This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So who do we hang first?
12
2
In reply to krikoman:
No form coalition, or have a minority leader and parties communicate with each other. Only UK and USA are obsessed with the outright winner mentality.
No form coalition, or have a minority leader and parties communicate with each other. Only UK and USA are obsessed with the outright winner mentality.
6
In reply to krikoman:
I think reholding the vote until the Conservatives get the overall majority seems to be a tactic in the UK these days??
I think reholding the vote until the Conservatives get the overall majority seems to be a tactic in the UK these days??
5
2
In reply to krikoman:
We live in an age of political pygmies.
Whatever your political pursuasion, the U.K. is rudderless at the moment, a hung parliament is a disastrous result
We live in an age of political pygmies.
Whatever your political pursuasion, the U.K. is rudderless at the moment, a hung parliament is a disastrous result
10
8
In reply to summo:
The one positive with FPTP is that it generally delivers majority governments who can at least try and deliver on their manifestos. On the continent it can be utterly farcical when half a dozen plus party coalitions take months to form and result in some fudged compromise as all manifestos are diluted or abandoned before they inevitably fall apart within two years.
> No form coalition, or have a minority leader and parties communicate with each other. Only UK and USA are obsessed with the outright winner mentality.
The one positive with FPTP is that it generally delivers majority governments who can at least try and deliver on their manifestos. On the continent it can be utterly farcical when half a dozen plus party coalitions take months to form and result in some fudged compromise as all manifestos are diluted or abandoned before they inevitably fall apart within two years.
2
7
In reply to krikoman:
I'd like to see a government of national unity that focuses on a Brexit that works for everyone and public services that cater efficiently for all. A majority for either major party looks unlikely in a second run-off so let's stop bickering and work together for the good of the nation.
I'd like to see a government of national unity that focuses on a Brexit that works for everyone and public services that cater efficiently for all. A majority for either major party looks unlikely in a second run-off so let's stop bickering and work together for the good of the nation.
7
1
In reply to BnB:
Totally agreed.
On the other hand, since the Maybots not for compromise, its going to be hella fun watching her destroying the Tory party for the next twelve months, slow burn, sizzle, pop, while simultaneously being laughed at by the e.u.
Plus I won five grand on the result.
D
Totally agreed.
On the other hand, since the Maybots not for compromise, its going to be hella fun watching her destroying the Tory party for the next twelve months, slow burn, sizzle, pop, while simultaneously being laughed at by the e.u.
Plus I won five grand on the result.
D
14
1
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Sad but true. Another election looming in the Autumn.
> We live in an age of political pygmies.Whatever your political pursuasion, the U.K. is rudderless at the moment, a hung parliament is a disastrous result
Sad but true. Another election looming in the Autumn.
1
In reply to BnB:
And one thought that new journalists were hyperbolic.
> I'd like to see a government of national unity that focuses on a Brexit that works for everyone and public services that cater efficiently for all.
And one thought that new journalists were hyperbolic.
1
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
Theresa May, without a doubt.
I am a democrat, in the sense that although I would never vote Tory, they were the majority government and I was content to see them run the country for 5 years and be judged by us all on their efforts.
Mrs May, instead of running the country, decided to play party politics. If I think that was the most cretinous political decision I've seen in my life, what must senior Tories be thinking?
Theresa May, without a doubt.
I am a democrat, in the sense that although I would never vote Tory, they were the majority government and I was content to see them run the country for 5 years and be judged by us all on their efforts.
Mrs May, instead of running the country, decided to play party politics. If I think that was the most cretinous political decision I've seen in my life, what must senior Tories be thinking?
4
In reply to Cú Chullain:
What is wrong with a coalition that will deliver something closer to what everyone voted for. Plenty eu nation have coalition after coalition that last full term.
> The one positive with FPTP is that it generally delivers majority governments who can at least try and deliver on their manifestos. On the continent it can be utterly farcical when half a dozen plus party coalitions take months to form and result in some fudged compromise as all manifestos are diluted or abandoned before they inevitably fall apart within two years.
What is wrong with a coalition that will deliver something closer to what everyone voted for. Plenty eu nation have coalition after coalition that last full term.
14
In reply to BnB:
Yes, and rainbow farting flying unicorns as well, please
Not too sure what to make of it, my first impression is that Teresa May will probably cling to power like a leech, and do things behind closed doors, as she always does, but it will be very difficult for her to make the concessions she needs to get a good brexit deal - if any at all.
> I'd like to see a government of national unity that focuses on a Brexit that works for everyone and public services that cater efficiently for all. A majority for either major party looks unlikely in a second run-off so let's stop bickering and work together for the good of the nation.
Yes, and rainbow farting flying unicorns as well, please
Not too sure what to make of it, my first impression is that Teresa May will probably cling to power like a leech, and do things behind closed doors, as she always does, but it will be very difficult for her to make the concessions she needs to get a good brexit deal - if any at all.
Post edited at 07:47
5
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Not sure why she should leave? She only lost a few seats and has the most. Plenty countries run exactly the same, the language is different, they just call them a minority government and get on with the job.
Besides half the Labour mps in a free vote would side with the Tories.
> Yes, and rainbow farting flying unicorns as well, please Not too sure what to make of it, my first impression is that Teresa May will probably cling to power like a leech,
Not sure why she should leave? She only lost a few seats and has the most. Plenty countries run exactly the same, the language is different, they just call them a minority government and get on with the job.
Besides half the Labour mps in a free vote would side with the Tories.
2
7
In reply to Pero:
Whatever Dave can do ...
> Mrs May, instead of running the country, decided to play party politics. If I think that was the most cretinous political decision I've seen in my life, what must senior Tories be thinking?
Whatever Dave can do ...
3
In reply to summo:
Given that May, like most politicos, can never openly admit a mistake, she is now going to have to come up with a spin on why having a minority in the Commons is better than the majority she had. And, that I'd like to see. Even I could make a mockery of her as a political opponent:
Where's your majority gone Mrs May? Perhaps you should look in your handbag - it must be in there somewhere.
The Tories used to be led by the Iron Lady - now thay are led by the "Tin Pot Lady".
She'll be a laughing stock. She is a laughing stock.
No one can govern effectively after such a personal and political humiliation.
> Not sure why she should leave? She only lost a few seats and has the most. Plenty countries run exactly the same, the language is different, they just call them a minority government and get on with the job. Besides half the Labour mps in a free vote would side with the Tories.
Given that May, like most politicos, can never openly admit a mistake, she is now going to have to come up with a spin on why having a minority in the Commons is better than the majority she had. And, that I'd like to see. Even I could make a mockery of her as a political opponent:
Where's your majority gone Mrs May? Perhaps you should look in your handbag - it must be in there somewhere.
The Tories used to be led by the Iron Lady - now thay are led by the "Tin Pot Lady".
She'll be a laughing stock. She is a laughing stock.
No one can govern effectively after such a personal and political humiliation.
Post edited at 07:59
4
1
In reply to Pero:
> Theresa May, without a doubt.I am a democrat, in the sense that although I would never vote Tory, they were the majority government and I was content to see them run the country for 5 years and be judged by us all on their efforts. Mrs May, instead of running the country, decided to play party politics. If I think that was the most cretinous political decision I've seen in my life, what must senior Tories be thinking?
Most cretinous decision was Camerons to hold a referendum. The Tories seem determined to take us over the cliff for the sake of sorting out their internal problems.
6
2
In reply to Pero:
But in the real world she has lost seats, but not a vast amount, albeit critical. There are no strong players worth replacing her just now. Better for the senior Tory mps to let her carry the Brexit can, then get rid of her.
If she left now, the incumbent would be out after Brexit too, so there will be no rush from senior Tories to take over.
With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.
But in the real world she has lost seats, but not a vast amount, albeit critical. There are no strong players worth replacing her just now. Better for the senior Tory mps to let her carry the Brexit can, then get rid of her.
If she left now, the incumbent would be out after Brexit too, so there will be no rush from senior Tories to take over.
With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.
Post edited at 08:03
1
5
In reply to krikoman:
Any traitors who refused to fully recant their past warmongering support for the IRA.
> So who do we hang first?
Any traitors who refused to fully recant their past warmongering support for the IRA.
9
13
6
1
In reply to summo:
In the real world someone said "If I lose just six seats I will lose this election and Jeremy Corbyn will be sitting down to negotiate with Europe".
In the real world someone said "If I lose just six seats I will lose this election and Jeremy Corbyn will be sitting down to negotiate with Europe".
5
In reply to summo:
The time to get on with the job was before the election. Instead of getting on with the job she called an election.
I didn't say would go immediately. I said she couldn't govern effectively.
She might struggle on. Senior Tories might do as you suggest. But the Tories' ability to govern effectively has been lost, whatever spin you put on the result. "... she has lost seats, but not a vast amount" - really!
> But in the real world she has lost seats, but not a vast amount, albeit critical. There are no strong players worth replacing her just now. Better for the senior Tory mps to let her carry the Brexit can, then get rid of her.If she left now, the incumbent would be out after Brexit too, so there will be no rush from senior Tories to take over.With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.
The time to get on with the job was before the election. Instead of getting on with the job she called an election.
I didn't say would go immediately. I said she couldn't govern effectively.
She might struggle on. Senior Tories might do as you suggest. But the Tories' ability to govern effectively has been lost, whatever spin you put on the result. "... she has lost seats, but not a vast amount" - really!
Post edited at 08:25
4
In reply to summo:
>With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.
PS As far as I am aware, correct me if I am wrong, there is now no government. And no obvious way to form one.
>With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.
PS As far as I am aware, correct me if I am wrong, there is now no government. And no obvious way to form one.
1
In reply to Pero:
Pundits say the obvious government is Conservatives with DUP support.
( whether that will end up led by May or Davis or Johnson, who knows)
Edit, Corbyn is 'ready to serve' , but no pacts no deals with other parties!
> >With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.PS As far as I am aware, correct me if I am wrong, there is now no government. And no obvious way to form one.
Pundits say the obvious government is Conservatives with DUP support.
( whether that will end up led by May or Davis or Johnson, who knows)
Edit, Corbyn is 'ready to serve' , but no pacts no deals with other parties!
Post edited at 08:47
1
In reply to summo:
Well the brexit vote was a year ago. What has she done so far ? She's not even been able to secure the rights of eu citizens, which was presumably the "easiest" issue, in relative terms.
Instead she insisted on appealing a legal challenge and waisted time on a general election that achieved nothing.
In the meantime wages are falling and growth is the lowest of the EU, and British people are paying the price of her total incompetence.
She didn't even manage to lose properly, now she has to go to bed with the bigot British nationalists of the DUP.
> With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.
Well the brexit vote was a year ago. What has she done so far ? She's not even been able to secure the rights of eu citizens, which was presumably the "easiest" issue, in relative terms.
Instead she insisted on appealing a legal challenge and waisted time on a general election that achieved nothing.
In the meantime wages are falling and growth is the lowest of the EU, and British people are paying the price of her total incompetence.
She didn't even manage to lose properly, now she has to go to bed with the bigot British nationalists of the DUP.
Post edited at 08:50
10
6
In reply to Jim C:
Great innit. Getting into bed with the party of homophobes, rascists and generally antisocial bigots with a terrible record of governance in the n.i. assembly.
More grist to the mill for the e.u.
D
Great innit. Getting into bed with the party of homophobes, rascists and generally antisocial bigots with a terrible record of governance in the n.i. assembly.
More grist to the mill for the e.u.
D
6
3
10
3
In reply to krikoman:
If the Tories do form a government they'll be beholden to both the DUP and all those UKIPpers who've jumped ship. Also they'll be powerless in parliament. How does that leave us over Brexit?
Time for Jezza to lay his cards on the table.
I reckon another election in the autumn.
If the Tories do form a government they'll be beholden to both the DUP and all those UKIPpers who've jumped ship. Also they'll be powerless in parliament. How does that leave us over Brexit?
Time for Jezza to lay his cards on the table.
I reckon another election in the autumn.
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
The phrase: 'No government is better than a bad government' keeps popping into my head!
TM will stumble on with a majority thanks to the DUP, and the negotiations will be horrible.
The EU will be thinking: 'OK mate, your problem.'
As said, two terrible Tory decisions taken for internal party reasons.
At the time when we need great leadership we get...confusion?
The phrase: 'No government is better than a bad government' keeps popping into my head!
TM will stumble on with a majority thanks to the DUP, and the negotiations will be horrible.
The EU will be thinking: 'OK mate, your problem.'
As said, two terrible Tory decisions taken for internal party reasons.
At the time when we need great leadership we get...confusion?
11
In reply to Pero:
You've got to laugh haven't you. She's gone from a comfortable working majority to being forced to go cap in hand to the Ulster unionists on a daily basis. Well she's got her "coalition of chaos" now. Strong and stable? More like weak and wobbly, ha ha ha.
> Given that May, like most politicos, can never openly admit a mistake, she is now going to have to come up with a spin on why having a minority in the Commons is better than the majority she had.
You've got to laugh haven't you. She's gone from a comfortable working majority to being forced to go cap in hand to the Ulster unionists on a daily basis. Well she's got her "coalition of chaos" now. Strong and stable? More like weak and wobbly, ha ha ha.
9
1
In reply to neilh:
True, but May is deliberately making it higher than it ever had to be.
Right after the brexit vote she could have gone to parliament and ask for a quick trigger of art 50 in exchange of guaranteeing EU nationals rights to stay and a blueprint for a Norway style deal.
Instead, she decided to fight tooth and nail for her ideological, near mystical, vision of brexit.
> Britain is paying the price for the Brexit vote.
True, but May is deliberately making it higher than it ever had to be.
Right after the brexit vote she could have gone to parliament and ask for a quick trigger of art 50 in exchange of guaranteeing EU nationals rights to stay and a blueprint for a Norway style deal.
Instead, she decided to fight tooth and nail for her ideological, near mystical, vision of brexit.
Post edited at 09:41
10
2
3
1
In reply to krikoman:
Isn't this democracy? The will of the people? Should we all not just... get over it?
Isn't this democracy? The will of the people? Should we all not just... get over it?
Post edited at 09:21
6
1
In reply to wintertree:
Still with this, do you prefer your leaders dealing in war and supporting killing as many people as possible?
> Any traitors who refused to fully recant their past warmongering support for the IRA.
Still with this, do you prefer your leaders dealing in war and supporting killing as many people as possible?
5
5
In reply to Jim Nevill:
Have a like, it's heartening to see the people cut through of lot of the shit we've been fed by the media, WinterTree still seems to be having trouble, but you can't help everyone
Owen Smith was very magnanimous this morning, admitting he was wrong and congratulating JC, he nearly changed my mind about him.
> The phrase: 'No government is better than a bad government' keeps popping into my head!
Have a like, it's heartening to see the people cut through of lot of the shit we've been fed by the media, WinterTree still seems to be having trouble, but you can't help everyone
Owen Smith was very magnanimous this morning, admitting he was wrong and congratulating JC, he nearly changed my mind about him.
5
3
In reply to krikoman:
Did you read my reply to you on another thread yesterday? In response to your similar but more specific post there, I made it clear to you that I do not support the actions of our current (now former) government in relation to the Saudis, that being the example you raised there.
So why do you insist on still drawing an inference on my wider views based on no data in this post and data from another post you apparently wilfully ignore? That is a dirty game and one a politician might fall back on to distract attention from the matter at hand when they lack a rational, evidence based argument.
If anything, an educated inference might be the other way around, as I have made it clear I have no time for leadership who will not renounce links to terrorism.
As for "killing as many people as possible" - I start to worry that this is your actual view and just not rhetoric. It's clearly not true.
> Still with this, do you prefer your leaders dealing in war and supporting killing as many people as possible?
Did you read my reply to you on another thread yesterday? In response to your similar but more specific post there, I made it clear to you that I do not support the actions of our current (now former) government in relation to the Saudis, that being the example you raised there.
So why do you insist on still drawing an inference on my wider views based on no data in this post and data from another post you apparently wilfully ignore? That is a dirty game and one a politician might fall back on to distract attention from the matter at hand when they lack a rational, evidence based argument.
If anything, an educated inference might be the other way around, as I have made it clear I have no time for leadership who will not renounce links to terrorism.
As for "killing as many people as possible" - I start to worry that this is your actual view and just not rhetoric. It's clearly not true.
Post edited at 09:52
2
In reply to summo:
Because as described above it is rare that you get genuine cross party support on anything but a handful of policies that are begrudgingly agreed upon in haste which leads to a fractious government at best with various ministers from different parties in their silos fighting their own private battles. You are making the dangerous assumption that we are dealing with people with a countries best interests at heart rather then career politicians doing anything to maintain influence and their own ministerial survival. Other problems are that minor parties end up playing kingmaker and, particularly in close elections, gain far more power in exchange for their support than the size of their vote would otherwise justify. If you are really lucky you have grownups in the room and end up with functional Finnish or German style coalition governments, if you are really unlucky you get Belgian, Italian, Albanian style politics . Stuck in the middle you generally get the no mans land consensus politics which either involves kicking the can down the street on the big issues or exceptionally weak legislation being passed to tackle minor issues.
> What is wrong with a coalition that will deliver something closer to what everyone voted for. Plenty eu nation have coalition after coalition that last full term.
Because as described above it is rare that you get genuine cross party support on anything but a handful of policies that are begrudgingly agreed upon in haste which leads to a fractious government at best with various ministers from different parties in their silos fighting their own private battles. You are making the dangerous assumption that we are dealing with people with a countries best interests at heart rather then career politicians doing anything to maintain influence and their own ministerial survival. Other problems are that minor parties end up playing kingmaker and, particularly in close elections, gain far more power in exchange for their support than the size of their vote would otherwise justify. If you are really lucky you have grownups in the room and end up with functional Finnish or German style coalition governments, if you are really unlucky you get Belgian, Italian, Albanian style politics . Stuck in the middle you generally get the no mans land consensus politics which either involves kicking the can down the street on the big issues or exceptionally weak legislation being passed to tackle minor issues.
2
In reply to krikoman:
BBC news reports indicate Labour's desire to form the next government and senior party figures claiming that politics has changed forever.
All this despite losing the election by over 50 seats after promising everything to everyone and also declaring that they won't form any coalition.
Delusional.
BBC news reports indicate Labour's desire to form the next government and senior party figures claiming that politics has changed forever.
All this despite losing the election by over 50 seats after promising everything to everyone and also declaring that they won't form any coalition.
Delusional.
8
11
In reply to krikoman:various EU parties are already grumbling that the UK will be hopeless to negotiate with. But if not May then who should lead negotiations?
Given that she has destroyed her majority, has to rely on some pretty dodgy 'friends' and has given Labour great cheer I don't believe there'll be another election soon. She needs to get round the 5 year limit with a vote she might not pass.
She's made an abject mess of this . Not business as usual.
Given that she has destroyed her majority, has to rely on some pretty dodgy 'friends' and has given Labour great cheer I don't believe there'll be another election soon. She needs to get round the 5 year limit with a vote she might not pass.
She's made an abject mess of this . Not business as usual.
2
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
Why do you still, insist on tying JC with terrorism, when it's been blown out the water. He's against war and killing and have little doubt he'd be inhibiting arms sales to the rest of the world.
As for what I typed yesterday, I had to look at what I typed ten minutes ago.
Why not move on from what is in effect a smear campaign against JC, it is possible Gatland managed it, at least for herself.
This one issue is a major reason why Labour are not in power today, I met loads of people spouting the "terrorist Sympathiser" bullshit as a reason not to vote Labour. Instead our strong and stable government, we're crap and chaotic and we know who's fault it is.
> Did you read my reply to you on another thread yesterday? In response to your similar but more specific post there, I made it clear to you that I do not support the actions of our current (now former) government in relation to the Saudis, that being the example you raised there.So why do you insist on still drawing an inference on my wider views based on no data in this post and data from another post you apparently wilfully ignore?
Why do you still, insist on tying JC with terrorism, when it's been blown out the water. He's against war and killing and have little doubt he'd be inhibiting arms sales to the rest of the world.
As for what I typed yesterday, I had to look at what I typed ten minutes ago.
Why not move on from what is in effect a smear campaign against JC, it is possible Gatland managed it, at least for herself.
This one issue is a major reason why Labour are not in power today, I met loads of people spouting the "terrorist Sympathiser" bullshit as a reason not to vote Labour. Instead our strong and stable government, we're crap and chaotic and we know who's fault it is.
4
3
In reply to Pero:
There is a government there are 650 MPs. Why does UK politics have to be winners and losers? There are 650 who should now be representing the people. Not fighting.
If TM can't govern, then Corybn can't either he has how many less MPs?
> >With the start of Brexit 7-10 days away, it's time for any government to just get on with their job.PS As far as I am aware, correct me if I am wrong, there is now no government. And no obvious way to form one.
There is a government there are 650 MPs. Why does UK politics have to be winners and losers? There are 650 who should now be representing the people. Not fighting.
If TM can't govern, then Corybn can't either he has how many less MPs?
1
1
In reply to wbo:
If TM only takes one thing away from this , I hope it's 'when walking in Snowdonia, best just to concentrate on where you're putting your feet'.
> One hell of a victory huh. Great. Delusional by Theresa May to continue
If TM only takes one thing away from this , I hope it's 'when walking in Snowdonia, best just to concentrate on where you're putting your feet'.
4
In reply to wbo:
Agree that Mrs May should go.
Good that Mr Corbyn proved most of his MPs wrong.
Still a Conservative win, unless my maths is wrong.
Agree that Mrs May should go.
Good that Mr Corbyn proved most of his MPs wrong.
Still a Conservative win, unless my maths is wrong.
1
In reply to Cú Chullain:
One of the other difficulties is that politicians of different shades have genuinely different ideas as to what is in the country's best interest. A Tory may have a profoundly held belief that a small-state low tax economy is the right way to go, whereas a Labour politician may belief that the state should play a much bigger part in the economy and in people's lives. Neither view is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', and the politicians involved may both feel they are acting in the best interests of the country and the people, but they're very difficult to reconcile in terms of policies that can be put into practice.
> Because as described above it is rare that you get genuine cross party support on anything but a handful of policies that are begrudgingly agreed upon in haste which leads to a fractious government at best with various ministers from different parties in their silos fighting their own private battles. You are making the dangerous assumption that we are dealing with people with a countries best interests at heart rather then career politicians doing anything to maintain influence and their own ministerial survival.
One of the other difficulties is that politicians of different shades have genuinely different ideas as to what is in the country's best interest. A Tory may have a profoundly held belief that a small-state low tax economy is the right way to go, whereas a Labour politician may belief that the state should play a much bigger part in the economy and in people's lives. Neither view is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', and the politicians involved may both feel they are acting in the best interests of the country and the people, but they're very difficult to reconcile in terms of policies that can be put into practice.
4
In reply to baron:
Last thing we need is a new PM and cabinet reshuffle a week before Brexit negotiations. Get on with it with a minority government and work with the other parties.
> Agree that Mrs May should go.Good that Mr Corbyn proved most of his MPs wrong.Still a Conservative win, unless my maths is wrong.
Last thing we need is a new PM and cabinet reshuffle a week before Brexit negotiations. Get on with it with a minority government and work with the other parties.
1
In reply to Cú Chullain:
If only someone, who had the power not to put us in this position had done something about it a month or so ago. Pity there was no one who could have prevented this mess.
> Last thing we need is a new PM and cabinet reshuffle a week before Brexit negotiations. Get on with it with a minority government and work with the other parties.
If only someone, who had the power not to put us in this position had done something about it a month or so ago. Pity there was no one who could have prevented this mess.
3
1
In reply to neilh:
What price?
We've just had an election?
> Britain is paying the price for the Brexit vote.
What price?
We've just had an election?
1
In reply to krikoman:
But then you'd be complaining about the Conservative government.
I'm blaming Labour and their supporters for not being able to defeat a party that probably mounted the worst campaign in living memory.
But then you'd be complaining about the Conservative government.
I'm blaming Labour and their supporters for not being able to defeat a party that probably mounted the worst campaign in living memory.
4
2
In reply to krikoman:
Then he should have no problem in issueing a statement unreservedly acknowledging his past actions as a mistake - even if just in restrospect.
Further, he should have absolutely no problem giving Dianne Abbot an ultimatum to either issue an unreserved apology for her former remarks or boot her out of her current post and refuse her any future post.
But no, a very limited statement from Corbyn and a pathetic whimper from Abbot that she's changed her views and her hair, which after its nth repeat can be construed as quite unapologetic.
Corbyn could choose to unambiguously separate himself from the gross errors of judgement made by his younger self, but he does not. Likewise Abbot. So, what do they really believe now that is influencing this?
> Why do you still, insist on tying JC with terrorism, when it's been blown out the water. He's against war and killing
Then he should have no problem in issueing a statement unreservedly acknowledging his past actions as a mistake - even if just in restrospect.
Further, he should have absolutely no problem giving Dianne Abbot an ultimatum to either issue an unreserved apology for her former remarks or boot her out of her current post and refuse her any future post.
But no, a very limited statement from Corbyn and a pathetic whimper from Abbot that she's changed her views and her hair, which after its nth repeat can be construed as quite unapologetic.
Corbyn could choose to unambiguously separate himself from the gross errors of judgement made by his younger self, but he does not. Likewise Abbot. So, what do they really believe now that is influencing this?
5
3
In reply to summo:
You're confusing Government with Parliament.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-government/
Why winners and losers? That's the constitution, such as it is.
It's not necessarily a question of fighting, it's a question of disagreeing. If you and I tried our best to form a coalition, we may fail. Not because either of us is doing the wrong thing, but because we might disagree about too many things.
If we all agreed, there would be no point in an election in the first place.
I agree Labour does not have the numbers for Government.
> There is a government there are 650 MPs. Why does UK politics have to be winners and losers? There are 650 who should now be representing the people. Not fighting.If TM can't govern, then Corybn can't either he has how many less MPs?
You're confusing Government with Parliament.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-government/
Why winners and losers? That's the constitution, such as it is.
It's not necessarily a question of fighting, it's a question of disagreeing. If you and I tried our best to form a coalition, we may fail. Not because either of us is doing the wrong thing, but because we might disagree about too many things.
If we all agreed, there would be no point in an election in the first place.
I agree Labour does not have the numbers for Government.
2
In reply to krikoman:
It is too depressing to be honest. We cannot pause the Article 50 process without the EU's agreement. The clock is literally ticking on the biggest foreign policy blunder since Suez
> If only someone, who had the power not to put us in this position had done something about it a month or so ago. Pity there was no one who could have prevented this mess.
It is too depressing to be honest. We cannot pause the Article 50 process without the EU's agreement. The clock is literally ticking on the biggest foreign policy blunder since Suez
4
In reply to Dauphin:
Yeah I know, but the DUP don't have a choice if they want their share of power.
> Great innit. Getting into bed with the party of homophobes, rascists and generally antisocial bigots with a terrible record of governance
Yeah I know, but the DUP don't have a choice if they want their share of power.
16
1
In reply to krikoman:
The fact that he has time and again refused to denounce the IRA shows that what your writing is sh#t#, the man is a rat!!!
The fact that he has time and again refused to denounce the IRA shows that what your writing is sh#t#, the man is a rat!!!
2
4
In reply to krikoman:
Does anyone else keep thinking of Blazing Saddles?
"You shifty n*****, they said you was hung!"
"They were right!"
Does anyone else keep thinking of Blazing Saddles?
"You shifty n*****, they said you was hung!"
"They were right!"
1
2
In reply to payney1973:
He might think their cause is justified, I don't know. But what is certain, he doesn't condone violence.
So put yourself in that position, what would you do?
I put this on another thread but it's relevant here, What would you have done about Nelson Mandela?
Did the ANC deserve our support?
What about Gatland, is she allowed to change her mind about the IRA?
> The fact that he has time and again refused to denounce the IRA shows that what your writing is sh#t#, the man is a rat!!!
He might think their cause is justified, I don't know. But what is certain, he doesn't condone violence.
So put yourself in that position, what would you do?
I put this on another thread but it's relevant here, What would you have done about Nelson Mandela?
Did the ANC deserve our support?
What about Gatland, is she allowed to change her mind about the IRA?
Post edited at 16:59
1
2
In reply to krikoman:
He should ask all the families of innocent folk killed in eniskillin, warrington, birmingham etc etc etc indiscriminate bombs planted not to kill soldiers or politicians but innocent civilians.
So if he "doesnt agree with violence!" He'd denounce the very idea of the Irish Republican Army and its splinter groups!
He should ask all the families of innocent folk killed in eniskillin, warrington, birmingham etc etc etc indiscriminate bombs planted not to kill soldiers or politicians but innocent civilians.
So if he "doesnt agree with violence!" He'd denounce the very idea of the Irish Republican Army and its splinter groups!
Post edited at 21:22
1
In reply to payney1973:
This is beyond satire that JC is still getting flack when the new government involves a coalition with a different group of terrorist sympathisers. All this in the distant background of a peace process started by 'impossible talks' under Maggie and the rhetorical charge led by a newspaper that used to be full of fascist sympathisers before WWII.
This is beyond satire that JC is still getting flack when the new government involves a coalition with a different group of terrorist sympathisers. All this in the distant background of a peace process started by 'impossible talks' under Maggie and the rhetorical charge led by a newspaper that used to be full of fascist sympathisers before WWII.
Post edited at 21:42
6
3
In reply to krikoman:
Weak and wobbly.
> To be honest, I still can't get Strong and Stable out of my head
Weak and wobbly.
In reply to Lion Bakes:
The resistance has hit the Tory Panzer with their little PIAT right in its Maybach engine and it's seen better days
The resistance has hit the Tory Panzer with their little PIAT right in its Maybach engine and it's seen better days
2
In reply to payney1973:
Whilst i agree with the thrust of your argument, unfortunately peace is a work in progress, and dialogue necessitates talking to some pretty f*cking unpleasant people.
Often the wilder elements of either political persuasion get trapped in a Top Trumps of attrocities. That way madness lies, and an impasse forms.
To get any dialogue going, you have to adopt nuanced and conflicted positions that are imperfect, and at least to some, hypocritical. Problem is, the lines between good and bad are blurred in the bigger picture.
However we should be able to unequivocally denounce the killing of civilians/collateral damage.
Whilst i agree with the thrust of your argument, unfortunately peace is a work in progress, and dialogue necessitates talking to some pretty f*cking unpleasant people.
Often the wilder elements of either political persuasion get trapped in a Top Trumps of attrocities. That way madness lies, and an impasse forms.
To get any dialogue going, you have to adopt nuanced and conflicted positions that are imperfect, and at least to some, hypocritical. Problem is, the lines between good and bad are blurred in the bigger picture.
However we should be able to unequivocally denounce the killing of civilians/collateral damage.
Post edited at 10:54
1
1
In reply to Shani: exactly, thats all I'm saying I completely understand that we have to chat to unpleasant people in all conflict as we have in Iraq and afghan.
However the fact that he refuses to denounce their actions, thats my point.
Having served for many years in NI I completely understand the complexities of all parts of the divide but the current government and TM have made it clear that they are in bed with the DUP out of necessity, they most definitely are not supporting many of the extreme views held by the DUP and I believe the PM will eventually loose her job as a result of the forced coalition.
The reason JC is still getting flak is because no matter how long ago it was you cant wipe away the past, although he ticks the right boxes for people sick of austerity with tales of money that doesn't exist.
For security he wouldve been terrible, even worse than the clampits we have in now.
Now i am neither a Tory or Labour supporter so have no mallice against JC, I am just glad he didnt get the keys to no10 and I dont think politics is changing I think it was nothing more than a protest vote that helped labour back up the ladder
However the fact that he refuses to denounce their actions, thats my point.
Having served for many years in NI I completely understand the complexities of all parts of the divide but the current government and TM have made it clear that they are in bed with the DUP out of necessity, they most definitely are not supporting many of the extreme views held by the DUP and I believe the PM will eventually loose her job as a result of the forced coalition.
The reason JC is still getting flak is because no matter how long ago it was you cant wipe away the past, although he ticks the right boxes for people sick of austerity with tales of money that doesn't exist.
For security he wouldve been terrible, even worse than the clampits we have in now.
Now i am neither a Tory or Labour supporter so have no mallice against JC, I am just glad he didnt get the keys to no10 and I dont think politics is changing I think it was nothing more than a protest vote that helped labour back up the ladder
2
3
In reply to payney1973:
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked!!
But to address your issue, there have been families which have forgiven the IRA (etc.) and the UDF (etc.) for the greater peace in Ireland.
Why do you think THEIR voices don't count?
Why is a voice that demand retribution more valid? Isn't that the easy route?
The British government talked to BOTH sides, as happens in every conflict resolution eventually, so why single JC out. He didn't broker the deal, but talking and finding out what both side want is a useful starting point.
Look up #ChrissySentMe if you think all families bear the sort of resentment you seem to want.
Acts of goodwill in honour of a Canadian woman killed in the London Bridge http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/local+news/23chrissysentme+acts+goodwill...
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked!!
But to address your issue, there have been families which have forgiven the IRA (etc.) and the UDF (etc.) for the greater peace in Ireland.
Why do you think THEIR voices don't count?
Why is a voice that demand retribution more valid? Isn't that the easy route?
The British government talked to BOTH sides, as happens in every conflict resolution eventually, so why single JC out. He didn't broker the deal, but talking and finding out what both side want is a useful starting point.
Look up #ChrissySentMe if you think all families bear the sort of resentment you seem to want.
Acts of goodwill in honour of a Canadian woman killed in the London Bridge http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/local+news/23chrissysentme+acts+goodwill...
2
1
In reply to payney1973:
Not much to disagree with other than JC has explicitly championed peace, supporting the 'cause' and the motivations, not necessarily the means. But yes, he should explicitly condemn the violence of the IRA against civilians in particular. The fighting against the military leads in to discussions about 'freedom fighters'....and that is for another thread. That's not to say that killing military bandsmen is anything other than disgusting...but we need context for how such actions came to be.
Here we disagree. The £375bn of QE was spun from the magic money tree. It CAN be done.
The Labour manifesto was much more nuanced than your post seems to suggest. Much of the renationalisation was directed at profitable monopolies that are STILL in state hands - just those of foreign governments.
Not much to disagree with other than JC has explicitly championed peace, supporting the 'cause' and the motivations, not necessarily the means. But yes, he should explicitly condemn the violence of the IRA against civilians in particular. The fighting against the military leads in to discussions about 'freedom fighters'....and that is for another thread. That's not to say that killing military bandsmen is anything other than disgusting...but we need context for how such actions came to be.
> tales of money that doesn't exist.
Here we disagree. The £375bn of QE was spun from the magic money tree. It CAN be done.
The Labour manifesto was much more nuanced than your post seems to suggest. Much of the renationalisation was directed at profitable monopolies that are STILL in state hands - just those of foreign governments.
Post edited at 17:10
1
1
In reply to payney1973:
How many times do you need him to condemn violence, or is it just IRA violence you are after and we can forget about the Loyalist, UDA, UDF and the protestant violence and killings that occurred?
https://www.rt.com/uk/311827-corbyn-british-army-ira/
https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2017/0522/877039-brokenshire-corbyn-ira/
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-i-didnt-suppo...
If, as you seem to want him to do, he condemns the IRA only, then don't you think this might be a hindrance to the peace in Ireland. Wouldn't the IRA then have cause to say what about the Loyalist killings?
Do you not think this is stoking up old hatreds?
Rather than condemning ALL violence, what would you do?
> .However the fact that he refuses to denounce their actions, thats my point.
How many times do you need him to condemn violence, or is it just IRA violence you are after and we can forget about the Loyalist, UDA, UDF and the protestant violence and killings that occurred?
https://www.rt.com/uk/311827-corbyn-british-army-ira/
https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2017/0522/877039-brokenshire-corbyn-ira/
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-i-didnt-suppo...
If, as you seem to want him to do, he condemns the IRA only, then don't you think this might be a hindrance to the peace in Ireland. Wouldn't the IRA then have cause to say what about the Loyalist killings?
Do you not think this is stoking up old hatreds?
Rather than condemning ALL violence, what would you do?
Post edited at 17:16
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
Agreed.
To go in to some 'whataboutery', lets look at contemporary events:
Theresa May herself has has dealt with, and entertained, the IRA (Adams & McGuinness). The Queen has done the same - also attending a ceremony to implicitly honour the IRA. In light of this I'm not sure why JCs actions are still so outrageous to some.
But back to TM. British made weapons including cluster bombs (which we are illegal under our signing of the Cluster Munitions Convention in 2010), are being used in Yemen right now, by Saudi Arabia. Yemen is also undergoing a shocking famine under the boot of SA. We are complicit.
Yet we happily let Theresa May sell weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2017.
THERE'S hypocrisy for you. THERE is a dereliction of British Values.
Agreed.
To go in to some 'whataboutery', lets look at contemporary events:
Theresa May herself has has dealt with, and entertained, the IRA (Adams & McGuinness). The Queen has done the same - also attending a ceremony to implicitly honour the IRA. In light of this I'm not sure why JCs actions are still so outrageous to some.
But back to TM. British made weapons including cluster bombs (which we are illegal under our signing of the Cluster Munitions Convention in 2010), are being used in Yemen right now, by Saudi Arabia. Yemen is also undergoing a shocking famine under the boot of SA. We are complicit.
Yet we happily let Theresa May sell weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2017.
THERE'S hypocrisy for you. THERE is a dereliction of British Values.
7
1
In reply to payney1973:
Have a like.
This "Terrorist Sympathiser" line was very damaging to the Labour campaign, and unfortunately it stuck with a lot of people, one of them being my mother!! A lot of people, even "traditional" Labour voters couldn't vote Labour because of this lie that was trundled out as often as possible on TV and in the newspapers.
The hatred for what the IRA did, and rightly so, is still very strong in the minds of people old enough to remember what they did, and I'm one of them. What they did was a disgrace and should be condemned by all right thinking people. Their cause may or may not be as abhorrent depending on where you stand.
Have a like.
This "Terrorist Sympathiser" line was very damaging to the Labour campaign, and unfortunately it stuck with a lot of people, one of them being my mother!! A lot of people, even "traditional" Labour voters couldn't vote Labour because of this lie that was trundled out as often as possible on TV and in the newspapers.
The hatred for what the IRA did, and rightly so, is still very strong in the minds of people old enough to remember what they did, and I'm one of them. What they did was a disgrace and should be condemned by all right thinking people. Their cause may or may not be as abhorrent depending on where you stand.
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
A well hung parliament could of course lead to a hard brexit and premature withdrawal.
A well hung parliament could of course lead to a hard brexit and premature withdrawal.
1
In reply to Shani:
The PM and the Queen had no choice but to meet Adams, McGuiness, et al.
Mr Corbyn chose to do so.
The PM and the Queen had no choice but to meet Adams, McGuiness, et al.
Mr Corbyn chose to do so.
2
2
In reply to baron:
How so? Who commanded the Queen to honour the IRA in a ceremony of remembrance, or for that matter the PM, to host Adams and McGuinness?
How so? Who commanded the Queen to honour the IRA in a ceremony of remembrance, or for that matter the PM, to host Adams and McGuinness?
3
2
In reply to wintertree:
And now the Tories are consorting with a party who had links with the Loyalist paramilitaries!!
Away and check your history books!
And now the Tories are consorting with a party who had links with the Loyalist paramilitaries!!
Away and check your history books!
http://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/873910726062211073
1'39" JC is explicit about his position on the IRA and Sinn Fein.
Post edited at 15:53
1
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:
Something I'm quite angry and upset about as I've said elsewhere on UKC. Doesn't excuse Corbyn and Abbot one iota but does reveal more than a few rank hypocrites in both the conservatives and the media.
> And now the Tories are consorting with a party who had links with the Loyalist paramilitaries!!Away and check your history books!
Something I'm quite angry and upset about as I've said elsewhere on UKC. Doesn't excuse Corbyn and Abbot one iota but does reveal more than a few rank hypocrites in both the conservatives and the media.
In reply to baron:
How do you think we got to this stage of them getting to meet the queen.
You don't get there by NOT talking to all sides.
You don't get there by continually dragging upi the past and demanding retribution.
and you don't get there by continuing to kill people.
There a great series on radio 4 about negotiations through history, it's areal eye opener, and if youy thought as most people did that the Cuban missile crisis was defused by the US standing up the the Russians, then you'll be surprised to find out it was resolved by negotiations and both side backing down.
> The PM and the Queen had no choice but to meet Adams, McGuiness, et al.Mr Corbyn chose to do so.
How do you think we got to this stage of them getting to meet the queen.
You don't get there by NOT talking to all sides.
You don't get there by continually dragging upi the past and demanding retribution.
and you don't get there by continuing to kill people.
There a great series on radio 4 about negotiations through history, it's areal eye opener, and if youy thought as most people did that the Cuban missile crisis was defused by the US standing up the the Russians, then you'll be surprised to find out it was resolved by negotiations and both side backing down.
1
1
In reply to Shani:
The Queen was told by the government and the Prime Minister met McGuiness et al as part of the peace process.
Mr Corbyn met said terrorists because he was sympathetic to their cause.
The Queen was told by the government and the Prime Minister met McGuiness et al as part of the peace process.
Mr Corbyn met said terrorists because he was sympathetic to their cause.
3
3
In reply to krikoman:
You're not claiming that Mr Corbyn was a key player in the peace negotiations.
His part was as a sympathiser and for this he should apologise.
You're not claiming that Mr Corbyn was a key player in the peace negotiations.
His part was as a sympathiser and for this he should apologise.
2
1
In reply to baron:
You think the government TOLD the Queen to meet with a terrorist?
> The Queen was told by the government and the Prime Minister met McGuiness et al as part of the peace process.Mr Corbyn met said terrorists because he was sympathetic to their cause.
You think the government TOLD the Queen to meet with a terrorist?
Post edited at 22:42
1
3
2
In reply to baron:
Yes, I think she asked to. She would have been cordially advised to do as such, but I doubt protocol would facillitate the government from instructing the Head of State.
> Yes.Do you think she asked to?
Yes, I think she asked to. She would have been cordially advised to do as such, but I doubt protocol would facillitate the government from instructing the Head of State.
1
In reply to baron:
Dear God!! No I'm not suggesting he was key in the negotiations.
I'm suggesting that to condem him for talking is ludicrous, because there is NEVER peace without talks.
I'm also suggesting that , you can agree with someone's cause, without agreeing their methods.
I agree that Palestine should be free to rule themselves and that the borders should go back to 1968 or 1948, I don't agree that they should be killing Israeli's to achieve their freedom. I don't see how they can achieve their freedom, but that's by the by.
In the meantime they are both blowing bits out of each other and ingraining the hatred for future generations.
I see no conflict between supporting a cause and condemning the methods, I find it difficult to understand why anyone can't see this as a possibility, other than a prejudice within the person themselves.
"I just don't like him", is more honest than, "because he's a terrorist sympathiser"
> You're not claiming that Mr Corbyn was a key player in the peace negotiations.His part was as a sympathiser and for this he should apologise.
Dear God!! No I'm not suggesting he was key in the negotiations.
I'm suggesting that to condem him for talking is ludicrous, because there is NEVER peace without talks.
I'm also suggesting that , you can agree with someone's cause, without agreeing their methods.
I agree that Palestine should be free to rule themselves and that the borders should go back to 1968 or 1948, I don't agree that they should be killing Israeli's to achieve their freedom. I don't see how they can achieve their freedom, but that's by the by.
In the meantime they are both blowing bits out of each other and ingraining the hatred for future generations.
I see no conflict between supporting a cause and condemning the methods, I find it difficult to understand why anyone can't see this as a possibility, other than a prejudice within the person themselves.
"I just don't like him", is more honest than, "because he's a terrorist sympathiser"
Post edited at 09:57
3
1
1
In reply to baron:
Hmm... Let me check...
No, didn't register on the giveaf*ckometer.
> Another insult.
Hmm... Let me check...
No, didn't register on the giveaf*ckometer.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...