the snap general election thread

Spidernick

setmefree2 wrote: »

Except it's true. As i and many others pointed out on the Corbynomics thread.

Corbyn McDonnell and Abbott supported the Republician cause, they supported the "armed struggle". They supported Hamas.

And they hated the "British State"

You're deluded mate.

You think your guys are saints - they're not- they're sinners.

I don't think that. I despaired that Corbyn was elected and then re-elected leader and almost left the party last September. He has done really well during the campaign (much better than May - I don't think many would try and argue differently), but he is still far from my first choice as leader.

The point I am making that The Daily Mail is the worst kind of gutter journalism and is even worse than The Sun (which is saying something). They show absolutely no respect for anyone they disagree with. This is not as bad as the 'Enemies of the People' line against the impartial judges after their 'Brexit' decision, or the shameful attack on the Milibands' father when Ed Miliband was leader, but it is pretty close. Remember this was the paper that initially supported Hitler (apologies for applying Godwin's Law!) and they haven't changed much in the 80 or so years since.

If I was ever on Room 101 the Mail would be top of my list to go in there. Thankfully the power of the printed press seems to have waned and hopefully people will be able to make up their own minds and ignore the Mails' bile! :mad:

phillw

Spidernick wrote: »

Remember this was the paper that initially supported Hitler (apologies for applying Godwin's Law!) and they haven't changed much in the 80 or so years since.

Mike Godwin has given clarification, because too much debate was being shut down by childish "you mentioned hitler/nazi, that means you lose" logical fallacies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/?utm_term=.9d1ab23c96aa

Saying that the Daily Mail supported the Nazi's is fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_of_fascism
It would appear that what they say is more driven by the advertisers than the beliefs they hold.

mystic_trev

I still think the Tories will win with a large majority, as I think the Polls are wrong yet again. I've placed a bet for a 100-124 Tory majority at 9/1 :rotfl:

A Hung Parliament would be an interesting scenario. I can't see Party being able to form a Coalition Government. What'll happen? Another Election? :eek:

setmefree2

mystic_trev wrote: »

I still think the Tories will win with a large majority, as I think the Polls are wrong yet again. I've placed a bet for a 100-124 Tory majority at 9/1 :rotfl:

A Hung Parliament would be an interesting scenario. I can't see Party being able to form a Coalition Government. What'll happen? Another Election? :eek:

FWIW

My brother has a bet on a hung parliament, followed by weeks of squabble, then another election 6 weeks from now.

However, i think that if there is a hung parliament there will be a reasonably stable progressive alliance coalition - Tories out in the cold.

FWIW

setmefree2

By the way the worst news of the day isn't the polls - it's the rumours that Sanchez is going to City......

Sad times

Filo25

setmefree2 wrote: »

FWIW

My brother has a bet on a hung parliament, followed by weeks of squabble, then another election 6 weeks from now.

However, i think that if there is a hung parliament there will be a reasonably stable progressive alliance coalition - Tories out in the cold.

FWIW

In that scenario would May go immediately?

The tricky bit would be replacing her in time for the next election!

Spidernick

setmefree2 wrote: »

My brother has a bet on a hung parliament, followed by weeks of squabble, then another election 6 weeks from now.

I'm not sure many of us have the energy for more of this!

It's highly unlikely to happen, but it would be hilarious (to my mind) if we ended up with virtually the same make up of seats per party come Friday as after the 2015 election. The expense of the election really would be a waste of money. Where it would leave the two main leaders would be interesting.

Filo25

Spidernick wrote: »

I'm not sure many of us have the energy for more of this!

It's highly unlikely to happen, but it would be hilarious (to my mind) if we ended up with virtually the same make up of seats per party come Friday as after the 2015 election. The expense of the election really would be a waste of money. Where it would leave the two main leaders would be interesting.

That would leave Corbyn massively strengthened, the only thing that might save May in that scenario would be the imminent start of Brexit negotiations and the difficulty in appointing a Conservative leader quickly to push on with them.

After the campaign which has just been run, I doubt May will be leading the Tories into the 2022 election in any case.

masterwilde

ive backed hung parliament, money where my mouth is, as tories have run an atrocious campaign and May is no better than corbyn when looked at by both sides

steampowered

Conrad wrote: »

What would a Corbyn Govt have done about Kosovo or Ivory Coast, or when Gadhafi was promising to flatten / gas Benghazi?

Had a chat over Fair Trade Falafel whilst plaster rained down from their hotel ceiling in Belgrade? Remember the EU and UN did an awful lot of chatting whilst people were being murdered in Kosovo.

I suspect Corbyn would participate in a multilateral UN or NATO led effort, such as the interventions in Kosovo or the Ivory coast. All of these involved participation from countries such as Germany and Norway which take a far more pacifist view of the world than the UK does.

To be fair I doubt Corbyn would want to be involved with another UK or US led invasion without broad international support. This is probably a good thing given that our record on these types of interventions is pretty awful. You refer to Gaddafi but I don't think the current situation in Libya (or Iraq, or Afghanistan) are good adverts for military intervention.