General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%

  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%

  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%

  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%
  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
All this 'terrorist sympathiser' stuff is absolute projection. Note the absolute indifference the Tories have when it comes to what Saudi Arabia is doing, because they're paying us handsomely to do so and now this story. Corbyn didn't condemn the IRA enough because he also condemned the loyalist and 'British security service' bombings in the process. Stick a sodding Union flag on it and it's A-OK. Bunch of crocodile tear shedding charlatans.
 
Last edited:
Mciahel Goodman said:
Opened dialogues with IRA members, and raised the issue of a peaceful settlement repeatedly in Parliament. You're definitely at least as aware as I am of Corbyn's efforts to start talks with high ranking Sinn Fein members (including Adams).
Click to expand...
I know that he met with Adams and co and shared their aim of a united Ireland, I've just not seen anyone saying that he played any real role in the peace process itself. He was a backbench MP with little to no clout.
 
Ubik said:
I know that he met with Adams and co and shared their aim of a united Ireland, I've just not seen anyone saying that he played any real role in the peace process itself. He was a backbench MP with little to no clout.
Click to expand...
He travelled back and forth as a go between and was imstrumental in opening dialogue with the prisoners without which no peace process would have started as it was a real sticking point.

* not my info, something i just read.
 
Ubik said:
I know that he met with Adams and co and shared their aim of a united Ireland, I've just not seen anyone saying that he played any real role in the peace process itself. He was a backbench MP with little to no clout.
Click to expand...
Well, he invited Adams to Parliament in the early 80s, which was quite taboo. He was a backbench MP, but still a member of Parliament who helped open dialogue. I think he did as much as anyone in his limited capacity could hope to.
 
Ubik said:
I'm interested to hear what people's thoughts are on McDonnell's past statements, though, as that's the next stage for the right wing papers (then bring up Abbott again and tie it back on to Corbyn's decision making).
Click to expand...

I would actually expect them to go with this option for now, maintaining the focus on Corbyn:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-21014952/falklands-future-alan-west-and-jeremy-corbyn

I don't know if he has moderated his position since then, but he'll sure as hell need better answers than those.
 
McDonnell can't really wriggle out of praising the bombing campaign. Outrageous really. He's apologised, but that's not something that will dissipate.
 
he does answer with some small degree of nuance

it's quite a journey to the idea that he ''refuses to condemn the IRA''

it's not fair interviewing (altho she is careful to use the word 'unequivocally') & it isn't fair reporting of his answer

semantic stitch-up basically
 
Kentonio said:
Tory ideology isn't intentionally evil (although a lot of it is socially blind), they do want to economically succeed and after they originally opposed the minimum wage, they've clearly seen that it didn't have any of the negative effects they claimed back then. They also don't want a generation of poverty stricken pensioners in the country. My opposition to the Tories is usually when their market driven ideology becomes so focused that they forget (or don't care) about the effects of those policies on real people. The reason I'm so vehemently anti-Tory at the moment is that the party has been pretty much taken over by what I can only describe as ideological extremists. Even now though it doesn't mean they're incapable of doing the right thing from time to time.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
I struggle with the pledge to cut tuition fees.

Given that it isn't going to be retrospective the only people who'll benefit directly (arguments about how free university education benefits society at large, aside) are students yet to go to university. If you're at university or you've been to university at a time when fees were in place and left you're not directly benefiting from it. You could argue it's the right thing to do but to make it a flagship policy when it's going to benefit so very few people registered to vote just doesn't make much sense to me.

Surely the only people to benefit are the narrow band of people yet to go to university and turned 18 prior to the deadline required to enable them to vote next month. In the scheme of things that can't be an awful lot of people.

Even many people who will benefit directly from it and aware applying for university now or plan to in the next couple of years, they'll be 16/17 and too young to vote. I understand the ideology of doing it but making it a corner stone of an election campaign when realistically the numbers who'll benefit who will be able to vote will be tiny, seems strange.
 
Oscie said:
I struggle with the pledge to cut tuition fees.

Given that it isn't going to be retrospective the only people who'll benefit directly (arguments about how free university education benefits society at large, aside) are students yet to go to university. If you're at university or you've been to university at a time when fees were in place and left you're not directly benefiting from it. You could argue it's the right thing to do but to make it a flagship policy when it's going to benefit so very few people registered to vote just doesn't make much sense to me.

Surely the only people to benefit are the narrow band of people yet to go to university and turned 18 prior to the deadline required to enable them to vote next month. In the scheme of things that can't be an awful lot of people.

Even many people who will benefit directly from it and aware applying for university now or plan to in the next couple of years, they'll be 16/17 and too young to vote. I understand the ideology of doing it but making it a corner stone of an election campaign when realistically the numbers who'll benefit who will be able to vote will be tiny, seems strange.
Click to expand...
Their parents can vote.
 
Oscie said:
I struggle with the pledge to cut tuition fees.

Given that it isn't going to be retrospective the only people who'll benefit directly (arguments about how free university education benefits society at large, aside) are students yet to go to university. If you're at university or you've been to university at a time when fees were in place and left you're not directly benefiting from it. You could argue it's the right thing to do but to make it a flagship policy when it's going to benefit so very few people registered to vote just doesn't make much sense to me.

Surely the only people to benefit are the narrow band of people yet to go to university and turned 18 prior to the deadline required to enable them to vote next month. In the scheme of things that can't be an awful lot of people.

Even many people who will benefit directly from it and aware applying for university now or plan to in the next couple of years, they'll be 16/17 and too young to vote. I understand the ideology of doing it but making it a corner stone of an election campaign when realistically the numbers who'll benefit who will be able to vote will be tiny, seems strange.
Click to expand...

Not every policy is about how many votes it will get? And it doesn't have to directly effect the person to win votes.

Irrespective of that i disagree with it as its a tax cut for the future middle classes. I don't believe its the best approach, more bursarys are what's needed and would actually help improve equality.

Still the policy i dislike the most is one that will help people so thats not bad going i guess.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
He did condemn the IRA.

So the idea that he did not is a lie. That is, someone, other than corbyn, simply making it up.

And you are blaming him for it.
Click to expand...
Yeah.....well...... We all know that Corbyn secretly eats babies. I think it's shocking that he has yet to come out and apologise for his secret baby eating shenanigans. He eats babies in secret but won't come out and admit that he does it and he is covering it up. Go and look for evidence; you'll find that there's none left because he's hidden it. This is Corbyn's problem; he just can't persuade the floating voter that he isn't baby eating scum and he expects a free ride on every subject.
 
Oscie said:
I struggle with the pledge to cut tuition fees.

Given that it isn't going to be retrospective the only people who'll benefit directly (arguments about how free university education benefits society at large, aside) are students yet to go to university. If you're at university or you've been to university at a time when fees were in place and left you're not directly benefiting from it. You could argue it's the right thing to do but to make it a flagship policy when it's going to benefit so very few people registered to vote just doesn't make much sense to me.

Surely the only people to benefit are the narrow band of people yet to go to university and turned 18 prior to the deadline required to enable them to vote next month. In the scheme of things that can't be an awful lot of people.

Even many people who will benefit directly from it and aware applying for university now or plan to in the next couple of years, they'll be 16/17 and too young to vote. I understand the ideology of doing it but making it a corner stone of an election campaign when realistically the numbers who'll benefit who will be able to vote will be tiny, seems strange.
Click to expand...

Err, because it's the right thing to do? You know as opposed to pledging something to win votes here and now and pledging something to actually make long term sustainable and positive change? That wins my vote because I have a clear vision about how it's will positively impact the nation over the coming years, it doesn't deter me because I'm past University age.
 
He's miles behind in the polls and yet people celebrate the fact he isn't tailoring policy to win votes during an election campaign?

Maybe if he had more policies to win votes the Tories wouldn't be guaranteed a third term?

Just a thought.

But I know, I know. Cuts to NHS, education, policing, social care and a car-crash Tory Brexit can be balanced out by closing our eyes and remembering Corbyn's really, really big crowds. Etc.
 
Last edited:
Oscie said:
He's miles behind in the polls and yet people celebrate the fact he isn't tailoring policy to win votes during an election campaign?

Maybe if he had more policies to win votes the Tories wouldn't be guaranteed a third term?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

"He's" nine points behind and the gap is closing. The Tories will probably still win but let's not make this argument as partisan as we can. Let's just be honest here mate; Corbyn could solve the poverty crisis in this country and you'd complain that he was driving food banks out of business.
 
Oscie said:
He's miles behind in the polls and yet people celebrate the fact he isn't tailoring policy to win votes during an election campaign?

Maybe if he had more policies to win votes the Tories wouldn't be guaranteed a third term?

Just a thought.

But I know, I know. Cuts to NHS, education, policing, social care and a car-crash Tory Brexit can be balanced out by closing our eyes and remembering Corbyn's really, really big crowds. Etc.
Click to expand...

As someone already pointed out to you, tuition fees isn't an attempt to win votes from potential students, its a vote winner for all those parents who would like to send their kids to uni and are deeply worried about them landing in massive amounts of debt as a result. It's actually a very clever vote winner.
 
But it's an election, you have to WIN support not just trot out what you think people you anticipate will vote for you anyway will like.

There's absolutely nothing in Labour's manifesto that reaches beyond the core support. Reitterating policies that the core support love is fine but you have to also reach out to centre/centre-right voters or you'll never win. I get that if you're of the left there's a lot in Labour's manifesto that would appeal but what's in it for everyone else?

On the basis that it's impossible to win an election without broadening your appeal it's legitimate to criticise a party that seems to have decided on fighting it on a platform of 'preach to the choir'. Especially when that core support is, on its own, only enough to guarantee you your worst electoral performance in a century.

What's frustrating is that we've spent best part of 2 years on this. People denying the inevitable that Corbyn's disastrous leadership has done more to secure a third Tory term than anything else. Yet come 9th June we'll all have to pretend the massive Tory win was somehow unforseeable. I'm sorry people in need of getting rid of this government don't really have time to waste while the left pretends that it can't see that Corbyn is seen as completely unelectable by most of the country.

A Tory govt in permanent residence in Downing Street isn't a reasonable price to pay so the hardcore leftists can feel pure about their politics. Wasn't in the 80s and it isn't now.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
If he condemned the entirety of the IRA, he'd then be condemning a lot of people currently involved in a fractious power sharing governmental relationship with former enemies. You don't maintain peace by condemning one side of a conflict that isn't ongoing. It would also be hypocritical. If he condemned the IRA, rather than their bombings, the same papers would run with "Weak communist Corbyn condemns one time friends", or some such nonsense. It was a loaded interview with an ideological purpose behind it, and he did the most pragmatic thing he could have, which is to condemn the violence. Incidentally, that has been his position for decades.
Click to expand...

This. Although if I'd been Corbyn I'd have turned it around and after saying I condemned all violence I'd have gone on the attack and accused the media of gross irresponsibility. At a time when Brexit puts the peace process under increased pressure, trying to drive wedges between the different sides of the peace process for purely political ends is wildly unacceptable.
 
Oscie said:
But it's an election, you have to WIN support not just trot out what you think people you anticipate will vote for you anyway will like.

There's absolutely nothing in Labour's manifesto that reaches beyond the core support. Reitterating policies that the core support love is fine but you have to also reach out to centre/centre-right voters or you'll never win. I get that if you're of the left there's a lot in Labour's manifesto that would appeal but what's in it for everyone else?

On the basis that it's impossible to win an election without broadening your appeal it's legitimate to criticise a party that seems to have decided on fighting it on a platform of 'preach to the choir'.
Click to expand...

You think only core Labour supporters worry about their kids ending up with huge debts when they leave university? Are you sure you've thought this all the way through?
 
I don't think only Labour core supporters worry about their kids ending up in debt. I just don't think many people would have that as a priority in what influences who they're voting for in an election.

We're in a reality where the government published a manifesto completely unfunded. Not a single funded pledge in there. They announce they're scrapping the winter fuel allowance for well-off pensioners and didn't feel the need to even cost the pledge, indicate how many would be effected or even what the threshold for being effected is. Yes they've taken a bit over hit over it but that isn't something a government worried about a competent opposition does.

At some point when we're balls deep in a Tory third term it should at least be addressed whether becoming stubbornly unelectable (and refusing to accept that they are at the time) is wise for the Labour party. I don't get this reluctance to embrace reality.

Tories are going to win a third term and yet the anger seems to be directed more at those saying it than the fact that it's actually happening.
 
I think Oscie is now in the lead for hate inspired ramblings against Corbyn :lol:

No responses to what anyone is saying just angry ramblings
 
I am responding to what people say.

My local A&E department has been earmarked for closure. The idea I'd be backing a man whose mere presence as leader means that people are more likely to vote for the party that'd close my A&E department is absolutely bizarre. It's utter delusion. Miles behind in the polls in a system where the Labour party has to be miles ahead to get a slim majority. The contentment with that because Corbyn speaks to big crowds or people with signs is something I just don't understand.

I don't get the refusal to see reality. In your world is Corbyn surging ahead, have the Tories on the ropes, set to sweep into Downing Street. Because he isn't in mine and if he's not in yours why the blind loyalty?

The left online and on social media exist entirely in their own little world. Which is fine but when it hijacks the only party theoretically capable of ousting the Tories and makes that job harder by insisting on an absolutely unelectable leader I'm not getting behind that. At some point maybe winning elections will be considered the lesser of two evils, the other one being perpetual Tory rule.

I mean seriously, we all know the Tories are winning it's just a question of how big is their majority; big or really fecking big. All power to you if you're comfortable with that because Jeremy spoke to some really big crowds in a place with good acoustics, music and very politically biting placards. I'm not on that ship. But enjoy sailing in it on June 9th.

"Yes we lost and have the Tories again but OMG the Libertines!! Like totes lol! Legend!"
 
Last edited:
Oscie said:
I am responding to what people say.

My local A&E department has been earmarked for closure. The idea I'd be backing a man whose mere presence as leader means that people are more likely to vote for the party that'd close my A&E department is absolutely bizarre. It's utter delusion. Miles behind in the polls in a system where the Labour party has to be miles ahead to get a slim majority. The contentment with that because Corbyn speaks to big crowds or people with signs is something I just don't understand.
Click to expand...

So because the Tories want to close your hospital, you can't support the guy who doesn't want to close your hospital, because he might make people want to vote for the people who want to close your hospital instead?

And presumably you'll be voting for the people who want to close your hospital, to make sure you don't encourage other people to vote for them?
 
Looks like there's going to be a u-turn on the dementia tax. Has to be one of the worst put together campaigns in recent history.
 
Ubik said:
Looks like there's going to be a u-turn on the dementia tax. Has to be one of the worst put together campaigns in recent history.
Click to expand...

Thats 2 big flip flops in a year, how can these guys be trusted to negotiate with the EU

Although part of me expected this to happen, they have a habbit of floating extreme policy to then soften it with a less bad version.

Its one of those things the tories get away with but Labour never will
 
Ultimately a very good move from the Tories, don't see them falling any further in the polls.
 
May saying that there will be a cap but won't say what that cap will be, they're even making a bit of a pigs ear of their U-turn.
 
May saying it's not a U turn when it clearly is, the tories are a little bit rattled, now is the time for Corbyn and Labour to strike if they can
 
You must log in or register to reply here.