the snap general election thread

Ballard

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Time for the ignore button. :cool:

The point made by Arklight was completely valid, though. A lot was made of Corbyn's apparent links to the IRA but it's now fine for the Tories to get into bed with the DUP.

In fact, I have read and have been told by one of my Irish friends that Corbyn had dialogue with both sides of the NI Troubles in a concerted effort to bring about peace. I am not in a position to verify this but then again I haven't seen any proof that he chose one side over the other.

It is a fact that the DUP have policies which directly contradict those of the rest of the UK. Off the top of my head, LBGT rights, teaching creationism in schools & abortion rights. It'll take some doing to convince the non-Conservative UK that this is a good deal. I suspect that Ruth Davidson will want a lot of reassuring.

Enterprise_1701C

So who here remembers the 70s when the unions destroyed so much industry.

We were the sick man of Europe, with constant impossible wage demands. Red Robbo helped bankrupt the car industry. Lightning strikes constantly closed ports damaging exports and damaging our food supply.

The miners strike was intended to stop collieries closing, in spite of the fact they were not profitable. They stopped any maintenance being carried out in the mines, so a lot of them became unusable as they were unsafe.

There was a lot of policies in the labour manifesto that I disagreed with, but the idea of unleashing the unions again is wrong and would totally destroy the country.

When the unions were designed to help there members they were a force for good, now they want to stop progress.

Closed shops should not be allowed, flying pickets are unfair, lightning strikes are very wrong, all these things would happen again at the drop of a pin, if someone smiled at the wrong colleague. Unions have to be subject to rules, they should not be allowed to bankrupt and industry because they think they deserve so much more pay than they really do.

hallmark

Haha, it's slowly dawning on Jezza's fanclub that they lost on Thursday.

Their celebratory posts are turning into the usual bitter whining, this time aimed at the DUP (who most of them had never heard of until yesterday lolol) or Saudi Arabia.

This is what I'm playing at the moment, in honour of Jezza's failed campaign. Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZP18U5VyY

chucknorris

Ballard wrote: »

The point made by Arklight was completely valid, though. A lot was made of Corbyn's apparent links to the IRA but it's now fine for the Tories to get into bed with the DUP.

Is there not something different about both their circumstances though? May had little choice, she had to liaise with DUP, what about Corbyn, was he also forced by circumstances? I don't actually know anything about Corbyn's alleged links with terrorists, but I suspect his situation is probably starkly different to May's.

hallmark

Labour missed an “open goal” to beat Theresa May and should not pretend it achieved a famous victory, Chris Leslie, who was Labour shadow chancellor during 2015 has said.


“Five years of Conservative government: I just can’t, I’m afraid, be a cheerleader for that particular outcome, because this was an open goal for all of us. We should have been getting in there.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/chris-leslie-labour-should-have-won-against-theresa-may-open-goal

Arklight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Time for the ignore button. :cool:

Time to point out that the Right can spend two years dishing it out but can't even take it back for one single day.

Pro Corbyn people have had two years of being accused of being terrorist sympathisers, in bed with the IRA, in bed with Hamas, with no actual proof of this.

Then on the very morning the Tories make a colossal mess of an election they called, that left them without enough seats to even form a government (an election that was supposed to bury Labour according to reports of the vainglorious hubris of Theresa May) they form some godawful coalition with the DUP.

The DUP:

Recent links to terrorists
Anti abortion
Wants to teach creationism
Hard right ultra Christian

I know the Tories and their supporters have no understanding at all as to why you are becoming unpopular, but what effect do you think this deal with the devil will have on your future electoral hopes. What are Catholics going to think about this?

What are Catholic countries going to think about this? Trump will like it, but do you seriously think Trudeau or Macron or Merkel are going to sit in a meeting with Theresa May - the PM that went to the polls to get a mandate to PM and came away without one - and some hard right anti abortion creationist with links to terror groups.

You Tories are in some kind of PTSD denial bubble.

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's the root of the problem. If TM had stood up and told the truth. Then she would have been wiped out totally. JC is the new Messiah to the young. One suspects he's going to lacking in credible ideas though. Spending money requires no thought. Creating an economy to generate wealth is another matter. Austerity is coming one way or the other. Seems as we've jumped into the Tardus and arrived back in the 70's.

Have you ever wondered how this has happened though and who is responsible? The conservatives have been tracking the Thatcherite generation throughout their lives, always tailoring their policies to the concerns of that group. Labour have gone too and fro trying to get support across the generations. However the 2008 economic meltdown changed things entirely.
After that point tax monies became scarce and so any handouts and largess thrown to the old by the conservatives could only come at direct expense to the young. The conservatives made the cynical decision to throw money at the old like confetti by protecting them entirely from the effects of the 2008 meltdown, believing that the young being apathetic would just sit there and take it. Big mistake. Older voters of course gravitated to the conservatives because they wanted that largess.
This all would not have mattered too much if the young were doing well and the old poorly, so that the transfer could be justified on fairness or social justice grounds, but as we all know the young are on track to be far poorer than the thatcherite generation at every stage of their lives. Home ownership, debt loads, career progression, pension savings, you name it, they are doing far worse than their elders ever did.
The young complained and the old called them snowflakes, immature, naive, etc, as we see on this board. Then we have brexit which added to the sense of betrayal, as older voters many with little lifespan left and thus unlikely to live for long after brexit occurred, decided they had the right to decide the future of the young for the next 50 years.
This all set up and primed the young for a political awakening in which they would fight against their elders at the voting booth. It just needed someone to come along and voice their concerns, someone who they could put their trust in….. then along came Jeremy Corbyn and this election and the rest is history. They won’t be going back to sleep any time soon.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

chucknorris wrote: »

Is there not something different about both their circumstances though? May had little choice, she had to liaise with DUP, what about Corbyn, was he also forced by circumstances? I don't actually know anything about Corbyn's alleged links with terrorists, but I suspect his situation is probably starkly different to May's.

Absolutely, so we are after the GFA and these parties are peaceful political parties right?

As Corbyn claims - we should talk to everyone to achieve peace and during it.

But, that does not have to involve commemorating dead terrorists during their armed conflict.

Just as it would be stupid / wrong to say McDonnell was Stalin's best mate?

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

Is there not something different about both their circumstances though? May had little choice, she had to liaise with DUP, what about Corbyn, was he also forced by circumstances? I don't actually know anything about Corbyn's alleged links with terrorists, but I suspect his situation is probably starkly different to May's.

It was different Chuck.....Corbyn was looking for peace while May is looking for political advantage to shore up her position!

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

It was different Chuck.....Corbyn was looking for peace while May is looking for political advantage to shore up her position!

If you were a party political leader like May, would you have done anything different (post election result)? Be honest.