The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

Calling voters stupid for thinking about voting UKIP hardly seems enlightening debate.  Voters have concerns (real or imagined).  UKIP are seemingly listening.  Corbyn likely isn't.

UKIP are clearly not a highly intelligent choice, our system is stupid if we have to vote for them because there is no one else electable.

You cant honestly think the vast majority of voters have much of a clue about actual facts, hardly surprising given our media but nonetheless frustrating and upsetting.


Look how extreme, and staged the American response to the recent attacks are, purely petty point scoring based in ignorance.

3.9m people voted ukip in may.

they were second in over 60 seats

votes came not only from tory voters but disaffected labour voters too

i am not a ukip supporter, but think you are far too dismissive of a big group of voters as unintelligent sorry yuou said "not highly intelligent"

clearly a good number of those 3.9m will be intelligent, just with views different from your own

[titaniumbean]

Calling voters stupid for thinking about voting UKIP hardly seems enlightening debate.  Voters have concerns (real or imagined).  UKIP are seemingly listening.  Corbyn likely isn't.

UKIP are clearly not a highly intelligent choice, our system is stupid if we have to vote for them because there is no one else electable.

You cant honestly think the vast majority of voters have much of a clue about actual facts, hardly surprising given our media but nonetheless frustrating and upsetting.


Look how extreme, and staged the American response to the recent attacks are, purely petty point scoring based in ignorance.

3.9m people voted ukip in may.

they were second in over 60 seats

votes came not only from tory voters but disaffected labour voters too

i am not a ukip supporter, but think you are far too dismissive of a big group of voters as unintelligent sorry yuou said "not highly intelligent"

clearly a good number of those 3.9m will be intelligent, just with views different from your own

do you truly believe they had a fantastic set of policies? or our system just offers us absolute dross to choose from?

does people voting for the least worst really help us?  Similarly how is it useful to consider that there can be only 'two extremes' you've got to be either right or left on some of the most complex issues facing mankind. It's mind numbing.


edit, we have the rich and the poor party essentially, where the fuck is the logic, reason and science party?  or does the media not want us to have that because that doesn't fit in with their owners views?

[TightEnd]

why is it absolute dross

you can vote right wing, centre right, centre left, left, green and all shades in between

the fact is the majority of people are either side of centre.

the electoral system may well be flawed, but if you go to something more PR you get a far bigger UKIP voice in a coalition/minority goverment than you currently have

[AlunB]

It doesn't take an enormous leap of logic to see why UKIP is doing well in Oldham. I doubt it's due to an in-depth analysis of their policies.

To me the idea of shifting from a fairly left-wing party to a very right-wing one is bizarre, but people are entitled to change their minds. You do wonder what else might be driving that decision though...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Oldham_riots

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/census-asians-could-become-majority-1139744

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ukip-oldham-leaflet-racism-row-7148269

[MintTrav]

There has been some nonsense on this thread today. Some of you are making up your own quotes.

Corbyn didn't say that a suicide bomber or someone threatening with a Kalashnikov shouldn't be taken out.  There was talk before his interview of British police introducing a shoot-to-kill policy. That implies that there is a change to existing policy. The police will already kill in an extreme life-or-death situation. The inference before the interview was that the police would liquidate terrorists in non-life-threatening situations. That is what Corbyn is "not happy" with. He said it can be dangerous and counterproductive, which we have seen when British forces have adopted it in the past.

[scotty77]

Corbyn is still thinking like a back bencher. 

A few days after a horrific and tragic terrorist attack in the capital city of our most 'equal' country is not the time to be going on TV and giving idealistic answers to emotive questions.

Rightly or wrongly, we are in an age where people want their leaders to sum up their views in 10 seconds or less.

He should have just said, yes I agree with the shoot to kill policy and if IS were to attempt a terrorist attack in the UK then they will face military consequences.

Instead he just shoots himself in the foot yet again and the press can keep on attacking him with it.

It's very sad because he has the best intentions and a lot of good policies, but by not choosing his battles he is always gonna be losing credibility.

[AlunB]

Corbyn is still thinking like a back bencher. 

A few days after a horrific and tragic terrorist attack in the capital city of our most 'equal' country is not the time to be going on TV and giving idealistic answers to emotive questions.

Rightly or wrongly, we are in an age where people want their leaders to sum up their views in 10 seconds or less.

He should have just said, yes I agree with the shoot to kill policy and if IS were to attempt a terrorist attack in the UK then they will face military consequences.

Instead he just shoots himself in the foot yet again and the press can keep on attacking him with it.

It's very sad because he has the best intentions and a lot of good policies, but by not choosing his battles he is always gonna be losing credibility.

But, and again this is probably naive idealism, you are not going to change that culture by conforming to it.

[ripple11]

Corbyn is still thinking like a back bencher. 

and acting like one.

Decent bloke and principled, but its just a matter of how and when he goes.

[horseplayer]

There has been some nonsense on this thread today. Some of you are making up your own quotes.

Corbyn didn't say that a suicide bomber or someone threatening with a Kalashnikov shouldn't be taken out.  There was talk before his interview of British police introducing a shoot-to-kill policy. That implies that there is a change to existing policy. The police will already kill in an extreme life-or-death situation. The inference before the interview was that the police would liquidate terrorists in non-life-threatening situations. That is what Corbyn is "not happy" with. He said it can be dangerous and counterproductive, which we have seen when British forces have adopted it in the past.

Congratulations on actually reading the quotes

[scotty77]

Corbyn is still thinking like a back bencher. 

A few days after a horrific and tragic terrorist attack in the capital city of our most 'equal' country is not the time to be going on TV and giving idealistic answers to emotive questions.

Rightly or wrongly, we are in an age where people want their leaders to sum up their views in 10 seconds or less.

He should have just said, yes I agree with the shoot to kill policy and if IS were to attempt a terrorist attack in the UK then they will face military consequences.

Instead he just shoots himself in the foot yet again and the press can keep on attacking him with it.

It's very sad because he has the best intentions and a lot of good policies, but by not choosing his battles he is always gonna be losing credibility.

But, and again this is probably naive idealism, you are not going to change that culture by conforming to it.

Can you see a near future where shares on FB, vines on Twitter and Buzzfeed don't become more and more dominant?

Corbyn is great when he can set the agenda and has the time to give his thoughts and reasoning, especially when he writes.

He totally crumbles when he is interviewed.

This wasn't an issue where he had the room to be idealistic.  France and the UK are so similar that the attack may as well have been in London. People want their leaders to be strong during these kind of times.  Corbyn instead chose to look the complete opposite.  The next story in news reports then goes to a scene with world leaders at the G20 and could you ever see Corbyn in that kind of meeting and be able to represent the UK's interests?

This was never an issue where his kind of thinking could ever win so he should have just sucked it up, said what people want to hear and moved on.

[DungBeetle]

Calling voters stupid for thinking about voting UKIP hardly seems enlightening debate.  Voters have concerns (real or imagined).  UKIP are seemingly listening.  Corbyn likely isn't.

UKIP are clearly not a highly intelligent choice, our system is stupid if we have to vote for them because there is no one else electable.

You cant honestly think the vast majority of voters have much of a clue about actual facts, hardly surprising given our media but nonetheless frustrating and upsetting.


Look how extreme, and staged the American response to the recent attacks are, purely petty point scoring based in ignorance.

Few have understanding of the actual facts.  But that applies to the left wing voters bleating about £93 billion of corporate freebies the companies are getting as well and claiming that everyone on 100k plus a year pays zero tax.

The working class electorate have concerns, some of them imagined, some exaggerated and some real.  In no particular order:

- losing jobs to imported cheap labour because of freedom of movement
- getting blown up by terrorists because we can't control our borders
- services getting over-run due to population increase
- the EU over-ruling all of our laws
- the human rights act meaning that nasty people can't be deported

When the electorate has these concerns I don't see why it is much suprise UKIP are popular.  Try to counter the inaccuracies with facts by all means.  But Corbyn moaning that Jihadi John should be brought before the court isn't going to wash with them.  An neither is him saying that he doesn't want terrorists shot when they are running amok in the local population!

[RickBFA]

There has been some nonsense on this thread today. Some of you are making up your own quotes.

Corbyn didn't say that a suicide bomber or someone threatening with a Kalashnikov shouldn't be taken out.  There was talk before his interview of British police introducing a shoot-to-kill policy. That implies that there is a change to existing policy. The police will already kill in an extreme life-or-death situation. The inference before the interview was that the police would liquidate terrorists in non-life-threatening situations. That is what Corbyn is "not happy" with. He said it can be dangerous and counterproductive, which we have seen when British forces have adopted it in the past.

Congratulations on actually reading the quotes

Do you agree Corbyn is a PR disaster for the Labour Party?

Or really think he has the skills to be a leader?

[kukushkin88]

There has been some nonsense on this thread today. Some of you are making up your own quotes.

Corbyn didn't say that a suicide bomber or someone threatening with a Kalashnikov shouldn't be taken out.  There was talk before his interview of British police introducing a shoot-to-kill policy. That implies that there is a change to existing policy. The police will already kill in an extreme life-or-death situation. The inference before the interview was that the police would liquidate terrorists in non-life-threatening situations. That is what Corbyn is "not happy" with. He said it can be dangerous and counterproductive, which we have seen when British forces have adopted it in the past.

Congratulations on actually reading the quotes

Do you agree Corbyn is a PR disaster for the Labour Party?

Or really think he has the skills to be a leader?

I'm not sure it's meant to be a PR exercise, he has principles. That one thing alone is so far removed from anything Cameron's Conservatives have offered to make me feel it's worthwhile. There's 4 and a half years till the next election.

[kukushkin88]

How we are talking about Corbyn in a week when Osborne has re-iterated that Tory leadership won't approach the House of Commons to vote on military action in Syria unless "we would be clear that we would win"? Is this how a democracy works? What's a reasonable period of time for them to wait to be clear that they'll win?

fwiw, I think bombing alone will achieve nothing.

[RickBFA]

There has been some nonsense on this thread today. Some of you are making up your own quotes.

Corbyn didn't say that a suicide bomber or someone threatening with a Kalashnikov shouldn't be taken out.  There was talk before his interview of British police introducing a shoot-to-kill policy. That implies that there is a change to existing policy. The police will already kill in an extreme life-or-death situation. The inference before the interview was that the police would liquidate terrorists in non-life-threatening situations. That is what Corbyn is "not happy" with. He said it can be dangerous and counterproductive, which we have seen when British forces have adopted it in the past.

Congratulations on actually reading the quotes

Do you agree Corbyn is a PR disaster for the Labour Party?

Or really think he has the skills to be a leader?

I'm not sure it's meant to be a PR exercise, he has principles. That one thing alone is so far removed from anything Cameron's Conservatives have offered to make me feel it's worthwhile. There's 4 and a half years till the next election.

Isn't one of a political leaders jobs to appeal to the general public and get his views over effectively?

Having principles becomes useless when you lead a political party if you don't have the skills to communicate them.