General Election, June 8th

[Sharpe's Fox]

@MattP it's difficult to answer a complex hypothetical situation with a yes or no answer. The question about the IS leader has many complications; has the leader surrounded himself with human shields? What are the complications with other factions and individuals with a stake in a leadership struggle? What's the situation in the local area and, say, local Kurdish or Islamist factions? I don't know why Marr resorted to that type of interviewing, its BBC School Report stuff imo. It reminds me of this sketch I've seen

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, bovril said:

You tell Rincewind to cut out the hyperbole (don't disagree) then go on and tell him he would've let the Nazis exterminate the Jews and the Soviets enslave mainland Europe. Which is a touch hyperbolic.

I said pacifists and they would.

 

If someone is never prepared to use force to defend something they will cease to exist. That's pretty obvious.

[Guest MattP]

Forget I said anything, handful of posts back in here and already getting wound up, I've turned into a snowflake. 

 

Enjoy the election guys, hope the Corbyn supporters can do enough for him to hang onto the job even in defeat, I think they might. 

[Rincewind]

You make soe good points Matt. Tit for tat is a great idea. 'You killed my dad so I'll kill your daughter' You killed my daughter so I'll kill your son.' .............. Just extend that to communities then cities then countries and what fun we will have.

Reminds me of the film where someone is sitting on a bomb at thr rnd. Forget the name. Was it Mel Brooks?

[Buce]

46 minutes ago, MattP said:

@Rincewind

 

Stop the stupid hyperbole it's pathetic, no one intends to bomb hospitals, schools or innocents. It doesn't give any leverage to the point you are making either, it means you sound like one of the childish placard wavers.

 

Corbyn refuses to answer questions about whether he would kill the leader of IS or whether he would fire a nuclear missile and it's the media's fault? Get a grip Ken, these are perfectly valid questions to ask someone who wants to lead the country and be in charge of those things, he can't even answer if the party will be pro-nuclear weeks before an election ffs.

 

Marr should have gone further and asked him what he'll do if Argentina invades the Falklands, a probable scenario I'd imagine if they are watching these interviews and he did somehow get elected. 

 

If you don't want to create refugees who are being slaughtered by the Syrian government what are you going to do to stop it?

 

I'm sick of so called pacifists who would never do anything about anything trying to claim some moral superiority over anyone else, you would have let the Nazi's genocide a race, you would have let the Soviets enslave mainland Europe and you would let any dictator in the World murder anyone he disagreed with, you have no moral high ground to claim whatsoever.

 

The reason May doesn't have to answer questions about supporting anti-British terrorists is actually quite simple, the same reason Cameron, Miliband, Blair, Clegg, Farron and Farage didn't get asked, they don't have a history of supporting anti-British terrorists. 

 

You voted for him to lead the party, you deal with the consequences. 

 

You've been back five minutes and already you're picking on Rince.

 

Don't let it go to your head that some people welcomed you back - this forum was friendlier and more civilised without you, imo.

 

 

[Buce]

 

So, now UKRAP has lost its raison d'etre, Paul Nutter has a brainwave - let's morph into the EDF:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/23/ukip-to-campaign-to-ban-burka-and-sharia-courts-says-paul-nuttall

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

That is the point. He does not want to settle things by bombing hospitals and schools. The media and those questioning him have not realised this. It still has not sunk in to the nanthikadal members of the public that reprisals only lead to reprisals from those you are trying to convince that bombing innocents is not a very good idea. Increasing the number of refugees who are running away because they are being slaughtered by their government, shot by rebels and bombed by the USA and their supporters. Something tells me that something is not working. Just because Corbyn does not want to make orphans out of children and increase the number of refugees entering Britain does not mean that he supports terrorists. Anyone with a brain can see that but journalists need a story and an headline saying Corbyn refuses to nuke ISIS will do the trick and appeal to the masses.

Why does Corbyn have to repeat over and over that he does not support terrorists and the likes of May just have to say we will be tough and the masses are satisfied? Does common sense and freethought not exist anymore?

It is sad that so many people are duped by the mainstream media. 

 

As an example, how would anyone feel if they went to a Nottingham Forest game because they had a free weekend and for the next five years was accused of being a Forest fan. It would get on your tits would it not? I imagine Corbyn is fed up of being asked if he supports ISIS when he would rather talk about the NHS education and tax dodgers.

The election was called at a time when investigations were about to emerge about election fraud by several  MPs. A coincidence?

So what's his solution?

[Guest]

I would hope that all of our leaders would refuse to use nuclear weapons in practice, whatever their public (deterent) position.

[Rincewind]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

So what's his solution?

Retaliate seems to be the preferred option.

[Webbo]

20 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Retaliate seems to be the preferred option.

 Acting superior won't change things. Don't tell us what he's not going to do, tell us what he is.

[Alf Bentley]

12 hours ago, Beliall said:

A lot of well presented posts on here, this very forum is where I get  all my polictical information, but I still don't fully understand it, can you tell me please where you get your information, @Alf Bentley , @MattP (sorry there are more but these 2 come to mind first)  I suspect years of experience you have helps, but Which TV program for example gives the best opinions from both sides of the arguments. I know very little and want to expand my knowledge, right now for what I can see as a lamen, I will not be voting conservative, But I'm not sure if thats correct or who I should vote for, should I vote for a party just to to try and stop the tories getting in for 4 years? should I vote for the best candidate for my own constituency?  Do I vote Labour because from where I'm standing they look like the best choice?  there are so many variables and I cannot get my head around it. I need to pay full attention for thee next few weeks so i feel i ca make a goodd decision. 

 

(this post turned into a blurted out mess I am aware, but I guess that illustrated my confusion)  

 

I'd agree with @MattP in recommending Andrew Neil (Daily/Sunday Politics & This Week) or Andrew Marr; interviews/analysis that provide deeper insight than most. The problem is that most politicians avoid tricky questions, spout party slogans or talk in jargon - and few interviewers cut through. Some politicians from across the spectrum who explain their ideas more honestly: Alan Johnson/Chuka Umunna (moderate Lab), Clive Lewis (left Lab), Vince Cable (Lib Dem), Caroline Lucas (Green), Ken Clarke (Europhile Tory), Jacob Rees-Mogg (Tory Right), Douglas Carswell (thinking ex-UKIP).

 

I don't watch that much politics on TV. Internet is a great resource for analytical articles, so long as you can find the quality analysis among the bland generic guff. Good writers, I'd say, include: Jonathan Freedland (moderate Lab), Owen Jones (thinking hard left), Tim Montgomerie/Fraser Nelson (Right). I'm very interested in economics/economic policy; in that area, I'd recommend Larry Elliott (Guardian) who's a lefty, but a proper economic analyst & pro-Brexit, which makes it interesting. Will Hutton is good, though his soft left, pro-EU stances are more predictable.

 

Internet is great for general info: e.g. 2015 election results by constituency: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

What you say about "years of experience" helping is partly true - being a sad old git who's spent years paying attention to politics has some benefits....but internet is a great alternative to that. You can just Google sources for all sort of info: What is the UK budget spent on? What are the parties' past records on tax / public services / unemployment? What happened at previous elections? I suppose you just need to question how reliable or neutral the source is - official stats? site with a political bias? etc.

I think you need a similar critical mentality with politicians interviewed on TV or whatever.....What specific promises have they made (as opposed to meaningless rhetoric) & are they believable? What questions/issues are they avoiding and why?

 

Preferred party or tactical voting? Matter of opinion. Some take a purist stance, but I favour tactical voting if it might make a real difference and your preferred party stands no chance. If you're in Newhaven, that puts you in Lewes constituency, I think. If so, Labour probably stand no chance whatsoever there in what is a Tory/Lib Dem marginal (Tories won it off Lib Dems last time; Lib Dems will be looking to take it back) - if Brexit is a big issue for you either way, you'll have 2 very different options there....but you might want to vote for your preferred party regardless...

 

Vote by party or candidate? For general elections, I'd always vote by party, not candidate, except in really extreme circumstances (e.g. a massively important national figure you want to see elected/booted out, or a candidate who is corrupt or useless). National politics is still very party-dominated. I do take more account of individual candidates in council elections - and sometimes split my votes across a couple of parties, choosing their better candidates.

 

The consequences of this election seem really unpredictable - probably much more so than the result. I assume that the Tories will win & gain a load of seats from Labour. I assume the Lib Dems will gain a few from the Tories & Lab - and May will get the larger majority she wants. But what consequences that has for Brexit aren't obvious. It would probably give May more room to compromise in negotiations with the EU, so might lead to a softer Brexit & a closer relationship with the EU.....but if lots of the new Tory MPs are Eurosceptics that might not be true. If Labour do as badly as polls suggest, you'd normally expect the leader to resign but internal party politics means Corbyn might not....so the future could get brighter or darker for Lab or might just stay the same (gloomy!). I reckon that it's likely that this election will go down as one of the most important in British history - for our relations with Europe/world, the future of our parties / possibly a massive realignment, the future of our society re. tax, public services, immigration, living standards. It really could have a much bigger impact than usual as we're heading into uncharted waters (biggest time of change since 1945?). I find it hard to predict how different election results will affect that, though.  

[Guest MattP]

14 hours ago, Rincewind said:

You make soe good points Matt. Tit for tat is a great idea. 'You killed my dad so I'll kill your daughter' You killed my daughter so I'll kill your son.' .............. Just extend that to communities then cities then countries and what fun we will have.

Reminds me of the film where someone is sitting on a bomb at thr rnd. Forget the name. Was it Mel Brooks?

Just to clarify, my intention (or I would imagine anyones) isn't to retaliate to kill other people's daughters, it would be to try and protect my own citizens from death.

 

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can tell you what it's like if you are incapable of defence against these things, the USA wouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs on these cities had they been capable of retailating on Los Angeles and San Francisco.

 

12 hours ago, toddybad said:

I would hope that all of our leaders would refuse to use nuclear weapons in practice, whatever their public (deterent) position.

Far fetched I know, but North Korea far into the future strikes the South West, then the South East, then the Home Counties, at what point do you actually fire back?

 

Or do we all have to die as you couldn't do it?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Just to clarify, my intention (or I would imagine anyones) isn't to retaliate to kill other people's daughters, it would be to try and protect my own citizens from death.

 

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can tell you what it's like if you are incapable of defence against these things, the USA wouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs on these cities had they been capable of retailating on Los Angeles and San Francisco.

 

Far fetched I know, but North Korea far into the future strikes the South West, then the South East, then the Home Counties, at what point do you actually fire back?

 

Or do we all have to die as you couldn't do it?

There is absolutely no chance of that happening. Japan, South Korea and the US are the countries that need to deal with worrying about Korea.

 

Russia is the only reason to have nukes and, quite frankly, if we're ever in the position of getting into a scrap with them firing back would be the least of our worries. I'd much prefer we had none, didnt let the us base theres here and therefore had no chance of getting caught up in anything we don't want to. 

 

Trident is a complete waste of money for a system that can't be used.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

There is absolutely no chance of that happening. Japan, South Korea and the US are the countries that need to deal with worrying about Korea.

 

Russia is the only reason to have nukes and, quite frankly, if we're ever in the position of getting into a scrap with them firing back would be the least of our worries. I'd much prefer we had none, didnt let the us base theres here and therefore had no chance of getting caught up in anything we don't want to. 

 

Trident is a complete waste of money for a system that can't be used.

I said far it was far-fetched, but it isn't impossible. I didn't expect to get an answer though. I hope Labour can finally tell us where they stand over the next few weeks on this issue,Jeremy  Corbyn said in 2015 there would be a review of their position and we sit here in 2017 with that review still apparantly nowhere in sight.

 

Britain is a nation that has always be capable of defending itself, we should never shirk that responsibility and hide under the umbrella of others, or even worse totally turn a blind eye to the problems in the World just because it doesn't affect us.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I said far it was far-fetched, but it isn't impossible. I didn't expect to get an answer though. I hope Labour can finally tell us where they stand over the next few weeks on this issue,Jeremy  Corbyn said in 2015 there would be a review of their position and we sit here in 2017 with that review still apparantly nowhere in sight.

 

Britain is a nation that has always be capable of defending itself, we should never shirk that responsibility and hide under the umbrella of others, or even worse totally turn a blind eye to the problems in the World just because it doesn't affect us.

As i said in a post earlier in the thread, security is corbyn's huge weakness and the reason labour will lose this election catastrophically. I agree we need strength but personally don't see why we need to project strength as globally as we do, particularly given all the problems we've caused by doing so. I'd much rather we focused on core defensive strength rather than worrying about spending money on trident that could be put to better use elsewhere in our economy.

 

My personal view is that much of your opinion appears to be based on ideology  (shirk responsibility, hide under umbrella etc) rather than reality. I'm happy to be a part of alliances where action is needed and good reason exists but not so happy to continue to act as the us poodle shouting loudest for sanctions and war as with iraq and libya? Discussion of security has long been too focused on generalities, use of the 'what if' and soundbite politics. There needs to be a real discussion about what our role in the world should be and whether attempting to force democracy on countries in far flung places is all it's cracked up to be.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

I said far it was far-fetched, but it isn't impossible. I didn't expect to get an answer though. I hope Labour can finally tell us where they stand over the next few weeks on this issue,Jeremy  Corbyn said in 2015 there would be a review of their position and we sit here in 2017 with that review still apparantly nowhere in sight.

 

Britain is a nation that has always be capable of defending itself, we should never shirk that responsibility and hide under the umbrella of others, or even worse totally turn a blind eye to the problems in the World just because it doesn't affect us.

This is fair, but I think there's a difference between defending ourselves and joining in an exchange that will result in the destruction of most of civilisation whether we take part it in or not. (Barring, of course, the idea of a "limited" nuclear exchange which is tenuous at best.)

[Guest MattP]

Just to clarify on the news now the Labour spokesman Andrew Gwyne has clarified that they are still a pro-nuclear party and it will still be official policy in the manifesto to support Trident and Britain retaining nuclear weapons.

[Guest MattP]

Also, the Communist Party of Great Britain won't be standing candidates and instead urges supporters to vote for the Labour party.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/24/general-election-2017-news-analysis-polls/

Quote

 

“In every general election since the formation of the CP in 1920, we have stood our own candidates, not least in 2015 when we fielded nine.

 

Now, on this occasion, we we will not contest any seats, although this does not signal any withdrawal from the electoral arena in the future.“We call for a Labour vote in every constituency across Britain, despite the reactionary views of numerous Labour Party candidates. Communist Party organisations will approach local Labour Party bodies in their area with offers of practical campaigning assistance…

 

“The higher the Labour vote and the number of Labour MPs elected, the more secure will be the position of Jeremy Corbyn and his left allies in the Parliamentary Labour Party.”

 

 

[Finnaldo]

Wrong thread!

[Guest]

Why is there even an election.

 

Tim Farron is no where to be seen

Labrour under Corbyn are un-electable 

 

They might as well just hand power to Teresa May....The only way this election would take an interesting turn is if the next few days Tony Blair pops up and says he is running

[Buce]

 

It's all getting a bit nasty on the Guardian website:

 

6m ago 16:11

I’m afraid we closed the comments on the blog because, with the headline flagging up a story featuring Ukip, Islamophobia and FGM, the blog was attracting a disproportionate number of comments that broke our community standards.

It is possible that we may be able to open them again later.

 

[Guest MattP]

First polling from Wales and to say it's mental is an understatement. If these polls are true my prediction of a Tory majority of 50 will look ridiculous.

 

Welsh Westminster voting intention:

CON: 40% (+12)
LAB: 30% (-3)
PC: 13% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 6% (-7)

(via YouGov)
Changes with January

 

Bookies now have Conservatives strong favourites to even win seats like Bridgend, Delyn, Gower, Newport East, Newport West, Clywd and Wrexham. Even in with a chance in a couple of the Cardiff ones.

 

Labour could also lose the Rhondda and Paddy Power make them 12/1 to win a seat they actually currently hold in Ynys Mon.

[leicsmac]

21 hours ago, MattP said:

I said pacifists and they would.

 

If someone is never prepared to use force to defend something they will cease to exist. That's pretty obvious.

 

It's an interesting one.

 

It could also be postulated that dividing lines between people and using force to defend them (whether countries, ideologies or whatever) carry a constant risk of conflict anyway, and that conflict could one day escalate to the point of societal collapse/ceasing to exist also.

I wonder...which is the bigger threat?

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

First polling from Wales and to say it's mental is an understatement. If these polls are true my prediction of a Tory majority of 50 will look ridiculous.

 

Welsh Westminster voting intention:

CON: 40% (+12)
LAB: 30% (-3)
PC: 13% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 6% (-7)

(via YouGov)
Changes with January

 

Bookies now have Conservatives strong favourites to even win seats like Bridgend, Delyn, Gower, Newport East, Newport West, Clywd and Wrexham. Even in with a chance in a couple of the Cardiff ones.

 

Labour could also lose the Rhondda and Paddy Power make them 12/1 to win a seat they actually currently hold in Ynys Mon.

Still a long way to go and polls are not always accurate. I think May has to resist engaging currently, as Labour and Dems putting themselves in the spotlight is clearly only helping her cause.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

It's all getting a bit nasty on the Guardian website:

 

6m ago 16:11

I’m afraid we closed the comments on the blog because, with the headline flagging up a story featuring Ukip, Islamophobia and FGM, the blog was attracting a disproportionate number of comments that broke our community standards.

It is possible that we may be able to open them again later.

 

I'm assuming the Daily Mail don't have the same policy?