What's new

British Prime Minister calls snap general elections

Waseem

ODI Debutant
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Runs
11,014
Post of the Week
2
British Prime Minister Theresa May has called a snap general election for 8 June.

She made the announcement in Downing Street after a cabinet meeting.

Mrs May had repeatedly denied that she would call an election before the next scheduled poll in 2020.

But this morning she said that "division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit".

With a Commons working majority of just 17, and a healthy opinion poll lead over Labour, senior Tories had suggested Mrs May should go to the country in order to strengthen her parliamentary position.

Such a move would also give a mandate both for her leadership and her negotiating position on Brexit before talks with the European Union start in earnest.

Justifying the decision, Mrs May said: "The country is coming together but Westminster is not."

She said the government has a right plan for negotiating with European Union.


http://www.rte.ie/news/world/2017/0418/868377-uk-politics/
 
Oh for god's sake. As a Labour voter we're heading for a mauling under Corbyn.
 
Everyone wants to jump the sinking ship ???

This is comical really
 
Congratulations,looks like the brit asians would be slightly busy now with their issues.
 
Isn't this just grandstanding ? There's no way Labour will vote for an early election given their popularity or lack of.
 
Isn't this just grandstanding ? There's no way Labour will vote for an early election given their popularity or lack of.


They will.

Here it is, Jeremy Corbyn's statement on an early general election. Labour MPs will back the motion tomorrow.

“I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to give the British people the chance to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first.

“Labour will be offering the country an effective alternative to a government that has failed to rebuild the economy, delivered falling living standards and damaging cuts to our schools and NHS.

“In the last couple of weeks, Labour has set out policies that offer a clear and credible choice for the country. We look forward to showing how Labour will stand up for the people of Britain.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...ay/news/85126/live-theresa-may-announces-plan
 
This'll be a bigger mauling than under Michael Foot in 1983.

I'm sure Corbynistas will tell us to ignore the polls but unlike Brexit/Trump where the polls were in the margin of error, the gap between May and Corbyn is sizeable.

One way or another, we will find out. The election will provide us with either a different Tory leader or labour. My bet is Kier Starner will be labour leader after the election.
 
Isn't this just grandstanding ? There's no way Labour will vote for an early election given their popularity or lack of.

Corbyn says they will.

If you vote against you'd look like a coward. Either way its turkeys voting for Christmas.

May's done what Brown didn't have the guts to do in the autumn of 2007.
 
GE's are never straight forward, i remember the 92 election and everybody was heading for a hung parliament and the Tories pulled it out of the bag and it was similar in 15. In all probability a Tory majority of 40-50.
 
Corbyn says they will.

If you vote against you'd look like a coward. Either way its turkeys voting for Christmas.

May's done what Brown didn't have the guts to do in the autumn of 2007.


Brown got it right. If he'd called it early in 07 , Cameron would have squeaked through especially with the backdrop of the Iraq war. Sometimes you can't trust the polls.
 
I think the Tories will lose some seats to the Lib Dems but gain some from Labour. May's majority won't be as large as some think. One good thing which will come out of this all is the destruction of UKIP.
 
This will have to go through parliament so not 100% confirmed yet, there will be a vote.
 
The Labour party is in absolute shambles, they will get destroyed if the gen election goes ahead. [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] can't wait for you to continue with your delusion in light of an emphatic defeat.
 
And these people ruled over the entire world?!?!
 
Everyone wants to jump the sinking ship ???

This is comical really

She's calling a general election now because she knows that the Tories will increase their majority thanks to a lack of any credible opposition.

Labour are going to get wiped out.
 
I think the Tories will lose some seats to the Lib Dems but gain some from Labour. May's majority won't be as large as some think.

I think this too. She will emerge with a stronger majority, Labour will be hammered and the LDs will pick up 20-30 Remain marginals seats.
 
I think this too. She will emerge with a stronger majority, Labour will be hammered and the LDs will pick up 20-30 Remain marginals seats.

George Foreman became the oldest HW champion of the world, it happened! I expect saint Cobyn to unleash a secret weapon Robert, he is suspiciously confident ahead of the possible election in June :akhtar
 
Oh for god's sake. As a Labour voter we're heading for a mauling under Corbyn.

You're lucky.

As a centre-right One Nation Tory who narrowly opted for Brexit, I understood all along that the period 2019-2021 will be economically difficult, with new post-EU trade deals yet to kick in.

And politically difficult, as that necessitates a temporary EU deal which will require the political danger of continued Freedom of Movement. Which is electoral suicide.

So being in power in the period 2019-21 is a political fate worse than death.

I'd give anything to be able to lose this election as badly as Labour will. They are lucky.
 
George Foreman became the oldest HW champion of the world, it happened! I expect saint Cobyn to unleash a secret weapon Robert, he is suspiciously confident ahead of the possible election in June :akhtar

Having a puncher's chance is predicated on being able to land a punch!
 
George Foreman became the oldest HW champion of the world, it happened! I expect saint Cobyn to unleash a secret weapon Robert, he is suspiciously confident ahead of the possible election in June :akhtar

I really can't understand it tbh. The Tories are just bloodsuckers, hospitals, schools and other public services have been going down the toilet.

The UK now has a decent man who actually cares about ordinary people but I'm sorry to say the British public are some of the most stupid people on the planet and will continue elect the Conservatives and then cry about their life again.
 
You're lucky.

As a centre-right One Nation Tory who narrowly opted for Brexit, I understood all along that the period 2019-2021 will be economically difficult, with new post-EU trade deals yet to kick in.

So being in power in the period 2019-21 is a political fate worse than death.

I think you are right.

In June the LDs should have a bigger pool of MPs to choose frontbenchers from, and this will stand them in good stead in their quest to eventually replace Labour as the party of Opposition.
 
I really can't understand it tbh. The Tories are just bloodsuckers, hospitals, schools and other public services have been going down the toilet.

The UK now has a decent man who actually cares about ordinary people but I'm sorry to say the British public are some of the most stupid people on the planet and will continue elect the Conservatives and then cry about their life again.

I agree with you to, the root problems stem from a poor education system at the primary and secondary levels; especially with regards to those who live in deprived backgrounds and do not have the luxury to go to better schools. For one though, politics is not even a part of the national curriculum! most get to a stage where they would either work a standard job, go for an apprenticeship/Vocational-course or study A-levels with the hope of furthering higher education ambitions so unless you take A-levels and pick politics chances are you won't really have much of a clue.

There are a few exceptions, like myself but until the age of 20 I had no clue in general when it comes to politics! did some extra reading and research on the side but that may have stemmed from my love for reading fiction and having a little bit of a knack for writing stories so I don't really get much credit for being aware it's a fluke :yk

Our education system is changing like every other year and that's never a good sign because they've not found the ideal formula, if we fix that, improve teacher workload and pay in addition to making politics a compulsory subject at the secondary stage and it would go a long way in improving the intelligence of people in Britain when it comes to making vital decisions during the elections whilst allowing for a bigger turn out.

Generally in Brum we are fine though.

Issue with Labour individually is that not everyone is on the same page and with moronic parties playing into the irrational fears people have and all the rich people who are well educated voting in big numbers the party finds itself in a position of great weakness. The thing with wealthy people is they know that they are well off regardless of the state the country is in and all that really matter is how much they get taxed, so when parties like Labour want to take a bigger chunk from their pay check it is unlikely they'd ever want to vote for them because the folk in the deprived regions, health care and education system all do not matter nor does foreign policy or how we spend on defence.

The best chance for Labour is for Corbyn to turn heel, play the system; become everything you hate and once in power then make all the big moves in terms of his own views and ideas.
 
I really can't understand it tbh. The Tories are just bloodsuckers, hospitals, schools and other public services have been going down the toilet.

The UK now has a decent man who actually cares about ordinary people but I'm sorry to say the British public are some of the most stupid people on the planet and will continue elect the Conservatives and then cry about their life again.

He's getting the same treatment his predecessors did
The only exception was the new labour blair project

Corbyn is only there so that brexit gets an easy ride and he knows it,he's quite happy to set off the revolution by by appearing to be a dormant opposition leader out of touch with the public
He's got more chance of becoming prime minister as the Gerri Adams does of being the next imam of Mecca

As for the snap election I can understand the point but two months of more election melodrama makes me want to live in Cuba
 
I agree with you to, the root problems stem from a poor education system at the primary and secondary levels; especially with regards to those who live in deprived backgrounds and do not have the luxury to go to better schools. For one though, politics is not even a part of the national curriculum! most get to a stage where they would either work a standard job, go for an apprenticeship/Vocational-course or study A-levels with the hope of furthering higher education ambitions so unless you take A-levels and pick politics chances are you won't really have much of a clue.

There are a few exceptions, like myself but until the age of 20 I had no clue in general when it comes to politics! did some extra reading and research on the side but that may have stemmed from my love for reading fiction and having a little bit of a knack for writing stories so I don't really get much credit for being aware it's a fluke :yk

Our education system is changing like every other year and that's never a good sign because they've not found the ideal formula, if we fix that, improve teacher workload and pay in addition to making politics a compulsory subject at the secondary stage and it would go a long way in improving the intelligence of people in Britain when it comes to making vital decisions during the elections whilst allowing for a bigger turn out.

Generally in Brum we are fine though.

Issue with Labour individually is that not everyone is on the same page and with moronic parties playing into the irrational fears people have and all the rich people who are well educated voting in big numbers the party finds itself in a position of great weakness. The thing with wealthy people is they know that they are well off regardless of the state the country is in and all that really matter is how much they get taxed, so when parties like Labour want to take a bigger chunk from their pay check it is unlikely they'd ever want to vote for them because the folk in the deprived regions, health care and education system all do not matter nor does foreign policy or how we spend on defence.

The best chance for Labour is for Corbyn to turn heel, play the system; become everything you hate and once in power then make all the big moves in terms of his own views and ideas.

I agree with you bro, if Corbyn was like Blair(when he arrived), young, flashy, centre right he would have a much better chance. Being an old man, who wears any old suits and stands behind his beliefs isn't 'sexy' enough for modern politics today.

It's unfortunate the general public can't see the trees in forest, most of these politicians are just good actors working for the establishment. Labour used to be a party for the ordinary people but it re-branded itself as New Labour, basically not much different to the Conservatives. Since then most of these new labour high ranking members have attempted to demonise their own leader , not in any bid to 'save' the party and to in a position to win as they claim but because they are just puppets on a string. Corbyn winning would be a historic event in British politics, he would attempt such a change which will not go down well the elite who have their own agendas.

A few months ago in a town near us, a young boy died as he was taken to a hospital much further away due to the cut backs. The rich do not feel austerity, it's the average person who suffers. Britain is a great country to live in but sadly is going down hill with the policies in place at present.
 
I voted corbyn. Im a student member of Labour. I see austerity affecting my community. I have witnessed first hand how it has changed universities and hospitals. Now they are coming for the disabled, the old...anyone and everyone who is not part of the upper crust. Our cities are crumbling and the media has already demolished Labour, this general election will end it.

A 5 year mandate. No opposition.
 
I agree with you bro, if Corbyn was like Blair(when he arrived), young, flashy, centre right he would have a much better chance. Being an old man, who wears any old suits and stands behind his beliefs isn't 'sexy' enough for modern politics today.

It's unfortunate the general public can't see the trees in forest, most of these politicians are just good actors working for the establishment. Labour used to be a party for the ordinary people but it re-branded itself as New Labour, basically not much different to the Conservatives. Since then most of these new labour high ranking members have attempted to demonise their own leader , not in any bid to 'save' the party and to in a position to win as they claim but because they are just puppets on a string. Corbyn winning would be a historic event in British politics, he would attempt such a change which will not go down well the elite who have their own agendas.

A few months ago in a town near us, a young boy died as he was taken to a hospital much further away due to the cut backs. The rich do not feel austerity, it's the average person who suffers. Britain is a great country to live in but sadly is going down hill with the policies in place at present.
Trust me, there are plenty of us on the Conservative side who don't like austerity. I couldn't stand George Osborne - he made my skin crawl - but I think that Theresa May's background makes her the sort of Tory who would like a ladder of upward opportunity for the less privileged, which is where things like Grammar Schools come in.

But I'd make two other points.

Firstly, the insane fishwife economics of Margaret Thatcher has left us with a situation in which any party proposing to raise taxes is unelectable. And now the tax haul is far too small to fund a modern European society, but nobody accepts the alternative of an American-style economy of the working poor having no healthcare and no prospect of ever retiring.

Nobody buys their car or house with cash. It's normal and acceptable to borrow. Austerity economics are insane. And I say that as a Conservative. With a mortgage. And two car loans.

Secondly, as I flagged earlier and debated with [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], this is the ideal election to lose. Brexit - which I support - will cause substantial economic buffeting, and will require a transitional deal with the EU which will prolong the arrival of Eastern Europeans and enrage the electorate.

I disagree with [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] about the Liberals. I probably belong in the old SDP with the likes of David Owen, Woy Jenkins, Bill Rogers and Shirley Williams.

But I know that the coalition with Cameron and Osborne made the Liberal Democrats toxic for a generation to all traditional Liberals.

I think that SDP was actually to the right of the Liberals - and was where Tony Blair actually belonged.

And after the coalition with the Tories, the seats which the Liberal Democrats were lost en masse because:

1) The 40% of their vote which was centre-left went back to Labour, but in seats that Labour could not win, which let the Conservatives win those seats. But I don't think that those voters will vote Corbyn or Farron - they will abstain.

2) The 20% of the Liberal Democrat vote which leans centre-right went Conservative because they were desensitized to the Tories by having had 5 years in government with them. I think they will move back to the Liberal Democrats for anti-Brexit reasons.

3) The core centrist 40% of Liberal Democrat voters have not moved at all.

I just don't think that that will be enough to deliver many previously-lost seats back to the Liberal Democrats.

Personally I think that Labour will still end up with almost as many seats as they currently have.

2010: Tories 36.1% 302 seats, Labour 29% 258 seats, Liberal Democrats 23% 57 seats.
2015: Tories 36.9% 330 seats, Labour 30.4% 232 seats, Liberal Democrats 7.9% 8 seats.

I have my doubts that we will see the dramatic changes that are being flagged.

The truth is, at the 2015 election the Conservative vote stagnated.

What actually happened was that a large part of the Liberal vote moved to Labour - in seats that Labour was never going to win - but the Scottish Labour vote moved to the SNP due to two critical errors by Ed Miliband. The first error was to oppose Scottish independence. The second error was to reject in advance forming a coalition government with the SNP. The two alienated every socialist Scot who supports independence within the EU.

Yes, Theresa May will win. But I suspect that the Conservative vote will go up from 36.9% to a maximum of 38%, and that the number of additional Tory seats won will be paltry, because:

1. The Liberal Democrat voters willing to vote Tory in marginal C/LD seats already did in 2015.
2. Many of those Liberal Democrat voters who voted Tory in 2015 and delivered the extra 28 Tory seats will not vote for a Brexit government.
3. Disgruntled Labour centre-left voters might vote Liberal Democrat, but they won't vote Tory.
 
The UK now has a decent man who actually cares about ordinary people but I'm sorry to say the British public are some of the most stupid people on the planet and will continue elect the Conservatives and then cry about their life again.

People who disagree with you are stupid?

A lot of the hard left have never understood why the aspirational white working class turned to Thatcher in 1979 onwards.

These days you have to engage the centre to get elected. The centre votes for who it thinks is competent.
 
On the same day Corbyn attacks the "establishment elite" we have this.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/20/jeremy-corbyns-son-planning-stand-mp-safe-labour-seat/

Nothing wrong with it at all, stop worshipping the emperor and the satanist tories who have destroyed our country and you want to whine about petty nonsense. This is the disingenuous rhetoric which diverts from issues which genuinely affect us and then you have all the idiots vote for parties like UKIP, Brexit etc
 
I agree with you bro, if Corbyn was like Blair(when he arrived), young, flashy, centre right he would have a much better chance. Being an old man, who wears any old suits and stands behind his beliefs isn't 'sexy' enough for modern politics today.

It's unfortunate the general public can't see the trees in forest, most of these politicians are just good actors working for the establishment. Labour used to be a party for the ordinary people but it re-branded itself as New Labour, basically not much different to the Conservatives. Since then most of these new labour high ranking members have attempted to demonise their own leader , not in any bid to 'save' the party and to in a position to win as they claim but because they are just puppets on a string. Corbyn winning would be a historic event in British politics, he would attempt such a change which will not go down well the elite who have their own agendas.

A few months ago in a town near us, a young boy died as he was taken to a hospital much further away due to the cut backs. The rich do not feel austerity, it's the average person who suffers. Britain is a great country to live in but sadly is going down hill with the policies in place at present.

Channel 4 have produced a documentary on the NHS relevant to the point you've made, check it out. Majority of the people who work there don't get paid for overtime but it's due to their humanity that keeps the ship afloat but it is struggling and the cuts have literally cut the legs of our health care.
 
People who disagree with you are stupid?

A lot of the hard left have never understood why the aspirational white working class turned to Thatcher in 1979 onwards.

These days you have to engage the centre to get elected. The centre votes for who it thinks is competent.

I think a lot of the public are stupid, they eat what the right wing media feed them instead of looking at the policies of the canditates on merit.

Debt has increased under the Tories who promised to reduce this by making massive cuts. They continue to spout this same nonsense again but anyone with half a brain knows they only have the interests of the wealthy in mind not the average Brit.

On the other hand you have Corbyn who wants to invest in services, stop wars abroad and give better rights to the average Brit. Is there even a choice for anyone with any sense?
 
Channel 4 have produced a documentary on the NHS relevant to the point you've made, check it out. Majority of the people who work there don't get paid for overtime but it's due to their humanity that keeps the ship afloat but it is struggling and the cuts have lite'rally cut the legs of our health care.

Will do thanks. It's ironic those making cuts have also been ranting about immigration and many of the NHS staff are immigrants who are doing more than their bit to helps things working properly.
 
I think a lot of the public are stupid, they eat what the right wing media feed them instead of looking at the policies of the canditates on merit.

Debt has increased under the Tories who promised to reduce this by making massive cuts. They continue to spout this same nonsense again but anyone with half a brain knows they only have the interests of the wealthy in mind not the average Brit.

On the other hand you have Corbyn who wants to invest in services, stop wars abroad and give better rights to the average Brit. Is there even a choice for anyone with any sense?

What people do not seem to understand is that in 2008 we had another Wall Street Crash, which the G20 nations protected their people from by bank bailouts. Without the bailout we would have had ten million unemployed, food shortages and the collapse of law and order. For the last seven years the Coalition and Tory governments worked to reduce the annual deficit. It woued have been zeroed in 2018 but for Brexit. But the deficit has to be zeroed before we can start to reduce the debt. All those annual deficits plus interest pile the debt up. Our children will be paying it off when they are having their own children.

I have not heard a credible alternative to this programme. Gordon Brown would have done the same, so would Ed Milliband though they would have soften the impact on public services.

I voted Labour for thirty years, but I would vote Tory to keep Corbyn from becoming PM. I do not believe that the man has a clue what he is doing, or that he is capable of learning. Fortunately I do not have to vote Tory to prevent Corbyn becoming PM.
 
What people do not seem to understand is that in 2008 we had another Wall Street Crash, which the G20 nations protected their people from by bank bailouts. Without the bailout we would have had ten million unemployed, food shortages and the collapse of law and order. For the last seven years the Coalition and Tory governments worked to reduce the annual deficit. It woued have been zeroed in 2018 but for Brexit. But the deficit has to be zeroed before we can start to reduce the debt. All those annual deficits plus interest pile the debt up. Our children will be paying it off when they are having their own children.

I have not heard a credible alternative to this programme. Gordon Brown would have done the same, so would Ed Milliband though they would have soften the impact on public services.

I voted Labour for thirty years, but I would vote Tory to keep Corbyn from becoming PM. I do not believe that the man has a clue what he is doing, or that he is capable of learning. Fortunately I do not have to vote Tory to prevent Corbyn becoming PM.

The crash was nearly a decade ago. The policies of the Tories which cut public spending have not worked as debt has increased, this is a fact. Corbyn believes in investment and will also save millions from not fighting fake wars. In times when the nation is suffering and institutions are struggling another 4 years of the Tories who side with rich will only make things worse for the ordinary person.
 
The crash was nearly a decade ago. The policies of the Tories which cut public spending have not worked as debt has increased, this is a fact. Corbyn believes in investment and will also save millions from not fighting fake wars. In times when the nation is suffering and institutions are struggling another 4 years of the Tories who side with rich will only make things worse for the ordinary person.

Corbyn is far from perfect but having a UK PM who isn't a war-mongering neoliberal fascist is our best option at present and as you say investment is key, they can sell their cuts based on the debt but it's a strategy which has not worked and if am honest it was never intended to work, they exploited the economic climate to justify their defence budget and protection of banks, corporate elite etc at the expense of cuts to public spending.
 
The crash was nearly a decade ago. The policies of the Tories which cut public spending have not worked as debt has increased, this is a fact. Corbyn believes in investment and will also save millions from not fighting fake wars. In times when the nation is suffering and institutions are struggling another 4 years of the Tories who side with rich will only make things worse for the ordinary person.

Did you read what I posted? It will take decades to get out of this mess, not one decade. People do not understand the magnitude of what happened in 2008. If you want me to vote for something other than austerity you will have to give me someone who I think is capable of delivering in terms of intellect and management skills, and Corbyn is not that person.

There have been no military interventions since the crash. We simply cannot afford them any more. We would struggle to deploy even a brigade overseas. HM Armed Forces have been cut back more than the NHS and schools. Further cuts to the forces will be made.
 
What people do not seem to understand is that in 2008 we had another Wall Street Crash, which the G20 nations protected their people from by bank bailouts. Without the bailout we would have had ten million unemployed, food shortages and the collapse of law and order. For the last seven years the Coalition and Tory governments worked to reduce the annual deficit. It woued have been zeroed in 2018 but for Brexit. But the deficit has to be zeroed before we can start to reduce the debt. All those annual deficits plus interest pile the debt up. Our children will be paying it off when they are having their own children.

I have not heard a credible alternative to this programme. Gordon Brown would have done the same, so would Ed Milliband though they would have soften the impact on public services.

I voted Labour for thirty years, but I would vote Tory to keep Corbyn from becoming PM. I do not believe that the man has a clue what he is doing, or that he is capable of learning. Fortunately I do not have to vote Tory to prevent Corbyn becoming PM.

The irony is that I actually am a Tory, and I completely disagree with austerity economics. I think it's just the ongoing manifestation of Thatcher's ludicrous fishwife economics.

Here in Australia we had a Labor government during the global recession both federally and in most states.

And we avoided recession not just because of mineral exports - which are actually down now - but because we spent our way out of danger. We had massive federal and state-funded infrastructure building and it kept people in work and paying taxes, and off unemployment benefits.

The way to avoid a recession is to increase spending, not saving. Like Roosevelt did. More government spending, even if it requires more borrowing, but with an increase in taxes at the same time.

I'd actually argue that Jeremy Corbyn is more economically literate than George Osborne. I just dislike the rest of his "worthy" priorities.
 
Did you read what I posted? It will take decades to get out of this mess, not one decade. People do not understand the magnitude of what happened in 2008. If you want me to vote for something other than austerity you will have to give me someone who I think is capable of delivering in terms of intellect and management skills, and Corbyn is not that person.

There have been no military interventions since the crash. We simply cannot afford them any more. We would struggle to deploy even a brigade overseas. HM Armed Forces have been cut back more than the NHS and schools. Further cuts to the forces will be made.

Am sorry but you come across as a hater with the personal attacks you repeatedly throw at Jeremy, people don't get to the position he has by being a bloody idiot and if they do then so are the rest. Maybe you're jealous of Jeremy's position and it rubs you the wrong way because oldies should be having a go at trespassing jobbers who are messing up the grass on their drive or whining about other oldies online :yk2

So yeah rob, go vote for the satanic tories because it's what the masses should conform to a superficial party because someone like Jeremy should not be in politics, once you get passed that maybe you'd judge him differently. But the fact remains regardless of how long you think it's going to take our economy to recover, the cutting strategy has done little to tackle our debt; what progress is there to show? they have cut the legs of our country that's about it.....time for change the tories have had their chance long enough and perhaps investment may not yield immediate results but unlike cutting there'd be more of an impact with regards to economic recovery and British humanity in general.

Even [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] doesn't believe in austerity economics despite being a typical Manchester tosser! :)) the last 10 years speaks for itself
 
Am sorry but you come across as a hater with the personal attacks you repeatedly throw at Jeremy, people don't get to the position he has by being a bloody idiot and if they do then so are the rest. Maybe you're jealous of Jeremy's position and it rubs you the wrong way because oldies should be having a go at trespassing jobbers who are messing up the grass on their drive or whining about other oldies online :yk2

So yeah rob, go vote for the satanic tories because it's what the masses should conform to a superficial party because someone like Jeremy should not be in politics, once you get passed that maybe you'd judge him differently. But the fact remains regardless of how long you think it's going to take our economy to recover, the cutting strategy has done little to tackle our debt; what progress is there to show? they have cut the legs of our country that's about it.....time for change the tories have had their chance long enough and perhaps investment may not yield immediate results but unlike cutting there'd be more of an impact with regards to economic recovery and British humanity in general.

Even [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] doesn't believe in austerity economics despite being a typical Manchester tosser! :)) the last 10 years speaks for itself

I have never personally attacked Corbyn's character. I am sure he is a nice man. But I don't think he is up to the job of leading a party, let alone the nation.

If you ran the FA and I was in charge of a League Two side, and my players rebelled, and I made a series of tactical errors and lost crucial games, some of which were at home, but I was popular with the team's fan club and somehow clung on to my job, would you think I had the skills to be England manager?

Of course you wouldn't.

And I won't be voting Tory. I will vote for the party which has the best chance of stopping the Tories getting a MP in my constituency.

What progress is there to show? - you ask. Well, we have nearly zeroed the deficit. In another couple of years we can start reducing the debt.

If it is debt you are concerned about, think how much more we will have to borrow to set up the Corbyn infrastructure projects, buy back the rail franchises, then renationalise the power companies. There are really not that many rich people to soak. All this was tried in the seventies. Result: 25% inflation, everyone on strike to try to keep up with inflation, power cuts, BL making dreadful cars, infrastructure far worse than now and a phone system that barely worked. That is the reality of British socialism. I was there.

Even given such concerns, I might be persuaded with a real statesman at the helm - FDR did it with the New Deal - but not with Corbyn.

The best outcome for Labour that I can think of is that they are humiliated at the GE and Corbyn finally quits. By 2022 the nation will be in a dreadful state due to Brexit and want change. Starmer, Lewis and Jarvis will be at the helm of a Labour Party which will gain enough MPs to form a centre-left government if allied with the rejuvenated Lib Dems.
 
Did you read what I posted? It will take decades to get out of this mess, not one decade. People do not understand the magnitude of what happened in 2008. If you want me to vote for something other than austerity you will have to give me someone who I think is capable of delivering in terms of intellect and management skills, and Corbyn is not that person.

Maybe you know more than the IMF who recently stated the days of spending cuts are coming to an end?

Corbyn is far more intelligent than May who is only continuing the same old rhetoric of Cameron. He has a good plan for the country going forward.

Yes the military has had cut backs but more can be done. Britain is not at threat from any nation state and doesn't need to drop bombs in places such as Libya or Syria.

There have been no military interventions since the crash. We simply cannot afford them any more. We would struggle to deploy even a brigade overseas. HM Armed Forces have been cut back more than the NHS and schools. Further cuts to the forces will be made.[/QUOTE]
 
Maybe you know more than the IMF who recently stated the days of spending cuts are coming to an end?

Corbyn is far more intelligent than May who is only continuing the same old rhetoric of Cameron. He has a good plan for the country going forward.

Yes the military has had cut backs but more can be done. Britain is not at threat from any nation state and doesn't need to drop bombs in places such as Libya or Syria.

The IMF said British spending cuts are coming to an end? Yes, when the deficit is zeroed.

You're not countering my arguments, you are merely restating your articles of faith. Danny Blanchflower says Corbyn has no economic plan - he has a list of bulletpointed ideas akin to a shopping list. Perhaps you know better than that Ivy League economics professor. Explain it to me in detail. How is all this stuff going to be paid for, and over what period?

Britain is not at threat from any nation state? - I can think of one which has ICBMs and SLBMs pointing at our cities right now, not to mention the capacity for cyberattacks.
 
The IMF said British spending cuts are coming to an end? Yes, when the deficit is zeroed.

You're not countering my arguments, you are merely restating your articles of faith. Danny Blanchflower says Corbyn has no economic plan - he has a list of bulletpointed ideas akin to a shopping list. Perhaps you know better than that Ivy League economics professor. Explain it to me in detail. How is all this stuff going to be paid for, and over what period?

It's one opinion Robert. Corbyn had his economic policies backed for a long time now.

More than 40 leading economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, dismissing claims that they are extreme, in a major boost to the leftwinger’s campaign to be leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics


Britain is not at threat from any nation state? - I can think of one which has ICBMs and SLBMs pointing at our cities right now, not to mention the capacity for cyberattacks.

If you mean Russia, they are only defending themselves from Nato. Nato which the UK is a major part of has military hardware near Russian border. The UK should be a neutral country and it wont then be under threat. It's a poor excuse really, be with the aggressors and then worry about your security.
 
It's one opinion Robert. Corbyn had his economic policies backed for a long time now.

If you mean Russia, they are only defending themselves from Nato. Nato which the UK is a major part of has military hardware near Russian border. The UK should be a neutral country and it wont then be under threat. It's a poor excuse really, be with the aggressors and then worry about your security.

Not one opinion. Scores of academics think Corbynomics has not been thought through. Even if it has been, he has not got the FDR-level competence needed to deliver. The man cannot even run an effective communications office. Where is the money coming from for all these infrastructure developments and renationalisations when we are £1.8T in debt and rising?

Neutral countries are not under threat..... ok, so if the Baltic states and Poland were not members of NATO, what would happen to them, do you think?
 
Am sorry [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] I appreciate your life experience but am going to side with [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] on this one, and that is predictable; academics will not back someone who is not cut from the same cloth as them :sachin, they tend to be very snobbish people but there are many who are also in support of his policies as well. Perhaps in the 70's the execution of their ideas were poor :mv

But his policies will ensure the following:

Vulture capitalists lose out and move out

Rich corporations and rich individuals will have to pay their share

We’ll pull out of the austerity death spiral

Set free the next generation of entrepreneurs

A national investment bank for high-tech infrastructure

:akhtar :afridi
 
This part from Roberts posts,

If it is debt you are concerned about, think how much more we will have to borrow to set up the Corbyn infrastructure projects, buy back the rail franchises, then renationalise the power companies. There are really not that many rich people to soak. All this was tried in the seventies. Result: 25% inflation, everyone on strike to try to keep up with inflation, power cuts, BL making dreadful cars, infrastructure far worse than now and a phone system that barely worked. That is the reality of British socialism. I was there.

does worry me because we don't want to be in that situation again. Anyhow Corbyn has no chance to win the general election so it is pointless debating his economic policies. #WarTory !
 
Not one opinion. Scores of academics think Corbynomics has not been thought through. Even if it has been, he has not got the FDR-level competence needed to deliver. The man cannot even run an effective communications office. Where is the money coming from for all these infrastructure developments and renationalisations when we are £1.8T in debt and rising?

There is no point debating over opinions, other's feel Corbyn has a decent strategy. He has a few ideas of where the money will come from including more borrowing. When you're so much in debt, a little more won't make much difference. At least there will be better services for taxpayers.

Neutral countries are not under threat..... ok, so if the Baltic states and Poland were not members of NATO, what would happen to them, do you think?

Poland and other states have allowed Nato military hardware on their soil against Russia. Of course the bear will respond to such actions. If Poland stayed neutral it could developed good relations with Russia, the same goes for Ukraine.

Russia has no reason to see the UK as a threat, apart from it being a Nato member. UK should suspend it's Nato membership until Nato stop being an aggressor. What's wrong with such an approach.
 
If it is debt you are concerned about, think how much more we will have to borrow to set up the Corbyn infrastructure projects, buy back the rail franchises, then renationalise the power companies. There are really not that many rich people to soak. All this was tried in the seventies. Result: 25% inflation, everyone on strike to try to keep up with inflation, power cuts, BL making dreadful cars, infrastructure far worse than now and a phone system that barely worked. That is the reality of British socialism. I was there.

The power cuts and the three day week was under Ted Heath. The western economies, not just the UK, suffered due to the oil shock amongst other reasons.

At least back then we had affordable council housing before Maggie sold them off without replacing them, a manufacturing industry to speak of, free education and low levels of income inequality.
 
Russia has no reason to see the UK as a threat, apart from it being a Nato member. UK should suspend it's Nato membership until Nato stop being an aggressor. What's wrong with such an approach.

Because It would mean giving up our role in support of the alliance which has defended liberalism, free speech and democracy for decades and allowing free rein to an undemocratic and brutal oligarchy, of which the citizens of the Baltic states and Poland have deeply unhappy memories. They chose to join NATO because they are safer, happier and more prosperous within in it. The freedoms they now enjoy are safeguarded by troops from NATO and they know it.
 
The power cuts and the three day week was under Ted Heath. The western economies, not just the UK, suffered due to the oil shock amongst other reasons.

At least back then we had affordable council housing before Maggie sold them off without replacing them, a manufacturing industry to speak of, free education and low levels of income inequality.

I can remember power cuts under Wilson. The power stations were coal-fired in those days, not oil-fired.

I agree with your point about the social housing stock.

Our manufacturing base was killed by a combination of Maggie and the unions, who were wreckers back then.
 
I can remember power cuts under Wilson. The power stations were coal-fired in those days, not oil-fired.

I agree with your point about the social housing stock.

Our manufacturing base was killed by a combination of Maggie and the unions, who were wreckers back then.

Robert times have changed now, the old yeller practices do not apply to modern times. #VoteLabour #Corbyn4PM
 
UKIP 'gets radical' on multiculturalism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39698976

Lol this is desperate and pathetic stuff from a one-issue party which has nothing else left to offer after the referendum. I'm sure they'll shore up the ex-BNP votes.

What do you do when the central policy on which your party was formed and has long campaigned becomes the domain of a political rival? If you're UKIP, get radical.

Theresa May has framed this election in terms of Brexit. The Conservatives are the party which will deliver on the referendum result, she has said, while other parties - namely Labour and the Lib Dems - want to frustrate the process. In doing so she's stolen a march on UKIP; the party which for so long was the sole advocate of leaving the EU.

It hasn't abandoned Brexit. It has said it will continue to "hold the government's feet to the fire" and push for the kind of EU exit it wants, adamant there's still a role to play.

But UKIP needs a new unique selling point.

Cue a plethora of policies designed to appeal to the party's core voters; a moratorium on new Islamic schools in the state system, Sharia courts outlawed and a ban on face coverings in public places.
 
Theresa May will support working families by capping expensive and unfair energy prices. RETWEET https://t.co/OWw9bzKKl5

When Ed Miliband proposed an energy cap he was labelled a Marxist, rabid socialist etc. Yet notice the media reaction to May's proposal - further proof of a hyperpartisan media totally in the pocket of one political party.
 
[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] is Tony Blair back? :/ I've read he could be returning to politics as a member of the Conservatives...
 
[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] is Tony Blair back? :/ I've read he could be returning to politics as a member of the Conservatives...

Yeah he said he's still voting Labour and always would, but suggested people vote tactically on Brexit. As clear as mud from Blair.

Honestly, this idea that this is the "Brexit election" is a myth. May's "negotiating hand" in Europe isn't affected whether she has a 17 seat majority or a 70 seat majority. What majority does Merkel have in Germany ?

Most Labour MPs voted to trigger Article 50 and continue to support Brexit on the basis, like May, that voters backed leaving the EU in the referendum. So its nonsense that May wants to "crush the saboteurs" - May acts as if she's above cold political game playing, she "gets on with it", but this is an example of just that !

She saw the polls, she saw the double digit lead over Labour and wanted to increase her majority. Simple.
 
She saw the polls, she saw the double digit lead over Labour and wanted to increase her majority. Simple.

Note also the possible investigations into thirty of her MPs over 2015 election expenses. Her majority could vanish because of that.
 
Wow UKIP have suddenly catapulted themselves into utter 'local pub corner seating' right-wing lunacy.

Even the BNP worked from a constitution - albeit one based around scientific racism, Old Testament fundamentalism, false British history, and medieval policies on law & order - but at least it was all written down somewhere, therefore displaying a small measure of literacy,

UKIP are just making stuff up as they go along.

IMO UKIP will collapse after the GE.
 
Because It would mean giving up our role in support of the alliance which has defended liberalism, free speech and democracy for decades and allowing free rein to an undemocratic and brutal oligarchy, of which the citizens of the Baltic states and Poland have deeply unhappy memories. They chose to join NATO because they are safer, happier and more prosperous within in it. The freedoms they now enjoy are safeguarded by troops from NATO and they know it.

lol. you can't be serious Robert?

NATO is often called the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation for a good reason. WW2 was a very long time ago, the 'hero's' then are todays biggest terrorists.

Russia isn't surrounding British or American borders, yet Nato have been the aggressors threatening Russia's borders. Frankly I dont give a damn about Poland or the Baltic states, they should make their own policy and be friendly with Russia.

Wake up Robert, Nato are not the worlds police force but opposite. For an experienced and intelligent man you sometimes just spout what channels like Fox news do.
 
[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION]

Do you agree with Umar Nasser ? Yes ? No ? Why ?


<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW VIDEO! <br><br>I explain why NHS workers should vote for Jeremy Corbyn's <a href="https://twitter.com/UKLabour">@UKLabour</a> party in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GE2017?src=hash">#GE2017</a>. Check it out + RT!! ↓<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NHS4Labour?src=hash">#NHS4Labour</a> <a href="https://t.co/AXZGJF5Ute">pic.twitter.com/AXZGJF5Ute</a></p>— Umar Nasser (@UmarN91) <a href="https://twitter.com/UmarN91/status/857119154817695744">April 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lol. you can't be serious Robert?
.
I am completely serious [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION].

Unlike you, I care about the liberty of the Poles and Baltic people. They have chosen democracy and rejected the kleptocrat oligarchic thugs in the Kremlin. They will not be able to make peace with Russia on their own - they will be swallowed up again. NATO is their shield.

It may baffle you as to why they have chosen liberty and press freedom but it is clear as day to me. You honestly don't seem to realise how good you have it, what the alternative is, and how that alternative is kept at bay by men and women in NATO uniforms. Right now Putin's propaganda is filling our social media and non-MSM sites and you have absorbed it and are rebroadcasting it.
 
I am completely serious [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION].

Unlike you, I care about the liberty of the Poles and Baltic people. They have chosen democracy and rejected the kleptocrat oligarchic thugs in the Kremlin. They will not be able to make peace with Russia on their own - they will be swallowed up again. NATO is their shield.

You would risk your life or the life or your child for the Poles or Baltic people? Nobody knows if Nato will be around in 20 years and even as it stands there is no evidence to suggest Nato would defend these nations against a nuclear Russia. Look at Crimea ,where was Nato when Russia took it? You are seriously wrong if yo believe Nato has the interests of these people in mind, they are using them as tools against Russia esp to use their land to post their military hardware.



It may baffle you as to why they have chosen liberty and press freedom but it is clear as day to me. You honestly don't seem to realise how good you have it, what the alternative is, and how that alternative is kept at bay by men and women in NATO uniforms. Right now Putin's propaganda is filling our social media and non-MSM sites and you have absorbed it and are rebroadcasting it.

The difference between me and you is , I want to have it good for a long time to come. Nato is warmongering around the world, not just on the borders of Russia. The reality is Nato is the USA, the rest of the nations would mean nothing without the military force of America and therefore it rules the roost in terms of Nato policy. So is the US a force for good? Is it a moral force than Russia? Of course not, it is now installing military hardware on the borders of China, causing more risk of war. Nato should mind it's own business and not use these countries to further it's imperial agenda.

I use facts and it's facts which state which military is threatening others and it's not Russian missiles on the borders of the UK or in another land on the borders of America but it is so the other way round. It is you who is filled with old age propaganda from the world wars, thinking somehow because we have freedoms in the UK, we are also good guys when it comes to Nato when the truth is the opposite.
 
You would risk your life or the life or your child for the Poles or Baltic people? Nobody knows if Nato will be around in 20 years and even as it stands there is no evidence to suggest Nato would defend these nations against a nuclear Russia. Look at Crimea ,where was Nato when Russia took it?

Regarding me and my kids, a Russian ICBM has been pointing at me since the day I was born. Fortunately we have Trident which makes me feel safer. Putin will not launch on us if we can obliterate Russian cuties.

No evidence that NATO will defend against a Russian incursion? - apart from the troops, planes and ships sent to those countries in the last few months. Did you miss those? USAF heavy lifters and fighters have been landing at the air base near me.

Ukraine isn't a NATO member, so Article 5 could not be triggered in her defence. The Ukrainians were leaning this way, so Putin grabbed the Crimea to secure his naval base while he still had time.

The difference between me and you is , I want to have it good for a long time to come. Nato is warmongering around the world, not just on the borders of Russia. The reality is Nato is the USA, the rest of the nations would mean nothing without the military force of America and therefore it rules the roost in terms of Nato policy. So is the US a force for good? Is it a moral force than Russia? Of course not, it is now installing military hardware on the borders of China, causing more risk of war. Nato should mind it's own business and not use these countries to further it's imperial agenda.

Is the US more of a moral force than Russia.... complex to answer, but on balance I would say yes. They are no innocents and have done a lot of harm but I would rather live in a NATO state where democracy is guarded than a Russian client where it is not.

Without the USA, Europe would still be nuclear-armed but heavily reliant on the U.K. and France. So not nothing. Germany would have to start spending a lot more on her military. But even they have demothballed 150 tanks recently, in response to Russian rearming, land grabbing and sabre rattling.

Military strength does not invite war - military weakness does. Your position is that of Chamberlain - be nice to the nasty men and they won't hurt me. Doesn't work, some people take kindness as weakness, they only respect strength.

[/quote]

I use facts and it's facts which state which military is threatening others and it's not Russian missiles on the borders of the UK or in another land on the borders of America but it is so the other way round. It is you who is filled with old age propaganda from the world wars, thinking somehow because we have freedoms in the UK, we are also good guys when it comes to Nato when the truth is the opposite.

You seem ignorant of a lot if pertinent facts as I have pointed out.

Perhaps you also missed the Russian bombers which began probing our defences again five years ago.
 
Regarding me and my kids, a Russian ICBM has been pointing at me since the day I was born. Fortunately we have Trident which makes me feel safer. Putin will not launch on us if we can obliterate Russian cuties.

Last year it was reported Russia have a new missile which use a dozen warheads and is capable of wiping out the UK in one hit. UK cannot respond in such a manner towards Russia who has a very large area of land. If this is ever launched trident would be worthless in response. You evade the point. Russia DOES NOT have missiles on the borders of the UK but Nato does. You even accept Nato has ships, carriers etc on their borders. How can anyone possibly not agree Nato is the aggressor here? [/QUOTE]







No evidence that NATO will defend against a Russian incursion? - apart from the troops, planes and ships sent to those countries in the last few months. Did you miss those? USAF heavy lifters and fighters have been landing at the air base near me.

Ukraine isn't a NATO member, so Article 5 could not be triggered in her defence. The Ukrainians were leaning this way, so Putin grabbed the Crimea to secure his naval base while he still had time.[\QUOTE]

Ukraine may not have been a member but was near joining Nato but Nato pulled out because the ELECTED president Viktor Yanukovych, did not want this alliance. So what do Nato do? They organise a coup against the elected president in order to install their own puppet. And you talk of democracy?.




Is the US more of a moral force than Russia.... complex to answer, but on balance I would say yes. They are no innocents and have done a lot of harm but I would rather live in a NATO state where democracy is guarded than a Russian client where it is not.

Its not where we live, it's what is best for the world which is the issue here. A simple look at the history of the USA and it's incursions, occupations, invasions, proxy wars and causing political unrest for their own advantange in dozens of nations over the last few decades will show they are far worse than Russia.

Without the USA, Europe would still be nuclear-armed but heavily reliant on the U.K. and France. So not nothing. Germany would have to start spending a lot more on her military. But even they have demothballed 150 tanks recently, in response to Russian rearming, land grabbing and sabre rattling.

Military strength does not invite war - military weakness does. Your position is that of Chamberlain - be nice to the nasty men and they won't hurt me. Doesn't work, some people take kindness as weakness, they only respect strength.

Yes military strength is a deterrence but military aggression only leads to war. You can bet your dollar on Nato causing more wars as they have been doing recently than Russia.
 
Regarding me and my kids, a Russian ICBM has been pointing at me since the day I was born. Fortunately we have Trident which makes me feel safer. Putin will not launch on us if we can obliterate Russian cuties.

No evidence that NATO will defend against a Russian incursion? - apart from the troops, planes and ships sent to those countries in the last few months. Did you miss those? USAF heavy lifters and fighters have been landing at the air base near me.

Ukraine isn't a NATO member, so Article 5 could not be triggered in her defence. The Ukrainians were leaning this way, so Putin grabbed the Crimea to secure his naval base while he still had time.



Is the US more of a moral force than Russia.... complex to answer, but on balance I would say yes. They are no innocents and have done a lot of harm but I would rather live in a NATO state where democracy is guarded than a Russian client where it is not.

Without the USA, Europe would still be nuclear-armed but heavily reliant on the U.K. and France. So not nothing. Germany would have to start spending a lot more on her military. But even they have demothballed 150 tanks recently, in response to Russian rearming, land grabbing and sabre rattling.

Military strength does not invite war - military weakness does. Your position is that of Chamberlain - be nice to the nasty men and they won't hurt me. Doesn't work, some people take kindness as weakness, they only respect strength.



You seem ignorant of a lot if pertinent facts as I have pointed out.

Perhaps you also missed the Russian bombers which began probing our defences again five years ago.[/QUOTE]

Good post. I am surprised at some posters comparing the standard of living and the freedom they receive in the west to Russia or China. They fail to realise if these countries were as utopian as they believe, we would not have so many Russians and Chinese clamouring to get here. NATO has made mistakes but to call them a terrorist organisation is ludicrous
 
Last year it was reported Russia have a new missile which use a dozen warheads and is capable of wiping out the UK in one hit. UK cannot respond in such a manner towards Russia who has a very large area of land. If this is ever launched trident would be worthless in response. You evade the point. Russia DOES NOT have missiles on the borders of the UK but Nato does. You even accept Nato has ships, carriers etc on their borders. How can anyone possibly not agree Nato is the aggressor here?

Because the Poles and Baltic people feel threatened by Russia so they asked for NATO support, as I have already pointed out. Without that support, at least one Baltic state would already have been invaded.

Russia has ICBMs so "borders" are irrelevant.


You know that each Trident missile has eight warheads which are all independently targeted and can each destroy a Russian city? Dreadnought will be more effective still.

The way to make the world safer is by arms reduction treaties, as Reagan and Gorbachev managed to do. But this guy won't play ball and is rearming very fast and has restarted the Cold War.

Ukraine may not have been a member but was near joining Nato but Nato pulled out because the ELECTED president Viktor Yanukovych, did not want this alliance. So what do Nato do? They organise a coup against the elected president in order to install their own puppet. And you talk of democracy?.


Come again? Yanukovich was leaning towards the EU but reversed his decision at the last minute leading to riots. He accepted bail-out money from Russia which inflamed the people further. They knew which is the better system for them. Russia was more involved in fomenting political change than the US, whose involvement amounted to diplomatic pressure only. The FSB was heavily involved in putting down the protests and Yanukovich fled to Russia.

Its not where we live, it's what is best for the world which is the issue here. A simple look at the history of the USA and it's incursions, occupations, invasions, proxy wars and causing political unrest for their own advantange in dozens of nations over the last few decades will show they are far worse than Russia.

I disagree, if you look at Russian involvement in propping up dictatorships in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, their bombing of Chechnya and their ten-year occupation of Afghanistan. Since 1989 they have been less active due to their economy collapsing but now are on the expansion track once more and placing Western democracies under threat. Which is why said democracies join NATO.
 
^ Russia is not the Soviet Union and in any case their expasion is almost all around their borders not on the other side of the world. It's for another thread but it's daft to even compare the two.

I don't agree with your version of Ukraine and this is going off thread. Corbyn's foriegn policy is based on saving lives, reducing tensions, reducing wars/conflicts and looking to the future at a peaceful world. On the other hand May is just the usual foriegn policy puppet, towing the line with whatever zionist, neo con or right wing policy she is invited to join. In a world where weapons of mass destruction are in the middle of wars and serious tensions, this is a foolish policy for Britain.
 
I like Corbyn but he comes across as too soft.

He doesn't have a cat in hells chance of winning because he will simply not grab the middle class votes.
 
Corbyn's foriegn policy is based on saving lives, reducing tensions, reducing wars/conflicts and looking to the future at a peaceful world. On the other hand May is just the usual foriegn policy puppet, towing the line with whatever zionist, neo con or right wing policy she is invited to join. In a world where weapons of mass destruction are in the middle of wars and serious tensions, this is a foolish policy for Britain.
Corbyn is a pacifist. That doesn't work in the real world as bullies like Putin see it as weakness to be exploited. Corbyn will get eaten alive. He will not prevent a war, he will make one more likely, as did Chamberlain before him.

Putin has been making highly aggressive noises and May has to do the same to look credible to him in negotiations. She is making peace more likely. Bullies must be met with strength, not the weakness of Corbyn.

The way you preserve peace is diplomacy backed by military strength. The way you reduce arms levels is bilateral negotiation, not getting rid of our nuclear deterrent unilaterally and assuming our competitors will follow suit.
 
Corbyn is a pacifist. That doesn't work in the real world as bullies like Putin see it as weakness to be exploited. Corbyn will get eaten alive. He will not prevent a war, he will make one more likely, as did Chamberlain before him.

Putin has been making highly aggressive noises and May has to do the same to look credible to him in negotiations. She is making peace more likely. Bullies must be met with strength, not the weakness of Corbyn.

The way you preserve peace is diplomacy backed by military strength. The way you reduce arms levels is bilateral negotiation, not getting rid of our nuclear deterrent unilaterally and assuming our competitors will follow suit.

Youre missing the Elephant in the room Robert. Thje invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and bloodshed in places such as Libya, Syria and other areas has only increased the security risk of people in the UK. The root cause of almost all terrorist attacks(by so called Muslims) is foriegn policy. You might want to worry about Russia after this mess is sorted out. May will only make the UK a more dangerous place for it's citizens, Corbyn will reduce the risk.
 
Back
Top