first strike, and as a response, well what's the fucking point?'
Exactly the sort of answer that will lose Labour the election I'm afraid
Amend 'what's the fucking point' to 'I guess we'll make sure everyone gets wiped out, hooray!' then
I mean, it does matter - I'd hope we didn't retaliate and thus allowed more people and creatures to remain alive in a doomsday scenario - but I know I'm in a minority here
Or what would be likely - a mad nuclear armed state will now see that launching nuclear weapons will have no repercussions to them, thus potentially firing at other states (that are either armed or not armed) and so killing exponentially more people than would have been killed if we would have struck back. The logic being that any one willing to aggressively use nuclear weapons should be wiped off the planet - don't you agree?
We're seeing a lot more of Amanda Rudd recently. I'm guessing the Tories have realised that Teresa May is becoming a liability. So, the scenario I see as quite likely is that the Tories will be returned with much less of a majority and will unceremoniously dump Mrs May for God knows who! Strong and Stable? I don't think so.
Like Cameron before her, May has gambled her future on a public vote and it has backfired.
A week is a long time in politics they say. I would be cautious about making any assumptions today. Anyway politics junkie that I am, i am going to make a nice cuppa and watch sky news.
My problem with Corbyn is this: The manifesto is not hard left at all in a European context. But that is where he comes from. Him. Abbott and McDonnell. I've seen the hard left close -up, thank you very much and I detest them as much as I detest the hard right Tories. The hard left disguises its true intentions until it gains power. The hard left took control of the Labour party in the mid 80s and Liverpool is the place where you saw the result in practice. It took Neil Kinnock to root them out and John Smith to finish the job. "Hard" anything leads to authoritarianism, corruption and intimidation. It ought to have no place in British politics.
Of course there are many young people (on CL too) who have no idea what I am on about. But Corbyn is older than me. I remember him from those days. I don't believe for one minute he or McDonnell have changed. Abbott has the further disadvantage of being thick. That "change of hairstyle" comment was just crass.
Yet unfortunately, he will count my vote for Clive Efford as a vote for him. And if he keeps her majority down, we will be stuck with him and the entire Momentum crew (for which read Soshulist Workah) as the main opposition for five years. What a grim scenario.
I heard a take, sort of, on this, the other day, that I had not considered before. I actually forget who it was who was speaking, but their take was that landslide defeats for parties in elections actually have a tendency to make them more extreme in their views. Their logic for this being that safe seats tend to go to politicians more aligned to the party's historical core values (Labour left, Tory right) and marginal seats go to more moderate politicians. In landslide defeats, marginal seats are nearly all lost and with them go the moderate voices in parliament. I think you could argue we've seen that in the Tory party which to my mind has been moving steadily right since 1997.
So, counter intuitive as it might seem, this person's logic was that if Labour do well it may actually serve to move the party towards the centre as the number of moderate voices on their side of the house would be increased.
Make of it what you will, but your vote may help to achieve that by this person's logic at least.
I'll also say again, such a same that the Lib Dems don't have someone more like Nick Clegg as leader now rather than on 2010. I know their actual results were not as strong as they had hoped in 2010, but Clegg was able to connect with voters in a way Farron just hasn't. I've always felt that a strong Liberal party, occupying a slightly left of centre position would be a good fit for the way that an awful lot of British people think. Maybe labour kind occupied that position for the last few elections, but for whatever reason it's just never really taken hold (I admit I don't know the history of why they haven't won an election since the early 1900s).
As some one who's probably naturally a lib dem (but has never voted or intends to vote lib dem) I do feel we got clegg about 10 years too early. The centre ground is ripe for the taking and a charismatic and articulate leader like clegg would've made the lib dems a serious force - perhaps just squeezing opposition status after this election.
YES! So what's happened to the disaffected reds and blues?
We're seeing a lot more of Amanda Rudd recently. I'm guessing the Tories have realised that Teresa May is becoming a liability. So, the scenario I see as quite likely is that the Tories will be returned with much less of a majority and will unceremoniously dump Mrs May for God knows who! Strong and Stable? I don't think so.
Like Cameron before her, May has gambled her future on a public vote and it has backfired.
Their majority can't be that much smaller - wasn't it pretty small already?
We're seeing a lot more of Amanda Rudd recently. I'm guessing the Tories have realised that Teresa May is becoming a liability. So, the scenario I see as quite likely is that the Tories will be returned with much less of a majority and will unceremoniously dump Mrs May for God knows who! Strong and Stable? I don't think so.
Like Cameron before her, May has gambled her future on a public vote and it has backfired.
Their majority can't be that much smaller - wasn't it pretty small already? Hung parliament is looking a possibility to me.
We're seeing a lot more of Amanda Rudd recently. I'm guessing the Tories have realised that Teresa May is becoming a liability. So, the scenario I see as quite likely is that the Tories will be returned with much less of a majority and will unceremoniously dump Mrs May for God knows who! Strong and Stable? I don't think so.
Like Cameron before her, May has gambled her future on a public vote and it has backfired.
Their majority can't be that much smaller - wasn't it pretty small already? Hung parliament is looking a possibility to me.
That would be a great result for Labour.
Wishful thinking. I still think May will increase her majority even if only by ten seats or so.
The fella that called himself "salt of the earth" then claimed he was upset at the abolition of zero hours contracts and having to pay tax on his kids "school fees"!
Comments
I pay to see live footballer the Valley, or with Dulwich Hamlet or the U23's.
Do you remember the Liam Ridgewell photo?
There is indeed a lot I don't agree with these days, but have to accept and adapt to, although the more it goes on the more pleased I am that I never got on to twitter or Facebook.
Can't help but think we live in this imperial age of conservatism for some reason now. It's become very fashionable to be an entrepreneur. The levels of smugness and pull the ladder up have risen quite considerably imo. It is considered that the Tory party are the party of the business person. I don't think we people that choose a career in public service get anywhere near the credit they deserve. If you're not aspiring to work for some start up fintech that work on a campus rather than a building (so wanky), you're not part of the brave new world.
I still have to listen to conversations amongst peers and people my age or a little bit older creaming themselves about how much their house has gone up in value. That they have their 2 holidays a year blah blah. It's especially rife in London and the south east. I'm not begrudging people their achievements or their fortune at getting on the housing ladder and enjoying interest rates of point silly percent, just seems in all this self indulgence I think a lot of people have forgotten that there is another very sobering and horrible side to their increased wealth.
His claim is that MI6 allowed "hundreds" of British citizens to travel to Syria and Lybia to join Jihadist organisations, during the early part of the Syrian War. The intention was to destabilise Bashir al-Assad and secure his overthrow; and to help remove Gaddafi. These British jihadists were "free to join terror groups in the Middle East and North Africa — organisations with links to Al Qaeda and other terror outfits". And, as well as being enemies of Assad and Gaddafi, these organisations were also enemies of the West.
As and when the surviving British jihadis returned to the UK, the decision was made to lift control orders on them.
One of the "British jihadis" who fought, as a sixteen year old, with his father, in the Libyan overthrow of Gaddafi is the Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi.
So this prompts a few questions.
1. When Theresa May was Home Secretary, who in the Home Office gave the instruction that British jihadis like Salman Abedi were not subject to control orders?
2. Who made the decision that MI6 would facilitate British jihadis being made welcome back in the UK, but that MI5 would not be given the resources to keep them on watch? Was that decision made by the Home Secretary at the time (Theresa May)?
3. Was the Prime Minister, Theresa May, kept aware of the extent to which those jihadis allowed back into the UK by the home Secretary at the time (Theresa May) were not being followed?
4. And, was this weekend's smear of Jeremy Corbyn by Boris Johnson (ie that he is dangerous because he "lied" about "meeting IRA members") intended to reduce the heat on Theresa May who (1) sold the Saudis arms (2) sat in Cabinet as Cameron presided over a plan to provide British mercenary reinforcements to train and fight in Syria and Libya(3) allowed the return of British jihadis and (4) failed as Prime Minister to ensure MI5 had the resource to watch the terrorists that she, as Home Secretary, allowed back in the UK?
(It's a catchy enough tune tbf)
Corbyn has repeatedly and deliberately gone against this official labour policy in the press, so who is there left to blame at this ridiculous "I'd employ the submarine but wouldn't arm them with weapons or use any nuclear weapons under any circumstances"? Corbyn of course.
I don't buy the "the press are attacking Corbyn because they're scared of him" nonsense, it's because he's an easy target because he just makes it easy for them with gaffes like the above. The press have every right to scrutinise, and if they wish, mock any politician they choose. It's a cornerstone of free press.
Corbyn can't even get a full shadow cabinet together and has patched it up with incompetent left wing allies. Where are the moderates in the shadow cabinet - where are all parts of the Labour Party represented? This is a giant red flag in a leader, why isn't he able to compromise? And it's something Theresa may has also been quite rightly criticised for in her "vote may" rather than "vote conservative" campaign.
It's also worth noting owain jones had roughly the same policies as Corbyn in the leadership revolt.. why would the PLP want to replace one socialist with another if they're so right wing or Tory lite? Maybe because Corbyn is incapable of doing what a statesman should do - compromise whilst also achieving their objectives.
Having said all that I've been quite impressed with labours bold manifesto, and Corbyn's campaign so far, and seriously underwhelmed with may's shambolic panicked one.
But then again, Corbyn has been campaigning all his life - that's what he does, and he's very good at it. But would I want him running the country? No.
So, counter intuitive as it might seem, this person's logic was that if Labour do well it may actually serve to move the party towards the centre as the number of moderate voices on their side of the house would be increased.
Make of it what you will, but your vote may help to achieve that by this person's logic at least.
I'll also say again, such a same that the Lib Dems don't have someone more like Nick Clegg as leader now rather than on 2010. I know their actual results were not as strong as they had hoped in 2010, but Clegg was able to connect with voters in a way Farron just hasn't. I've always felt that a strong Liberal party, occupying a slightly left of centre position would be a good fit for the way that an awful lot of British people think. Maybe labour kind occupied that position for the last few elections, but for whatever reason it's just never really taken hold (I admit I don't know the history of why they haven't won an election since the early 1900s).
"We agreed to the renewal of the independent nuclear deterrent. You might think I would have been certain of that decision, but I hesitated over it. I could see clearly the force of the common sense and practical argument against Trident, yet in the final analysis I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defence. I did not think this was a 'tough on defence' versus 'weak or pacifist' issue at all. On simple, pragmatic grounds there was a case either way. The expense is huge, and the utility in a post-Cold War world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existent in terms of military use. Spend the money on more helicopters, airlift, and anti-terror equipment? Not a daft notion. In the situations in which British forces would most likely to be called upon to fight, it was pretty clear what mattered most. It is true that it is frankly inconceivable we would use our nuclear deterrent alone, without the US - and let us hope a situation in which the US is even threatening use never arises - but it's a big step to put that beyond your capability as a country.
"So, after some genuine consideration and reconsideration, I opted to renew it. But the contrary decision would not have been stupid. I had a perfectly good and sensible discussion about it with Gordon, who was similarly torn. In the end, we both agreed, as I said to him: imagine standing up in the House of Commons and saying I've decided to scrap it. We're not going to say that, are we? In this instance caution, costly as it was, won the day"
I don't always agree with you but ha Ho.
But Corbyn had better have some better answers than what you have just come out with
Like Cameron before her, May has gambled her future on a public vote and it has backfired.
I would be cautious about making any assumptions today.
Anyway politics junkie that I am, i am going to make a nice cuppa and watch sky news.
So what's happened to the disaffected reds and blues?
Hung parliament is looking a possibility to me.
The fella that called himself "salt of the earth" then claimed he was upset at the abolition of zero hours contracts and having to pay tax on his kids "school fees"!