UK Election

[BadgerJelly]

I am not providing a link but hope mods understand one is not really needed.

If you don't know what this is then simply search on the net for it, but here is a brief overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

I am posting here because it is VERY current and VERY important news for the UK and would like very much to engage in a discussion about the two parties and two possible outcomes.

I am not hiding my agenda here. I want to engage with people in the UK able to vote in the election and hopefully bring people to vote for Corbyn. In my lifetime there had not been an opportunity for the public to vote between two distinct political positions and so I am voicing my opinion now about this and hoping to get people in the UK to focus on what is happening.

I completely understand that in past elections people refused to vote because they thought "it made no difference", and I agree with this decision. I myself, if I voted always picked the third party in the hope of having a better variety of choices in the future (I tended toward lib. dem. for this reason).

Right now Corbyn is offering a real choice and a real change to society so I am asking you to look at the good and the bad and hope people in the UK can read past the media coverage and the blatant bias that has been presented.

Also, I do not believe that we should vote for personalities. We should vote for the policies and the aim of the policies, that we should vote for people who are willing to engage with other politicians and the public. And yes, that is a dig at Teresa May who has REFUSED to engaged with Corbyn in a public debate. I look for honesty in politics and what I have seen is May stating VERY CLEARLY that a snap election would not take place ... and then she holds a snap election to try and destroy the labour party (she lied). This is after saying that the UK needed stability so she would not hold a snap election!! NOW she is using this position to say that people HAVE TO vote for her because to throw Corbyn into the Brexit negotiations would would bad for the UK. She lied and used the lie to try and manipulate public favour. Her aim is to destroy the opposition so she can effectively destroy democracy and leave the country, or rather the government, almost unopposable! A landslide win would mean a ONE party government able to do whatever it pleases because she aims to remove ANY opposition.

Why is this wrong? It is wrong because it is a purposeful ploy to destroy political debate. A strong government is only as strong as the opposition. Without an opposition to counter-balance the governing party we are left to their whims.

Do I expect Corbyn to win? I hope so. More than that I just hope and hope that at the very least the conservatives don't win by a huge margin and destroy the opposition!

As an aside (I have mentioned elsewhere) there is also the blatnant bias of the media. It is for this reason I do not expect Labour to actually win. The people with money are obviously opposed to someone coming into power saying they will raise taxes for the wealthy.

As this site seems to me to be mostly populated by US citizens I would alos be VERY interested to hear your views from afar. I expect a certain skewed bias from the US too because I have seen media reports int he US calling Corbyn a "Communist". He is a socialist for sure, and I think that is a damn good thing in this day and age.

[toucana]

Conservative party leaders are said to be in a state of fulminating panic as one of the latest opinion polls shows that the Tories have just a 1% lead over Labour with only four days left until the British general election on 8th June.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-conservative-labour-lead-one-point-general-election-a7771526.html

When Theresa may called a snap election on 18 April, the Conservative party held a 24% lead in the polls, and it was widely assumed that they would easily secure a landslide win with a majority of 100 seats or more in parliament as opposed to the majority of just 12 seats that May had inherited from David Cameron. The Labour party was seen by Tories as being in a divided and vulnerable state, with an unelectable leader in Jeremy Corbyn who was likely to fight the election on a hard-left socialist platform that would lead to his party’s annihilation at the polls.

Rather like the losing Labour party manifesto in the 1983 election when Michael Foot was the party leader, Conservatives were confident that the Labour party would be campaigning on the basis of “the longest suicide note in history”.

The last month however has seen Theresa May’s election campaign dogged by stuttering and contradictory policy presentations, abrupt reversals of supposedly non-negotiable positions, and poorly judged and ineffective ad hominem attacks on their political opponents.

The Conservative party managed to alienate a core section of their electoral support base by telling pensioners that they would have to pay much more for social care with an unspecified cap on state support, which led to accusations of a de facto ‘Dementia Tax’. The older sections of the population were also dismayed by the threat of further austerity measures and cuts in the NHS which so many of them depend on.

The tone of the Conservative campaign has irritated many, especially Theresa May’s refusal to debate with her opponents on TV. This was seen as arrogant and complacent. Her claim that an election was necessary to secure a mandate also puzzled many. Why had she pressed ahead to initiate the Brexit article 50 on withdrawal from the EU if she felt that she did not have a mandate to do so ?

Huffington Post have published an article in which Tory MPs in marginal seats are in open revolt over May’s leadershsip

She said she wasn’t going to call a general election, and they’ve totally **** it up.
If you were going to write what not to do in a campaign then running it on strong and stable leadership and changing your mind on everything would be it. It’s like something out of Yes Minister.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-election-error-polls_uk_592ecc58e4b0540ffc834f06

[BadgerJelly]

I am skeptical about the polls, but I think my main fears are dwindling. I cannot see the Tories stomping this election so that is a good thing for everyone.

I should note, I don't think whoever wins the election is left in a good position. It will be a harder task than usual for any government.

I have heard people say it is a choice between HOPE or FEAR. I think that is too harsh. The simply view is quite an obvious one. It is a choice between being "conservative" and cautiously tip toeing into the future, or making a change (and taking a risk!) to invest in the future.

I do think it is easy to forget that most politicians do actually want the best for the country. You simply have to decide who fits your idea of "what is best".

As a slight aside, I find it unbelieveable that Corbyn has been targeted for being against starting, or taking part in, a nuclear war ??? Seriously, have people lost their minds?? Do people not realise that we are not talking about the scale of weapons used on Japan at the end of WWII ? Do people not realise we are effectively talking about the survival of the human race not simply the survival of the United Kingdom. Truly baffling!!??!?

[jocular]

[quote="BadgerJelly » June 5th, 2017, 3:38 am" ]

As a slight aside, I find it unbelieveable that Corbyn has been targeted for being against starting, or taking part in, a nuclear war ??? Seriously, have people lost their minds?? Do people not realise that we are not talking about the scale of weapons used on Japan at the end of WWII ? Do people not realise we are effectively talking about the survival of the human race not simply the survival of the United Kingdom. Truly baffling!!??!?[/quote]



Not so baffling. Corbyn wants to abolish Britain's nuclear deterrence (such as it is). This is not the same as being reluctant ( or perhaps totally opposed to its use even if the facility was to hand)

Corbyn believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament it seems to me and is happy to abandon the benefits of deterrence it affords.

And he no longer argues his case because it is not popular but once elected he will be free to push through his muted view.

May makes Corbyn look better than he is and indeed he is preferable to her but that says very little.

It is between the devil and the deep blue sea -a hung Parliament would be best.

[BadgerJelly]

Well, I agree with him. He won't be able to push through full disarmament though, but is willing to admit that within the party he voted to scrap trident. Luckily for you the party votes not a single man.

I understand its use as a "detterant", but lets be honest. If someone launched a nuclear strike anywhere I don't think they'd many people left on Earth once retaliations began.

We dont live in a world where poeple drop nuclear bombs on each other. If we did we wouldn't be "living".

[BadgerJelly]

For comic relief ... if you haven't seen any "Jonathan Pie" before I highly recommend watching them! Also funny to read some of the comments on youtube when people think he is actuallyl a real person XD haha!

[curiosity]

There certainly seems to be groundswell of anti-conservative sentiment amongst many people I know, which pleases me immensely.
Austerity is fine if the burden is also shared by the wealthiest, however this hasn't been the case as once again in the uk the poorest members of society have been hit the hardest.
I have no confidence whatsoever in Teresa May's ability as a prime minister and believe Corbyn to be a much more capable politician, who would negotiate settlements that are as fair as possible to all, rather than ... "By the rich, for the rich." Which is the Tory mantra. Corbyn has something that not a single conservative politician possesses. "Its called Integrity!"

In an ideal world, there would be a landslide victory for the labour party. (Now that would be interesting, if it happened,) I wonder If the conservatives would then attempt to place the blame at the feet of the Russians.
Oh well... Que sar'a sar'a, not long now until the result is known

[toucana]

The front pages of tomorrow's tabloid Tory press. They are getting truly desperate now.

[BadgerJelly]

I think it is fair to say the UK has the best non-news papers in the world!

[BadgerJelly]

For the sake of fairness now they're misrepresenting what May says (I hope).

Did she really say "rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation"? I think she probably said something a little more moderate and in line with what we've already heard from Corbyn regarding being careful about how far these kinds of laws reach innocent people.

I think anyone who comes into power understands that we need to rethink our policies to help combat terrorism both here and on in other countries.

Anyway, hope all turns out well for the UK and Europe as a whole after these strange times we've been thrown into.

[jocular]

It is my opinion that by her response to these attacks May may have given comfort to that loose organization in that they may be more encouraged to think they can affect the outcome of a general election.

A bit more "steady as you go" would have helped but we can all see the kind of an opportunist she is ,

The personal attacks on Corbyn are justified though despite British tabloids being deserving of their low reputation .

[BadgerJelly]

I think attacks on policies are what is important. Given that we are talking politics people will inevitably be painted badly by the other.

Just imagine if they actually decided to be nice to one another rather than berate and belittle each other? Imagine that!

Rather than claiming a policy as your own just say, I thought what the opposition has proposed is a good idea and we'll implement it with some minor adjustments. Then they can all pat each other on the back and move onto other areas of debate (Yes, I am dreaming! haha!!)

[jocular]

Seems to me that May is deliberately pointing out that she is not proposing Control Orders because it was a Labour policy and she would open herself to the charge of U-turning and agreeing it was right then and now. (I think they were and those who opposed Control Orders should examine their conscience now)

[curiosity]

The personal attacks on Corbyn are justified though despite British tabloids being deserving of their low reputation .

Really???

The personal attacks being used by conservatives are a last resort, used in desperation, when all political arguments have failed. Deliberately misrepresenting the reasoning behind policies presented by opposing politicians, might fool some; But as Abraham Lincoln said...."You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
David Camerons arrogance, combined with his being completely out of touch with the mood of the British people, has culminated in Britain being led by a prime minister without a mandate... If Teresa May is the cream of the current crop of Tory MPs, then I'm hardly inspired with confidence for the future. Its about time the Conservative party took collective responsibility for the mess they have led this country into, Hung their heads in shame and left quietly by the back door.

Both the "soft tory Blairites" and the mainstream Conservatives, have failed dismally with their attempted character assassination of Corbyn. As a matter of fact, I have found that more undecided people are listening to what Corbyn has to say, mainly because they see the obvious alarm his words are causing among conservative supporters.

[curiosity]

It seems that Stephen Hawkin is a Corbyn supporter... So, the brightest minds amongst us have also seen the light.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 74016.html

[BadgerJelly]

It is quite funny how Torie MP's on channel 4 news have been shown, along with May, to diliberately twist Corbyns words. Of course some of the attacks are relevant, but is undeniable that a clutch of them have been almost outright lies about what he has or has not said.

Labour have no doubt done the same to some degree.

[jocular]

The personal attacks on Corbyn are justified though despite British tabloids being deserving of their low reputation .

Really???

The personal attacks being used by conservatives are a last resort, used in desperation, when all political arguments have failed. Deliberately misrepresenting the reasoning behind policies presented by opposing politicians, might fool some; But as Abraham Lincoln said...."You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
David Camerons arrogance, combined with his being completely out of touch with the mood of the British people, has culminated in Britain being led by a prime minister without a mandate... If Teresa May is the cream of the current crop of Tory MPs, then I'm hardly inspired with confidence for the future. Its about time the Conservative party took collective responsibility for the mess they have led this country into, Hung their heads in shame and left quietly by the back door.

Both the "soft tory Blairites" and the mainstream Conservatives, have failed dismally with their attempted character assassination of Corbyn. As a matter of fact, I have found that more undecided people are listening to what Corbyn has to say, mainly because they see the obvious alarm his words are causing among conservative supporters.

Some will attack Corbyn for some reason and others for other reasons. I hold no brief for the Tories and do not attempt to defend their characterization of him. It is however fair game to call a spade a spade.

He has no hope of representing a sizeable selection of the electorate and yet he will not get off the bog and allow the Labour party to organize itself for the short to medium term.

In this election he has been fortunate in his opponent -someone even duller and ludicrously regimented than himself who thought she could just (not) show up.

Against a good opponent he was mince meat (even the Tories have good proponents). To use footballing parlance they had too much time on the ball and were not hungry enough)

[Braininvat]

A non-UK subject respectfully requests translation of the phrase, "get off the bog." I think I can get it from context, but actual derivations are interesting and help us master the Island dialects.

Haven't heard a single thing about May that I like. I would expect her and Trump to take "golden showers" together if her reign of terror is validated. Melania can watch.

[jocular]

The bog is a word for the toilet. I think the normal phrase would be "get off the pot" or "don't bogart (bogey?) that joint"

[BadgerJelly]

We'll see tomorrow. I for one would like to see more of Corbyn not less. Like I said, I honestly cannot recall a real difference in policies before.

It has nothing to do with Labour winning for me (but they just might). For me it is about two opposing positions and ideologies pushing each other and pressing each other to work harder. My ideal would be to see the Lib. Dems. get a sizeable vote too. I have always had the bizarre idea of having THREE distinct choices for people rather than slightly murkier shades of grey. At least now there is some distinction of colour in the policies rather than the same shades of brown.

[curiosity]

Haven't heard a single thing about May that I like. I would expect her and Trump to take "golden showers" together if her reign of terror is validated. Melania can watch.

Well done BIV... Your humour has managed to bridge the language barrier that exists between our two nations,so at least it wasn't wasted. However Joculars reply to your request for a translation has left me mystified. Maybe he needs to stop Bogarting that joint and should pass it to someone who can handle its effect.

[Lomax]

I agree with a lot of what you say Badger yet somehow differ on the main point. I'll be voting Corbyn (mainly because I think we are at risk of becoming something approaching a one-party state, and because the journalistic media need to stop trying to make a living out of feeding our own opinions back to us, by banging on about his low approval ratings and "unelectability") but at least on the economic point I am shocked how little the difference is between the two parties. Corbyn proposed 26% corporate tax, which is 8% lower than Thatcher's lowest during the whole of her thousand year reich and yet somehow his opponents are talking as though he proposes to abolish money. Meanwhile his supporters - mostly the same people who hated Blair, the guy who introduced the concept of a UK minimum wage, for selling out Thatcherism in order to get Labour into power - say he's just making the necessary compromises. What hypocrisy is this? We have a choice between poverty and poverty and I hope Corbyn's more vocal fans are not expecting rainbows and roses for the next five years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates the following possible outcomes of the election:



Looks pretty grim doesn't it? The richest ten percent can hope for profits if the Conservatives win today; nobody else can hope for anything but a dwindling of the purse.

The media's reaction to Corbyn has been remarkably hysterical. I dislike the way his fans sweep under the carpet his associations with people like Hamas and Raed Salah, but if we're concerned about terrorism we need to remember the fact that he's the first Prime Ministerial candidtate in...well, ever, to propose undoing our arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is the world's wealthiest and most active exporter and funder of Wahabbi ideology, and also just happens to buy 83% of the arms we manufacture. It may be unfortunate that Corbyn speaks kindly to terrorists, but it is rather more unfortunate that May actively equips them. Still, I don't think he'll get his way on this either, even if he happens to win. The most disappointing thing about him is that in policy he follows his party rather than leading it.

Ironically I disagree with you that only policies matter - of course personality matters in the person who has to go to the summit negotiations, and persuade ministers and electorates, and make snap decisions in times of crisis - but I think personality is the strongest argument in favour of Corbyn. He is, it seems to me, composed and principled. He's no Caroline Lucas, mind you.

[Lomax]

As - Jocular - for the nuclear "deterrent" point, Britain has no nuclear deterrent. Trident missiles regularly fail to launch during tests, and Putin almost certainly knows it. The beast is obcolescent if not obsolete. War is increasingly becoming too complex for large-scale weaponry anyway: when British civilians die at the hands of combatants, it tends to be guerrilla combatants. And it's not as if disbanding our nukes in exchange for Russia doing the same would be anything like a symmetrical trade-off, so I don't see that it matters whether we do it "unilaterally", given how little bargaining power the program affords us to begin with. And let's face it, if we ever get into a nuclear war we'll be relying on our most powerful ally, which bases its nuclear weaponry on our concrete whenever it deems it shrewd to do so.

[BadgerJelly]

I number of nice points I would like to get into there Lomax .. sadly off to work now.

I do agree with you that some people may have too rosy a picture of the future of Britain under Corbyn. I think Conservatives means an immediately better economic state for Britain, and Labour means an immediately worse economic state for Britain. Either way they are both going to struggle with holding the economy together and there will be complaints no matter what.

I am starting to think that people realise the problems we are facing (if they choose to look). Am I really deluding myself into thinking the general public is actually more astute than we give it credit for in our irony towers of the "self"?

I friend of mine posted Chaplin speech from The Great Dictator the other day so I feel obliged to follow suit and let hope flood over us briefly ... (just thought to add this is not aimed at the voter for or against whoever. It is aimed at you as a human being, being a human. Being the one true power of change as an individual in a society not a cog in the machine of industry or economy.)

[BadgerJelly]

Lomax -

his associations with people like Hamas and Raed Salah

What are associations? I have not really any of the remarks made about his interaction with member of IRA amount to much so I am assuming the same can be said of Hamas too?

[Lomax]

His interactions with the IRA are fairly extensive, although what they amount to morally is a matter of opinion. This article by Nick Cohen (well, sort of by his mate) is the best critique of Corbyn I have come across and it details the connections. His connection to Hamas is that he referred to them as "friends", which you wouldn't catch me doing, although his argument is that it was to try and develop a dialogue. I would say he's at least wrong for the right reason.

Raed Salah is more of a concern. It's in the article again, but he's written some very flattering things about a man who spreads the lie that Jews use the blood of gentiles to make their bread. I don't see that the "dialogue" excuse can be used, given than Salah is not a political force. Like a lot of people of Corbyn's persuasion I think he cannot tell where to draw the line between pointed tolerance, and approval.

[toucana]

The UK broadcasters exit poll suggests that the Conservatives are likely to be the largest single party in the new parliament, but will be 12 seats short of an overall majority.

http://news.sky.com/story/general-election-live-broadcasters-exit-poll-due-at-10pm-10908978

[jocular]

It is between the devil and the deep blue sea -a hung Parliament would be best.

Did I just win the British General Election ? :) :)

[Lomax]

The winning party has attained or retained my hometown in every election since 1997. It's just been announced that we remain Conservative.

[Lomax]

On the other hand, they're currently 18-8-0-0-0-0-0 up, and they're taking seats back off the SNP, which is a very good sign for Labour.