FT General Election Poll 2019

[shade]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

It a cliché, a stupid one as well.

 

Those who deliberately murder the innocent are never freedom fighters.

governments do it all the time, elected officials can be and often are, terrorists.

Edited 1 November 2019 by shade

[Guest MattP]

Just now, shade said:

governments do it all the time, elected officials can and often are terrorists.

Which governments deliberately kill the innocent "all the time"?

[shade]

Just now, MattP said:

Which governments deliberately kill the innocent "all the time"?

you're playing semantics with the word deliberately, accepting collateral deaths in drone strikes, and knowing what the humanitarian toll of a war or invasion will be before you do it, is no better.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

you're playing semantics with the word deliberately, accepting collateral deaths in drone strikes, and knowing what the humanitarian toll of a war or invasion will be before you do it, is no better.

Complete utter nonsense. Garbage. 

 

It's not semantics at all, you have decisions to take in war, sometimes you will kill the innocent but you do that in terms of thought that the act of doing that will save more lives.

 

That's been lomg debated since the "Should we bomb Auchswitz" ethical question and had we known the true extent of that during WW2 I'd have guessed we probably would.

 

That's a complete contrast to the deliberate act of murder towards innocent people.

 

What next? Don't let the police take out a suicide bomber in case somebody innocent gets caught up in trying to do so? Seriously, think about these things.

[HappyHamza]

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

Ay ay ay ay Moosey
Ay ay ay ay Moosey
Ay ay ay ay Moosey
To help me through the day

Moose, moose, moose

I'll say two things:

1- I have no idea who moose was and I am not he

2- he must have been a highly intelligent fellow for you to be so mistaken though 

[Izzy]

Standard Moose response 

[shade]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Complete utter nonsense. Garbage. 

 

It's not semantics at all, you have decisions to take in war, sometimes you will kill the innocent but you do that in terms of thought that the act of doing that will save more lives.

 

That's been lomg debated since the "Should we bomb Auchswitz" ethical question and had we known the true extent of that during WW2 I'd have guessed we probably would.

 

That's a complete contrast to the deliberate act of murder towards innocent people.

 

What next? Don't let the police take out a suicide bomber in case somebody innocent gets caught up in trying to do so? Seriously, think about these things.

of course i agree in some part with what you're saying, but do you genuinely believe that bush, blair, trump, obama et al. take those decisions you talk about with a benevolent mindset? you may think they do because they're on our side, but i'm not convinced by their motives, at all. say what you like about corbyn, but if he was making casual decisions about whether tens of thousands of innocent children would be indirectly die as a result of his cause (be it oil or influence), I suspect he wouldn't be as eager as the aforementioned turds.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

of course i agree in some part with what you're saying, but do you genuinely believe that bush, blair, trump, obama et al. take those decisions you talk about with a benevolent mindset? you may think they do because they're on our side, but i'm not convinced by their motives, at all. say what you like about corbyn, but if he was making casual decisions about whether tens of thousands of innocent children would be indirectly die as a result of his cause (be it oil or influence), I suspect he wouldn't be as eager as the aforementioned turds.

Corbyn has taken those decisions, he votes on them as a member of parliament. 

 

He voted against the Falklands war which would have left thousands of citizens subject to a fascist military junta. 

 

He voted against intervention in Kosovo, which would have continued to see people being thrown into death camps.

 

He got Iraq right though (although that also left thousands to be killed).

[Guest MattP]

Back to the GE.

 

Nigel Farage is now the biggest danger and obstacle to Brexit in this country.

 

 

[Finnaldo]

My constituency (Bosworth) has already had all the expected Party candidates announced sans Labour, whether it'll be Chris Kealey again after being the (granted, pretty distanced) second place last time around is yet to be seen. Otherwise, the ballot will look like:

 

Luke Evans (Conservatives) - the successor to incumbent MP David Tredinnick, Dr Luke Evans has been an NHS Doctor for 10 years, in the words of the Bosworth Conservative Association: 'a portfolio General Practitioner with clinical work across the Midlands, including in Leicester and Desford'. 

 

At the Special General Meeting where he was elected as candidate, he said on his elections and views as prospective MP: "These are uncertain times politically and it is difficult to judge how things are going to develop but I agree with Boris Johnson that the country needs a General Election so we can get on with improving the NHS, tackling issues like dementia and social care, raising living standards and protecting the environment."

 

Mick Gregg (Greens) - having first stood in the 2017 General Election, Mick Gregg is the first Greens candidate to stand in Bosworth since the 1992 General Election,  having been a member of the Party since 1988. Having appreciated his underdog status in the last election, his main goal was offering an alternative to the main parties and bringing other candidates to task during local debate. With the new election announced, we're yet to hear on Mick's stance. 

 

Tracey Maitland (Brexit Party) - the first Brexit Party candidate for Bosworth. Although there haven't been any official statement yet, her official social media accounts appears to target those 'fed up of politics' and has alluded to 'a quick and clean Brexit' as a priority. Little surprise considering her affiliation in a constituency that voted 60.8% in favour of Leave.

 

Michael Mullaney (Liberal Democrats) - since his debut as Liberal Democrat candidate in 2010, where he squeezed the incumbent David Tredinnick to a 5,032, the County Councillor fro Hinckley De Monfort has seen his voter base steadily decline since, having finished third behind Labour's Chris Kealey in the 2017 election. However, he will be hoping this time around the Remainers of his constituency will rally to his cause, having the following to say: 

 

“If people in Hinckley and Bosworth elect me as their MP, they will have a full-time local MP who will fight for the quality healthcare, education and other vital local services that they and their families need.”

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Complete utter nonsense. Garbage. 

 

It's not semantics at all, you have decisions to take in war, sometimes you will kill the innocent but you do that in terms of thought that the act of doing that will save more lives.

 

That's been lomg debated since the "Should we bomb Auchswitz" ethical question and had we known the true extent of that during WW2 I'd have guessed we probably would.

 

That's a complete contrast to the deliberate act of murder towards innocent people.

 

What next? Don't let the police take out a suicide bomber in case somebody innocent gets caught up in trying to do so? Seriously, think about these things.

 

8 minutes ago, shade said:

of course i agree in some part with what you're saying, but do you genuinely believe that bush, blair, trump, obama et al. take those decisions you talk about with a benevolent mindset? you may think they do because they're on our side, but i'm not convinced by their motives, at all. say what you like about corbyn, but if he was making casual decisions about whether tens of thousands of innocent children would be indirectly die as a result of his cause (be it oil or influence), I suspect he wouldn't be as eager as the aforementioned turds.

Good to see the old realpolitik argument being talked about again.

 

A couple of observations:

 

- ask the dead what they think of what cause they supposedly died for and if it matters to them now. I doubt you'll get much of an answer, though.

 

- it's odd how so many people consider taking lives to save lives in a time of human against human warfare, but utterly balk at the idea of societal changes that might cost lives but would defend against natural changes that could cost a great deal more. That's pretty inconsistent IMO - it's like the only threat worth dying for to stop is those posed by other humans, and how is that in any way a truism?

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Back to the GE.

 

Nigel Farage is now the biggest danger and obstacle to Brexit in this country.

 

 

 

This is hardly surprising given he becomes irrelevant in a post-Brexit world.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Good to see the old realpolitik argument being talked about again.

 

A couple of observations:

 

- ask the dead what they think of what cause they supposedly died for and if it matters to them now. I doubt you'll get much of an answer, though.

Obviously you can't do that - but they did ask the survivors of Auschwitz whether they should have been killed to shut down the camp and in hindsight the overwhelming opinion was that they should.

 

It's a great watch this and gives some serious thinking to one of the great moral dilemmas.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008lj4

[purpleronnie]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Obviously you can't do that - but they did ask the survivors of Auschwitz whether they should have been killed to shut down the camp and in hindsight the overwhelming opinion was that they should.

 

It's a great watch this and gives some serious thinking to one of the great moral dilemmas.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008lj4

What do you think of Farage and the Trump phone in?  Seemed a little strange given Farage was so openly critical of Obama 'meddling'' in our politics.

 

That aside when you actually read what Trump said its just unarticulated ramblings, quite bizarre.

[FerrisBueller]

Just now, purpleronnie said:

What do you think of Farage and the Trump phone in?  Seemed a little strange given Farage was so openly critical of Obama 'meddling'' in our politics.

 

That aside when you actually read what Trump said its just unarticulated ramblings, quite bizarre.

Trump endorsing Farage and Johnson is a little bit like Jimmy Saville recommending R.Kelly and Gary Glitter look after your kids.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Obviously you can't do that - but they did ask the survivors of Auschwitz whether they should have been killed to shut down the camp and in hindsight the overwhelming opinion was that they should.

 

It's a great watch this and gives some serious thinking to one of the great moral dilemmas.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008lj4

Thank you, I'll check it out given the time.

 

In the meantime though I'll answer with one quick point: with the greatest of respect to those who suffered...those who suffer often wish to die, but I'm betting that those who suffer and then die wish to live again more often.

 

And this still doesn't take away from the idea that far too many people only consider disasters wrought by other humans worthy of that algebra of necessity.

[Leicester_Loyal]

18 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

At least Donald has no interest in interfering in foreign elections 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-claims-jeremy-corbyn-would-be-so-bad-for-uk-ahead-of-election-11850422

 

 

Much like 'back of the queue' Obama

[Beechey]

4 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

Ooooh Jeremy Corbyn!

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

What do you think of Farage and the Trump phone in?  Seemed a little strange given Farage was so openly critical of Obama 'meddling'' in our politics.

 

That aside when you actually read what Trump said its just unarticulated ramblings, quite bizarre.

First of all hats off from a journalistic point of view - incredible scoop to get the POTUS to ring your radio show.

 

Secondly, he can **** off out of our politics in the same way Obama should have - it's not a good look and like Barack it will work against the cause he supports.

 

20 minutes ago, FerrisBueller said:

Trump endorsing Farage and Johnson is a little bit like Jimmy Saville recommending R.Kelly and Gary Glitter look after your kids.

On the subject on celebrity nonces 

 

 

(For balance I'll point out that Jimmy Savile was a Conservative)

[RoboFox]

13 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Ooooh Jeremy Corbyn!

 

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves" - Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 

[Alf Bentley]

51 minutes ago, MattP said:

Back to the GE.

 

Nigel Farage is now the biggest danger and obstacle to Brexit in this country.

 

 

 

I was hoping that we could rely on Agent Nigel. 

 

Much as he might want a pact with the Tories, it'll be difficult to arrange, I reckon...

 

This is specifically because any seat where the Brexit Party might stand a chance is also a seat where the Tories might stand a chance.....so why would they stand down?

 

His options:

- Stand no Brexit Party candidates & rely on Boris: Doesn't seem his self-effacing style & would be the end of the Brexit Party

- Only stand in seats where there's no risk of blocking a Tory win: pointless, as the Brexit Party will also stand no chance there (Scottish, metropolitian & Lab/LD Remain seats)

- Agree a formal or informal pact to divide strong Leave seats with Tories: Why would the Tories agree to this? They'd be giving up potential wins, alienating local members & discrediting their brand by association with Farage & No Deal

- Stand in every seat, or at least in a good number where they stand a chance of winning....& hope they don't hand potential Tory wins to Lab/LD/SNP

 

Unless Nigel wants to jack it in, the Brexit Party will have to stand in at least some, if not all seats they might win (also seats the Tories might win), surely.

If they seriously think Johnson's Deal is not hard enough, he has to try to get some MPs in order to influence the outcome, hasn't he?

 

That means risking handing Tory wins to Lab/LD.....not inevitable, as some Brexit votes would come from potential Labour voters.....but a definite risk.....I hope! 

 

[Alf Bentley]

 

I understand that the Brexit Party is not standing candidates in N. Ireland. Is that right?

 

If so, why's that? Is Nigel a secret Irish nationalist? Does he not see N. Ireland as part of the UK? Does he accept Boris's "border in the Irish Sea"?  

[Finnaldo]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

I understand that the Brexit Party is not standing candidates in N. Ireland. Is that right?

 

If so, why's that? Is Nigel a secret Irish nationalist? Does he not see N. Ireland as part of the UK? Does he accept Boris's "border in the Irish Sea"?  

 

Appeasing Unionist parties for a potential alliance maybe?