snap general election?

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

For those who thought May would be a steady hand on the ship - what gave you that impression?

Honest question - not rhetorical.

She always seemed to be fairly middle of the road and concentrating on the issues rather than seeking publicity. Basically the opposite of Boris. Also, as she was (officially at least) anti-Brexit but accepting that the public had voted for it I assumed she would seek a conciliatory split that would keep the moderate majority on both sides as happy as possible. It appears that what she has actually done is keep her true personality hidden until now.

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A cynic might suggest that part of the reason for calling the election was to keep the party focused and avoid the infighting of Major's government or the complacency of the later Blair/Brown government.

What's to stop that post election?

Doesn't that depend on TM's majority? If it is big, she can tell her detractors to shut up and get back in their box. If the majority is quite small, she may have problems with the back benches. Especially if she tries to aim for a soft Brexit, which will not be good for the swivel-eyed nutters on the further right.

A big majority has never stopped the Tory party getting exercised over Europe.

They may be much better at the practicalities of elections - but they do lose their rationality when it comes to the UK's position in the geopolitical scene.

The Tories have not had a big majority since Maggie stepped down - Major had a wafer thin majority that vanished following the Mastricht vote. His election campaign in 1997 was marred by the internal Europe debate, then they spent 13 yrs in opposition fighting over Europe. They then had a coalition and a wafer thin majority going into the referendum. Maggie got her way on Europe because she had big majorities, (and she was pro-EC/EU at the time)

type:epyt

Stevo 666 wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

I vote Conservative but even I think a change would combat the arrogance that has become exaggerated by Labour's downfall ...

Enjoy the majority when it comes. Unfortunately it won't stop the whingers but it will be very satisfying to kick Labour's ar$e hard and officially demote them to loony left fringe protest party.

I'm not sure you actually understood my post ...

Explain your post then.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
i think.

My original reply still stands.

Bit lazy to say someone doesn't understand their post and then not bother to explain what they meant. If he had made his point clearly I would have understood easily.

PBlakeney seemed to understand it just fine ...

Your response, however, was confusing at best ... It hints at sarcasm but the lampooning of Labour becomes embittered which is odd given your Join the Labour Party thread ...

Just make your points a bit clearer and we can avoid this in future. Easy.

Be able to read what's written and we can avoid this in future. Easy.

Pross

Nutjob and his cronies staying classy today, announcing their manifesto while all the other 'major' parties are holding back from national campaigning and then using the attacks to have a dig at May. I suppose we shouldn't expect anything else from them and no doubt it will go down well with his target audience but I like to think they are still just a very vocal but small minority.

milton50

Latest YouGov poll has the gap down to 5 points. The momentum's been with Labour for a good few weeks now.

I guess the unknown factor now is, how will the floating voters who have been moving towards Labour react if Corbyn has a genuine chance of becoming PM?

Bobbinogs

I am not sure his "Our foreign intervention has caused the terrorism" speeches are going to go down well today. He is probably right but I am not sure the country wants to hear that at the moment.

rick_chasey

Bobbinogs wrote:

He is probably right but I am not sure the country wants to hear that at the moment.

Story of modern Western politics.

rick_chasey

Ouch.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/ ... 7350305793

mamba80

Bobbinogs wrote:

I am not sure his "Our foreign intervention has caused the terrorism" speeches are going to go down well today. He is probably right but I am not sure the country wants to hear that at the moment.

he didnt say that at all though did he? i heard the speech and Fallons terrible interview, corbyn said that our foreign policy needs to change, its not working and is making natters worse, fairly obv really.

May for all her so called Christian values, wont stop stop lying, she just said Corbyn says "its our own fault" she is a fcuking liar.

Corbyn is saying what many people in this country believe, they see our troops (dead or injured) come back from Afghan etc and wonder what the fcuk was that all about.....

BelgianBeerGeek

mamba80 wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

I am not sure his "Our foreign intervention has caused the terrorism" speeches are going to go down well today. He is probably right but I am not sure the country wants to hear that at the moment.

he didnt say that at all though did he? i heard the speech and Fallons terrible interview, corbyn said that our foreign policy needs to change, its not working and is making natters worse, fairly obv really.

May for all her so called Christian values, wont stop stop lying, she just said Corbyn says "its our own fault" she is a fcuking liar.

Corbyn is saying what many people in this country believe, they see our troops (dead or injured) come back from Afghan etc and wonder what the fcuk was that all about.....

Corby is probably just using the wrong time to air his musings. I think lots of others have said similar on here. I agree with him, btw. Our foreign adventures have cost us much in blood and gold, and for not much (so far).
The reaction from other parties was hysterical. Even the LibDem guy got all righteous ffs :roll:

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

He is probably right but I am not sure the country wants to hear that at the moment.

Story of modern Western politics.

Right or not - and personally I think he is mostly wrong about ongoing efforts to frustrate terrorism - Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have already happened. We can't undo any of that history What we should or shouldn't have done in each of those cases is interesting as an area of academic study but I'm not sure how helpful it is in dealing with current threats. We can hope that some foreign policy lessons are learnt, which may help to not make these situations worse, but that is about it.

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

He is probably right but I am not sure the country wants to hear that at the moment.

Story of modern Western politics.

Right or not - and personally I think he is mostly wrong about ongoing efforts to frustrate terrorism - Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have already happened. We can't undo any of that history What we should or shouldn't have done in each of those cases is interesting as an area of academic study but I'm not sure how helpful it is in dealing with current threats. We can hope that some foreign policy lessons are learnt, which may help to not make these situations worse, but that is about it.

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

yes i can see that and agree in part but he did go on to say he would increase national security, via increasing Police numbers and further spending on intel, tbh i dont think anyone has any idea, as you say, all we can try to ensure matters are not made worse, which is the fundamental difference between JC and TM who wants to just continue the status quo.
i often see management screw ups and its very common to say lets not look back lets find solutions etc.... this seems to lead to further screw ups as no one is held responsible and no one learns anything because little time is spent analysing what went wrong.
As for timing, its not his fault the election is only 2 weeks away, what period time would be deemed appropriate ?

May could postpone if she feels certain vital issues should nt be debated so close to the manchester bombing.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

[

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

Well I think he's suggesting the longer term solution is not to elect a government who don't recognise the failings of past policy and who are likely to repeat those failings.

bendertherobot

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

He's among good company though, with Boris and the ex head of MI5

bendertherobot

If the media is at all complicit then it might just be that they're trying to lose this.
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/lif ... n-eharmony

bendertherobot

Corbyn's doing football fans now with yet another populist policy. The tories snipe back in their usual negative way.

I've no idea whether it's a good policy. But it's not project fear.

mamba80

bendertherobot wrote:

If the media is at all complicit then it might just be that they're trying to lose this.
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/lif ... n-eharmony

Last nights storm was the good Lord warning us to stay with Strong and Stable or else.......

rjsterry

bendertherobot wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

He's among good company though, with Boris and the ex head of MI5

I'm not suggesting that there aren't myriad lessons to learn from our various recent foreign policy adventures and parts of them obviously provide a handy source of ready made propaganda for extremists. That said, the idea that if we had never got involved in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, then everything would be alright is wishful thinking at best.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

He's among good company though, with Boris and the ex head of MI5

I'm not suggesting that there aren't myriad lessons to learn from our various recent foreign policy adventures and parts of them obviously provide a handy source of ready made propaganda for extremists. That said, the idea that if we had never got involved in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, then everything would be alright is wishful thinking at best.

Hang on, so if Libya was still controlled by Ghadafi, the magnet that is a failed and chaotic libya for IS and for people traffickers wouldnt exist, this guy couldnt have gone on his travels around N Africa and its plausible that the bombing in Manchester wouldnt have happened.

there were not 23,000 people on general watch lists in the 1990's. and 3k people considered a danger..... despite decades of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, sure we had hi-jackings and certainly terrorism is nothing new, but if former head of Mi6 thinks we ve made the world a less safe place by our jingoistic forays, then its rather ignorant to dismiss this.

No, everything would nt have been alright had we learnt from the Soviets but its almost certain that the 1000's of injured UK soldiers would nt have limbs missing and neither would 100's of families be left grieving for their dead sons and daughters.

bendertherobot

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

He's among good company though, with Boris and the ex head of MI5

I'm not suggesting that there aren't myriad lessons to learn from our various recent foreign policy adventures and parts of them obviously provide a handy source of ready made propaganda for extremists. That said, the idea that if we had never got involved in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, then everything would be alright is wishful thinking at best.

It is. But let's not pretend that Corbyn is unique in stating it or being unable to offer any meaningful solutions. He has, to his credit, been banging this particular management drum for an awful long time.

bendertherobot

May sending Rudd to the live debate on Wednesday. I'd imagine labour will be very seriously considering whether Corbyn will attend now. At least to play the where is she card...

Stevo_666

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

[

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

Well I think he's suggesting the longer term solution is not to elect a government who don't recognise the failings of past policy and who are likely to repeat those failings.

Certain amount of irony there given that Labour seem intent on repeating their failed/rejected policies of the late 70's and early 80's.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

[

You could summarise Corbyn's speech as "I told you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq". At the risk of sounding like some management geek, it's looking for blame rather than solutions.

Well I think he's suggesting the longer term solution is not to elect a government who don't recognise the failings of past policy and who are likely to repeat those failings.

Certain amount of irony there given that Labour seem intent on repeating their failed/rejected policies of the late 70's and early 80's.

i could perhaps accept that POV if the conservatives actually told us what they are going to do differently from 7 years of failed austerity, a big u turn and a un-costed manifesto, strikes me that they ve been slightly lazy in their delivery!

with bresit and security high on the agenda, this isnt competent or inspiring government.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

i could perhaps accept that POV if the conservatives actually told us what they are going to do differently from 7 years of failed austerity, a big u turn and a un-costed manifesto, strikes me that they ve been slightly lazy in their delivery!

with bresit and security high on the agenda, this isnt competent or inspiring government.

So youre not denying that Labour policies from that period were failed/rejected? That's a start.

The idea of Corbyn getting is not a pleasant one for most.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i could perhaps accept that POV if the conservatives actually told us what they are going to do differently from 7 years of failed austerity, a big u turn and a un-costed manifesto, strikes me that they ve been slightly lazy in their delivery!

with bresit and security high on the agenda, this isnt competent or inspiring government.

So youre not denying that Labour policies from that period were failed/rejected? That's a start.

The idea of Corbyn getting is not a pleasant one for most.

no i dont, i like Labours policies, i meant that i can understand your criticism of Labour IF the tory stall was well set out, but its not, when the predominately right of centre media say that the tories have been lax and lazy, then we know the tories have messed up!
Anyone who calls an election with a 25 pt lead in every opinion poll going and within 3 weeks see it collapse it single figures is incompetent and not to be trusted on the economy or national security.

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i could perhaps accept that POV if the conservatives actually told us what they are going to do differently from 7 years of failed austerity, a big u turn and a un-costed manifesto, strikes me that they ve been slightly lazy in their delivery!

with bresit and security high on the agenda, this isnt competent or inspiring government.

So youre not denying that Labour policies from that period were failed/rejected? That's a start.

The idea of Corbyn getting is not a pleasant one for most.

I would have agreed with Stevo when the election was called, but now I see May as a loose cannon, making policy announcements and u-turns while her cabinet wonder what the hell is going on. Corbyn, on the other hand, seems to have compromised with the PLP to put together a manifesto they can deliver if elected.

bendertherobot

Liar Liar now at no 10 (ironic) in the charts. Probably be at number 1 this Sunday coming. Which will be interesting given the Chart Show's refusal to play it yesterday.

mamba80

bendertherobot wrote:

Liar Liar now at no 10 (ironic) in the charts. Probably be at number 1 this Sunday coming. Which will be interesting given the Chart Show's refusal to play it yesterday.

yep banning should make the song far less popular wont it !!!!

bendertherobot

Capital FM have cited section 6 (I assume rule 6) of the OFCOM code.

It's entirely open to someone else to write IRA IRA (rhyming with liar liar) surely.....

Stevo_666

mrfpb wrote:

Corbyn, on the other hand, seems to have compromised with the PLP to put together a manifesto they can deliver if elected.

Leopard and spots. He may seem to have done this but if he gets in...