The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

[Doobs]

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

I listened to quite a bit of it, and it wasn't nearly as controversial as flagged.  The controversial bits seemed to have been flagged by his side looking at twitter, but they were a small part of the bits I listened to.  Sorry, couldn't make it to the end, so may be wrong.   

[DaveShoelace]

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

I listened to quite a bit of it, and it wasn't nearly as controversial as flagged.  The controversial bits seemed to have been flagged by his side looking at twitter, but they were a small part of the bits I listened to.  Sorry, couldn't make it to the end, so may be wrong.   

No you are correct, I am particularly on the lookout for stuff with Corbyn and terrorism because defence is my main issue with him, but it was a pretty balanced speech that even if you disagreed was fairly made points.

He didn't kneejerk infer that the biggest problem in the aftermath was racism, which is a common lefty response. He did call out that regardless of militarily intervention, there is a theocratic element to this, which he has been shy about acknowledging before. I don't agree with him on the core issue of the causes of these attacks, but he was balanced and honest.

[JohnCharver]

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

I listened to quite a bit of it, and it wasn't nearly as controversial as flagged.  The controversial bits seemed to have been flagged by his side looking at twitter, but they were a small part of the bits I listened to.  Sorry, couldn't make it to the end, so may be wrong.   

No you are correct, I am particularly on the lookout for stuff with Corbyn and terrorism because defence is my main issue with him, but it was a pretty balanced speech that even if you disagreed was fairly made points.

He didn't kneejerk infer that the biggest problem in the aftermath was racism, which is a common lefty response. He did call out that regardless of militarily intervention, there is a theocratic element to this, which he has been shy about acknowledging before. I don't agree with him on the core issue of the causes of these attacks, but he was balanced and honest.

Didnt the manchester bombers sister say it was "revenge for the attack on syria" which would infer that our role as scrappy doo was the terrorists motive. I believe the reasoning in the guy committing the act tends to be motivated by our foreign policy, but the person radicalising him has motive in trying to cause a reaction in non-muslims against muslims, that forces more muslims to the radicals views. Changing our foreign policy would mean we are targeted less but others would probably be targeted more and more as they would now believe they can alter foreign policy.

[The Camel]

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

I listened to quite a bit of it, and it wasn't nearly as controversial as flagged.  The controversial bits seemed to have been flagged by his side looking at twitter, but they were a small part of the bits I listened to.  Sorry, couldn't make it to the end, so may be wrong.   

No you are correct, I am particularly on the lookout for stuff with Corbyn and terrorism because defence is my main issue with him, but it was a pretty balanced speech that even if you disagreed was fairly made points.

He didn't kneejerk infer that the biggest problem in the aftermath was racism, which is a common lefty response. He did call out that regardless of militarily intervention, there is a theocratic element to this, which he has been shy about acknowledging before. I don't agree with him on the core issue of the causes of these attacks, but he was balanced and honest.

Didnt the manchester bombers sister say it was "revenge for the attack on syria" which would infer that our role as scrappy doo was the terrorists motive. I believe the reasoning in the guy committing the act tends to be motivated by our foreign policy, but the person radicalising him has motive in trying to cause a reaction in non-muslims against muslims, that forces more muslims to the radicals views. Changing our foreign policy would mean we are targeted less but others would probably be targeted more and more as they would now believe they can alter foreign policy.

But why should anyone interfere?

Russia, China, North Korea all have dubious (to say the least) human rights policies and we don't get involved there.

So why do we behave like the world's policeman in Syria, Iraq and Libya? And make friends with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

I'm just guessing, but it might have something to do with oil.

[titaniumbean]

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

I listened to quite a bit of it, and it wasn't nearly as controversial as flagged.  The controversial bits seemed to have been flagged by his side looking at twitter, but they were a small part of the bits I listened to.  Sorry, couldn't make it to the end, so may be wrong.   

No you are correct, I am particularly on the lookout for stuff with Corbyn and terrorism because defence is my main issue with him, but it was a pretty balanced speech that even if you disagreed was fairly made points.

He didn't kneejerk infer that the biggest problem in the aftermath was racism, which is a common lefty response. He did call out that regardless of militarily intervention, there is a theocratic element to this, which he has been shy about acknowledging before. I don't agree with him on the core issue of the causes of these attacks, but he was balanced and honest.

Didnt the manchester bombers sister say it was "revenge for the attack on syria" which would infer that our role as scrappy doo was the terrorists motive. I believe the reasoning in the guy committing the act tends to be motivated by our foreign policy, but the person radicalising him has motive in trying to cause a reaction in non-muslims against muslims, that forces more muslims to the radicals views. Changing our foreign policy would mean we are targeted less but others would probably be targeted more and more as they would now believe they can alter foreign policy.

But why should anyone interfere?

Russia, China, North Korea all have dubious (to say the least) human rights policies and we don't get involved there.

So why do we behave like the world's policeman in Syria, Iraq and Libya? And make friends with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

I'm just guessing, but it might have something to do with oil.

They need the magic ingredients. A capable military, lots of money or lots of oil. More than 1 = we fellate them whilst they slaughter civilians and indirectly attack our freedom. whilst from thousands of miles away we can have kids playing video games which actually turns out to be them dropping bombs on civilians and having no direct attachment to the emotion, reality or consequences of their actions.


just look at the emotional response of anger, helplessness and frustration at the first major attack since 7/7 and what we 'want to do to them'. And consider if your country had been invaded, bombed, invaded, liberated by pillagers, bombed, bombed some more, you had your family liquidated at a wedding then got $35 per person restitution. It's incomprehensible that we (The West) aren't attacked more.

[TightEnd]

Updated Ashcroft Model, now with estimated seat-by-seat vote shares and win chances, now at http://LordAshcroftPolls.com

[PokerBroker]

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

I listened to quite a bit of it, and it wasn't nearly as controversial as flagged.  The controversial bits seemed to have been flagged by his side looking at twitter, but they were a small part of the bits I listened to.  Sorry, couldn't make it to the end, so may be wrong.   

No you are correct, I am particularly on the lookout for stuff with Corbyn and terrorism because defence is my main issue with him, but it was a pretty balanced speech that even if you disagreed was fairly made points.

He didn't kneejerk infer that the biggest problem in the aftermath was racism, which is a common lefty response. He did call out that regardless of militarily intervention, there is a theocratic element to this, which he has been shy about acknowledging before. I don't agree with him on the core issue of the causes of these attacks, but he was balanced and honest.

Didnt the manchester bombers sister say it was "revenge for the attack on syria" which would infer that our role as scrappy doo was the terrorists motive. I believe the reasoning in the guy committing the act tends to be motivated by our foreign policy, but the person radicalising him has motive in trying to cause a reaction in non-muslims against muslims, that forces more muslims to the radicals views. Changing our foreign policy would mean we are targeted less but others would probably be targeted more and more as they would now believe they can alter foreign policy.

But why should anyone interfere?

Russia, China, North Korea all have dubious (to say the least) human rights policies and we don't get involved there.

So why do we behave like the world's policeman in Syria, Iraq and Libya? And make friends with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

I'm just guessing, but it might have something to do with oil.

They need the magic ingredients. A capable military, lots of money or lots of oil. More than 1 = we fellate them whilst they slaughter civilians and indirectly attack our freedom. whilst from thousands of miles away we can have kids playing video games which actually turns out to be them dropping bombs on civilians and having no direct attachment to the emotion, reality or consequences of their actions.


just look at the emotional response of anger, helplessness and frustration at the first major attack since 7/7 and what we 'want to do to them'. And consider if your country had been invaded, bombed, invaded, liberated by pillagers, bombed, bombed some more, you had your family liquidated at a wedding then got $35 per person restitution. It's incomprehensible that we (The West) aren't attacked more.

You dam lefty.  What do you know about geopolitics. 

PS - good post, I agree.

[kukushkin88]

Corbyn was OK. OFCOM have some work now, BBC can't go on with a recovering Murdoch attack dog asking the questions, to put it kindly he's relapsed and it's pretty ugly.

[TightEnd]

OK? Apart from the IRA, nukes, terrorism, NATO, tax, the economy. Not many watching on a Friday though I bet. It's a terrible time for party leaders, all really poor at the moment I think, may was dreadful on Monday, farron and nuttall too, not a patch on clegg and farage as performers

[The Camel]

OK? Apart from the IRA, nukes, terrorism, NATO, tax, the economy. Not many watching on a Friday though I bet. It's a terrible time for party leaders, all really poor at the moment I think, may was dreadful on Monday, farron and nuttall too, not a patch on clegg and farage as performers

Set piece interviews aren't his strong point.

He's at his best on the hustings. Or in a debate.

Still he did marinally better than May I think.

[kukushkin88]

OK? Apart from the IRA, nukes, terrorism, NATO, tax, the economy. Not many watching on a Friday though I bet. It's a terrible time for party leaders, all really poor at the moment I think, may was dreadful on Monday, farron and nuttall too, not a patch on clegg and farage as performers

I guess I mean OK in relative terms, he certainly wasn't the car crash May was. He seemed close a few times re: NATO ''needs reform and Britain could play a leading role' re IRA 'achieving peace is an incredibly difficult thing and sacrifices have to be made on both sides, someone had to ensure that dialogue took place' re: Nukes 'I'd rather we got rid but of course only multilaterally, ours stay unless they all go'  For clarity, that's what I wish he'd said, being a bit of a student of the guy, it is basically what he thinks.re: Terrorism What's wrong with the idea that a fairer world might reduce it, you don't have to lower your guard at all. Increased investment in the public sector would do the opposite.

You know more about tax and the economy than I do, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[AndrewT]

Friday night, scorching sun in the sky - no one's watching. Even those who switched on at the start would have turned over once they saw the One Show wasn't on.

[kukushkin88]

Friday night, scorching sun in the sky - no one's watching. Even those who switched on at the start would have turned over once they saw the One Show wasn't on.

You're right and I think it favours Labour. The issue is if people believe the Mail, Express and Telegraph account of what happened in the morning. Imagine how excited the Tory strategy people would have been at the prospect that nobody was watching on Monday. The Mail seemed panicked today, possibly by the polls? They actually tried to write something sensible on the front page of their paper.

[nirvana]

Corbyn was OK. OFCOM have some work now, BBC can't go on with a recovering Murdoch attack dog asking the questions, to put it kindly he's relapsed and it's pretty ugly.

I don't think Neil was over the top. All politicians should be prepared to stand behind their record, explain themselves and let us know if they think the same thing or whether their view has altered over time.

To Tighty's later point about all the things he did badly on - Nukes, IRA, NATO - I thought he did fine. Of course one can disagree with his long held views and recognise that they don't chime with the majority view of the population but I didn't think he looked horribly phased by any of it and he came across as a good deal more credible than May I thought.

On tax and the economy. after 7 years of notional austerity , with debt grown to some trillis and tax take at approaching an all time high I can't take the ticket 'it would be worse under labour' as any kind of serious point. It's pretty bad under the Tories and a large % of the population feel this every day.