The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[DaveShoelace]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite.  

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians  

Puttting aside the fact that Abbott and McDonnell are PR disasters, does anyone think they have the skills and capabilities to do 2 key joint jobs in our Government?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we?

why not widen the question to anyone currently in their positions. May was super duper great at home sec! We specifically go against expertise and intention in favour of political bias and personal prejudices.




"McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers."

what does this even mean tighty.


'sympathisers' is such a pathetic word to use as a negative.

you cant reach an agreement if you cant understand the other side. why is providing weapons to Saudi so they can destroy the civilians of Yemen not 'sympathising' under your definition, even though ofc its really enabling and by an order of magnitude more appalling yet tumbleweeds from those complaining about Corbyn.

Sympathisers was the word used in the post above mine,a term i repeated. i am not defending western policy towards saudi arabia.  

and i also accept that for many people McDonnell and Corbyn's long held views on the IRA are irrelevant now. for me its relevant, but no more relevant i suppose than being asked to accept that Dianne Abbott could be a credible home secretary.

Why is it relevant?

What about the tory views on Mandela or Thatchers friendship with Pinochet?

 

wouldn't defend either, but to the best of my knowledge no current conservative or lib dem politician is anti mandela or pro pinochet

corbyn and mcdonnell could be PM and chancellor in ten days time with pretty much unmoderated views from 20-30 years ago in so far as i can tell

To be fair, her hair has changed since she said this

[PokerBroker]

I dont understand why their views have to be moderated, isn't that whats wrong with politics?  

Time and again both Corbyn and McDonnell have been on the right side of history.  Having a moral compas and compassion isn't a bad thing.

[TightEnd]

Time and again both Corbyn and McDonnell have been on the right side of history.  Having a moral compas and compassion isn't a bad thing.

man. that moral compass led mcdonnell to fund raise for the IRA and that money raised would have been part of the process that killed 1800 people (and yes the loyalists killed as well).

[PokerBroker]

Time and again both Corbyn and McDonnell have been on the right side of history.  Having a moral compas and compassion isn't a bad thing.

man. that moral compass led mcdonnell to fund raise for the IRA and that money raised would have been part of the process that killed 1800 people (and yes the loyalists killed as well).

Evidence that he fund raised?

If we are talking about his appearance at the Wolfetone Society function in Ruislip I was there that evening, there was no fundraising for the IRA.   I wish there was. 

[TightEnd]

Time and again both Corbyn and McDonnell have been on the right side of history.  Having a moral compas and compassion isn't a bad thing.

man. that moral compass led mcdonnell to fund raise for the IRA and that money raised would have been part of the process that killed 1800 people (and yes the loyalists killed as well).

Evidence that he fund raised?

If we are talking about his appearance at the Wolfetone Society function in Ruislip I was there that evening, there was no fundraising for the IRA.   I wish there was. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

another article, which seeks to put the lie to the claim that he has been on the "right side of history" across the globe says

"And on to Ireland, and Corbyn’s claim that by making whoopee with the Provos he was somehow advancing the peace process. The truth is that Corbyn was never pro-peace. He and John McDonnell wanted the IRA to win. He was never interested in the principle that the people of Northern Ireland should have the final say on their status. And he was never interested in democratic nationalist politicians like John Hume, or the views of the majority Unionist community.

While serious politicians supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Corbyn opposed it. Instead, he revelled in the opportunity to strike anti-Imperialist poses and pal around with the hard men. In August 2015, Corbyn was interviewed on BBC radio and was asked five times to condemn IRA murders. He refused. Then the line went dead."

https://capx.co/corbyn-has-a-shabby-history-of-backing-the-bad-guys/

but that site has a right wing bias,so no doubt its all completely lacking in credibility and impartiality

anyway, not spending my bank holdiay any further on this. not going to change any views, least of all someone as pro-IRA as you

[RickBFA]

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2211-amnesty-international-confirms-us-gave-isis-1-billion-of-weapons-in-2016

But McDonnell and Corbyn are the terrorist sympathisers.  

come on, try harder. alt news sites, just bollocks

"Neon Nettle is an alternative and independent news source. It is also a Conspiracy and Pseudoscience website. There are many articles about aliens, New World Order, etc. Has a Pants on Fire claim with Politifact. Really the best way to discover this site is to actually visit it and see for yourself. I suggest a tin foil hat."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/neon-nettle/

McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers. you can say so without implying that western foreign policy is or has been correct!

the fact that they sympathised may or may not be relevant to your vote, i accept

So because you don't agree with it its bollocks?

Mainstream news is biased, they have a dog in the fight and you expect us to believe they are impartial.  

impartial,often no

credible? some of it yes (FT, Telegraph,independent,new statesman, spectator, guardian yes within editorial policy that might have a political view of course but the journalism is credible, this is the stuff i usuallylink to) some of it overwhelmingly no (mail,sun etc)

altnews i come from the starting point that it is neither impartial or credible


i think the vast majority of us would agree that the current UK politicial talent pool is terrible and in fact a lot of the talent isn't in cabinet/shadow cabinet. i can get het up about abbott but boris as foreign sec? rudd? fallon? jeremy hunt? just not good enough

david miliband, yvette cooper, dan jarvis etc  put those three as shadow chancellor, foreign sec, home sec with keir starmer as leader and Labour is winning this election. Ayone want to disagree with me?

No one in their right mind can disagree with that. Labour would have a much better shot at it with that line up.

[titaniumbean]

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2211-amnesty-international-confirms-us-gave-isis-1-billion-of-weapons-in-2016

But McDonnell and Corbyn are the terrorist sympathisers.  

come on, try harder. alt news sites, just bollocks

"Neon Nettle is an alternative and independent news source. It is also a Conspiracy and Pseudoscience website. There are many articles about aliens, New World Order, etc. Has a Pants on Fire claim with Politifact. Really the best way to discover this site is to actually visit it and see for yourself. I suggest a tin foil hat."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/neon-nettle/

McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers. you can say so without implying that western foreign policy is or has been correct!

the fact that they sympathised may or may not be relevant to your vote, i accept

So because you don't agree with it its bollocks?

Mainstream news is biased, they have a dog in the fight and you expect us to believe they are impartial. 

The italicised is obviously true to some extent for all news, knowing the ownership and inherent biases allows you to add the pinch of salt, whilst you can also read multiple view points and come to some kind of aggregate, see where those who have no common cause agree on things etc.

The bolded is silly. I don't agree with the earth being round, therefore it's not?? infinite examples like this, people believe that which fits their previous beliefs most of the time, Tighty is completely right to point out that you cannot be a reputable news source whilst constantly posting easily disprovable content.




I do however agree with the way you are turning things around to ask questions of the other side in this comment -

"What about the tory views on Mandela or Thatchers friendship with Pinochet? "

it very much seems like we just criticise Corbyn and have plenty of time for his opposition.



Tighty said and I completely agree with-

"i think the vast majority of us would agree that the current UK politicial talent pool is terrible and in fact a lot of the talent isn't in cabinet/shadow cabinet. i can get het up about abbott but boris as foreign sec? rudd? fallon? jeremy hunt? just not good enough

david miliband, yvette cooper, dan jarvis etc  put those three as shadow chancellor, foreign sec, home sec with keir starmer as leader and Labour is winning this election. Ayone want to disagree with me?"



Boris and Hunt absofakinglutely. If I was going to think of a word to describe them it would definitely rhyme with Jeremys surname.



It's not like politicians are held account to what they say today or yesterday, or the fact their viewpoint changed 5 times related to money coming in, but we can be miffed at someone for something 30 years ago in completely different circumstances. Allegiances change, OBL was our best mate and going to save the world......  I don't feel that May is judged in a similar way to Corbyn, this is mainly down to the media and what the Barclays/Murdochs will profit off the most. Yay.

[JohnCharver]

We dont have our best politicians because the two views desperate to be represented are hard left and hard right, they have to pander to them all the time to get into power position now because they are the ones who really give a crap about politics and actively involve themselves outside elections. The majority of us by the time it comes to an election havent had time to protest fracking or march against foreigners. Unions were the only group where Ed beat his brother and since the only people who can prosper within are those highly thought of by the unions and for the torys they are dictated to by UKIPers in and out of the party because their centre right voters vote for them anywhere so need their hard right voters in check.

Will vote labour because the tories have no policies, they have become ukip. Think they will blow the brexit negotiation because May has zero social skills, she cant just call juncker a psshead when they start getting the best of her because she cant argue or think on their feet. Think we will walk away with no deal because they are deluded by their own ability. Having said that Im waiting on Abbott to come back with a piece of paper declaring we have offered them 100 billion dollars but its ok coz she has them spare from her trip to meet Mugabe.

[The Camel]

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2211-amnesty-international-confirms-us-gave-isis-1-billion-of-weapons-in-2016

But McDonnell and Corbyn are the terrorist sympathisers.  

come on, try harder. alt news sites, just bollocks

"Neon Nettle is an alternative and independent news source. It is also a Conspiracy and Pseudoscience website. There are many articles about aliens, New World Order, etc. Has a Pants on Fire claim with Politifact. Really the best way to discover this site is to actually visit it and see for yourself. I suggest a tin foil hat."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/neon-nettle/

McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers. you can say so without implying that western foreign policy is or has been correct!

the fact that they sympathised may or may not be relevant to your vote, i accept

So because you don't agree with it its bollocks?

Mainstream news is biased, they have a dog in the fight and you expect us to believe they are impartial.  

impartial,often no

credible? some of it yes (FT, Telegraph,independent,new statesman, spectator, guardian yes within editorial policy that might have a political view of course but the journalism is credible, this is the stuff i usuallylink to) some of it overwhelmingly no (mail,sun etc)

altnews i come from the starting point that it is neither impartial or credible


i think the vast majority of us would agree that the current UK politicial talent pool is terrible and in fact a lot of the talent isn't in cabinet/shadow cabinet. i can get het up about abbott but boris as foreign sec? rudd? fallon? jeremy hunt? just not good enough

david miliband, yvette cooper, dan jarvis etc  put those three as shadow chancellor, foreign sec, home sec with keir starmer as leader and Labour is winning this election. Ayone want to disagree with me?

Corbyn has surpised and impressed me greatly during this campaign. 3 weeks ago I was very doubtful I could vote Labour, but he has convinced me.

I think his team are pretty weak though. Not just Abbott and McDonnell. Long-Bailey, Burgon, Rayner and Gadiner don't impress me much either.

Corbyn with a united team from all corners of the Labour Party would be winning this election I think.

[The Camel]

Despite how brilliant the Labour campaign has been and how fantastically Corbyn has performed I just don't see how Labour wins this.

10% of Tories are simply not going to vote for him, no matter how bad Theresa May is.

Hope I'm wrong.

[PokerBroker]

Really impressed by Corbyn this evening.  Theresa May though, howling.  Can't wait for her to negotiate with EU.

[ripple11]

No killer blows on either side.......as we were beforehand.

May ended strong on Brexit and that message of "me or him in Brussels" will be relentless for the next 10 days.

[Woodsey]

No killer blows on either side.......as we were beforehand.

May ended strong on Brexit and that message of "me or him in Brussels" will be relentless for the next 10 days.

Yup, I think avoiding any real gaffs that will get splashed over the media was a plus for both.

[aaron1867]

Despite how brilliant the Labour campaign has been and how fantastically Corbyn has performed I just don't see how Labour wins this.

10% of Tories are simply not going to vote for him, no matter how bad Theresa May is.

Hope I'm wrong.

I am not sure how you come to a conclusion of Jeremy Corbyn performing "fantastically". I would say it's more of Labour jumping on the social care aspect which has been the party gain a few inroads. He is the only reason I am not voting Labour because all the pledges, his past and weakness are too much for me to not to trust him.

Trident/Security - How can you trust a man, who is a pacifist? You don't get terrorist around a table drinking tea and biscuits, that's not how it works Jeremy.

£10 min wage - Nonsense & absolute disaster for small businesses.

Tuition fees - This is the worst pledge he has made in my eyes. I was previously a student and have racked up debt myself and I am not particulary worried about it really. However in my view, I don't believe it shopuld be free, but instead the cost should go down. £9k too much, £0 too less. Let's find the middle ground.

As for tonight's "debate" or more "Q&A", it was a good night for Corbyn, I thought he was just the winner in it. Just felt as if he was really close to a fantastic night, if he decided that when he jumped in to answer Paxman, that he continued on, and not be interupted again. Paxman a disaster tonight though.

Hurtful for me not voting Labour this time round after 2010 & 2015, but I can't see how I can possibly vote for this man. I'll probably swing from Labour to Lib Dem just as a protest vote and hope Corbyn can't possibly stay on. He isn't what the Labour party is about.

[Jon MW]

...
Tuition fees - This is the worst pledge he has made in my eyes. I was previously a student and have racked up debt myself and I am not particulary worried about it really. However in my view, I don't believe it shopuld be free, but instead the cost should go down. £9k too much, £0 too less. Let's find the middle ground.
...

This is one of a few pledges which seem pretty strange for a Labour manifesto.

My wife and her friends are just coming up to the end of their degrees, some of them are looking at jobs like teaching or research where they'll get adequate but completely unspectacular wages - some of them (and others in their year) are looking at jobs with big Pharma companies or banks where they could get 6 figure salaries; how can a Labour government think that they should all end up paying the same amount towards the cost of their degree (i.e. zero)? Aren't the Tories the one's who are meant to look after the rich?

The country as a whole benefits from a better educated workforce, but so do graduates themselves, like Aaron said it seems clear that both should pay towards it and the question should be where the balance lies.