The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RickBFA]

Didn’t they already try that last time?

Not very effectively. I remember the idea that parties were trying to campaign on issues not personalities.

They should be very aggressive about Corbyn's views and history IMO.

[AndrewT]

Didn’t they already try that last time?

Not very effectively. I remember the idea that parties were trying to campaign on issues not personalities.

They should be very aggressive about Corbyn's views and history IMO.

It was surely more that the Tories though Corbyn was going to crash and burn without their help so held off on the negative stuff as they did';t think they'd need it.

[TightEnd]

I thought they did a lot of it,but the impact was far lower than they assumed as anyone under 35 doesn't remember the troubles etc

and, in isolation, any concerns about Corbyn's world view/pacifism/unilateralism only played to existing non Labour voters and did not affect his core support or younger people's voting intentions in general

you've got a big anti-semitism row to play into all that now,but the election is 4 years away (as is) and i doubt it has cut through to many non-political people

[kukushkin88]

I guess I thought the UN Charter was enshrined in law, I might be wrong. Still a big shout for the regime to do this, they will be terrified if they hit anything Russian.

At what point do you draw a line in the sand? When they use chemical weapons another once, twice on civilians and children?

If they do nothing it gives the Russians and Assad a green light to do it again.

You don’t think Assad will think about the consequences before doing it again? Wouldn’t this potentially save lives in future?

I meant to apologise for not answering more directly before, two weeks back. I'll try now. Chemical attacks are emotive but he will kill his enemies by a variety of means. Chemical weapons are a small part of the mass murder in Syria.

We all agree that it's tragic when children are killed but let's keep perspective, the so called 'austerity' in the UK kills children as well.

I’ve got no idea how you can even compare a war that’s killed hundreds of thousands with austerity, sounds like you are just desperate to score political points.

So, Syrian civil war estimated deaths 450,000, austerity estimated deaths, 120,000. They are comparable numbers, one of our countries isn't at war, until today.

Ok Dr Googlestein, maybe you should read the other research out there questioning those numbers and what the range of possible causes may be rather than just posting numbers that suit you from google. You never know it might help you have a more rounded opinion on stuff like this rather than trying to compare a ludicrous comparison of disastrous war with govt spending. The jury is also out whether labour would have done a better done given the terrible financial position labour left the Tories to deal with.

So New Labour caused a global financial crisis? Are you serious? I can never tell. It's almost like the infamous jokey note left in the treasury caused so much confusion in the new government they were looking around for money and couldn't find any.

The regime since May took over has, lost power, bought power from religious nutters and worked continually against the interests of its own people to assist the wealthy. Your pension did a little worse under New Labour because they didn't want to run the NHS in to the ground. Are you really saying that running the NHS in to the ground so your pension grows a bit is good? Austerity killed more people than chemical weapons, just so people with plenty could have a little more.

This is ridiculous.  Chemical weapons verses levels of Government spending?  Get a grip.

How dare you challenge Dr Googlefacticantpossiblywrongstein!  

Good morning,

Seriously dumb bit of trolling. I've got no problem with being wrong, I actually like it, it's nearly always an opportunity to learn and the person I learn from probably feels good about the wisdom they've imparted. Sounds like a lot of win to me.

[kukushkin88]

I guess I thought the UN Charter was enshrined in law, I might be wrong. Still a big shout for the regime to do this, they will be terrified if they hit anything Russian.

At what point do you draw a line in the sand? When they use chemical weapons another once, twice on civilians and children?

If they do nothing it gives the Russians and Assad a green light to do it again.

You don’t think Assad will think about the consequences before doing it again? Wouldn’t this potentially save lives in future?

I meant to apologise for not answering more directly before, two weeks back. I'll try now. Chemical attacks are emotive but he will kill his enemies by a variety of means. Chemical weapons are a small part of the mass murder in Syria.

We all agree that it's tragic when children are killed but let's keep perspective, the so called 'austerity' in the UK kills children as well.

I’ve got no idea how you can even compare a war that’s killed hundreds of thousands with austerity, sounds like you are just desperate to score political points.

So, Syrian civil war estimated deaths 450,000, austerity estimated deaths, 120,000. They are comparable numbers, one of our countries isn't at war, until today.

Ok Dr Googlestein, maybe you should read the other research out there questioning those numbers and what the range of possible causes may be rather than just posting numbers that suit you from google. You never know it might help you have a more rounded opinion on stuff like this rather than trying to compare a ludicrous comparison of disastrous war with govt spending. The jury is also out whether labour would have done a better done given the terrible financial position labour left the Tories to deal with.

So New Labour caused a global financial crisis? Are you serious? I can never tell. It's almost like the infamous jokey note left in the treasury caused so much confusion in the new government they were looking around for money and couldn't find any.

The regime since May took over has, lost power, bought power from religious nutters and worked continually against the interests of its own people to assist the wealthy. Your pension did a little worse under New Labour because they didn't want to run the NHS in to the ground. Are you really saying that running the NHS in to the ground so your pension grows a bit is good? Austerity killed more people than chemical weapons, just so people with plenty could have a little more.

This is ridiculous.  Chemical weapons verses levels of Government spending?  Get a grip.

My point was that all of our views on the acts of our current government should be coloured by the fact that they have knowingly acted against the best interests of the majority of the British people for 8 years. The only comparison I was drawing was in the numbers of people impacted. Not on any level the actual acts that have caused the damage.

[kukushkin88]

Private eye at its best (couldn't resist, sorry)

I was thinking the other day that if Corbyn is Labour leader at the next election (which is highly likely) then the Tories campaign should involve pulling to pieces his leadership credentials and his ability to be an effective PM.

It may be condemned as negative campaigning but I would get 5 different bill boards ready including stuff like this and put them all over the most marginal 100 seats.

It was certainly the plan to campaign exclusively by peddling hate, like they did to Milliband but then May panicked in the bright lights and bleated the immortal words "judge us on our record". There aren't any five words in any order that would be a stupider thing to say. Oh, how we laughed.

[Jon MW]

I thought they did a lot of it,but the impact was far lower than they assumed as anyone under 35 doesn't remember the troubles etc

and, in isolation, any concerns about Corbyn's world view/pacifism/unilateralism only played to existing non Labour voters and did not affect his core support or younger people's voting intentions in general

you've got a big anti-semitism row to play into all that now,but the election is 4 years away (as is) and i doubt it has cut through to many non-political people

I agree in general why it wouldn't work, but I don't really remember any politician actually bringing up Corbyn's personal affiliations very much.

Looking at official Conservative posters, for example, I could only find this which specifically mentions something that could relate to Corbyn's brand of paficism

Click to see full-size image.

And even taking into account interviews and the like I thought it was pretty much just journalsts asking Corbyn about his previous support for terrorists rather than any politician pointing it out to people that kept it in the news before and during the election.

[kukushkin88]

Corbyn sat on a committee 34 years ago and that committe released a statement that was ill thought out and careless. What a billboard! That'll be a game changer for sure. I knew things were desperate but if this is plan A, :-)

[kukushkin88]

Corbyn sat on a committee 34 years ago and that committe released a statement that was ill thought out and careless. What a billboard! That'll be a game changer for sure. I knew things were desperate but if this is plan A, :-)

and at the same time the Conservative Party were not much more than a lynch mob, Teddy Taylor MP calling for Nelson Mandela, an imprisoned man to be put to death.

Corbyn's problem, if we can call it a problem, is that he instinctively sides with the oppressed. Irish Catholic's in NI, PLO in the Middle East, ANC and all anti apartheid movements in SA. I would have thought the majority of Britain, after 8 years, might be ready for a leader who stands up for the oppressed.

[RickBFA]

I guess I thought the UN Charter was enshrined in law, I might be wrong. Still a big shout for the regime to do this, they will be terrified if they hit anything Russian.

At what point do you draw a line in the sand? When they use chemical weapons another once, twice on civilians and children?

If they do nothing it gives the Russians and Assad a green light to do it again.

You don’t think Assad will think about the consequences before doing it again? Wouldn’t this potentially save lives in future?

I meant to apologise for not answering more directly before, two weeks back. I'll try now. Chemical attacks are emotive but he will kill his enemies by a variety of means. Chemical weapons are a small part of the mass murder in Syria.

We all agree that it's tragic when children are killed but let's keep perspective, the so called 'austerity' in the UK kills children as well.

I’ve got no idea how you can even compare a war that’s killed hundreds of thousands with austerity, sounds like you are just desperate to score political points.

So, Syrian civil war estimated deaths 450,000, austerity estimated deaths, 120,000. They are comparable numbers, one of our countries isn't at war, until today.

Ok Dr Googlestein, maybe you should read the other research out there questioning those numbers and what the range of possible causes may be rather than just posting numbers that suit you from google. You never know it might help you have a more rounded opinion on stuff like this rather than trying to compare a ludicrous comparison of disastrous war with govt spending. The jury is also out whether labour would have done a better done given the terrible financial position labour left the Tories to deal with.

So New Labour caused a global financial crisis? Are you serious? I can never tell. It's almost like the infamous jokey note left in the treasury caused so much confusion in the new government they were looking around for money and couldn't find any.

The regime since May took over has, lost power, bought power from religious nutters and worked continually against the interests of its own people to assist the wealthy. Your pension did a little worse under New Labour because they didn't want to run the NHS in to the ground. Are you really saying that running the NHS in to the ground so your pension grows a bit is good? Austerity killed more people than chemical weapons, just so people with plenty could have a little more.

This is ridiculous.  Chemical weapons verses levels of Government spending?  Get a grip.

My point was that all of our views on the acts of our current government should be coloured by the fact that they have knowingly acted against the best interests of the majority of the British people for 8 years. The only comparison I was drawing was in the numbers of people impacted. Not on any level the actual acts that have caused the damage.

You do acknowledge that in 2010 we were just coming out of the biggest economic crisis since 1930’s (apart from WW2) ?

There was going to be some pain for the wider public whoever was in power. You do acknowledge that?

The coalition chose a path which they genuinely thought was in the best interests of the country. You wouldn’t agree with whatever they did, but the claim that they effectively set out to deliberately kill 200,000 children with this policy is just outrageous.

You need to understand anyone with a view that is anywhere right of centre isn’t some heartless scumbag that wants to destroy lives. They are people that just think there is a more effective way of achieving success and improvements than following the hard left view of the world.

Your black and white view of politics is blinkered and unreasonable.

You don’t know what the impact of Labour continuing in power would have been. It could have been far worse economically than the coalition.

[kukushkin88]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

[TightEnd]

New polling: Leavers & public at large reject every Brexit deal modelled by govt as too high a price to leave the EU by enormous majorities

http://ourglobalfuture.com/reports/too-high-a-price-the-cost-of-brexit-what-the-public-thinks/ …

[TightEnd]

Irish problems

[TightEnd]

Government loses two House of Lords votes on EU withdrawal bill – as it happened

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/18/pmqs-may-corbyn-eu-withdrawal-bill-lords-ministers-face-questioning-by-peers-over-brexit-meaningful-vote-politics-live?page=with:block-5ad77796e4b096a5b0266219#block-5ad77796e4b096a5b0266219

[TightEnd]

which led to this for next thursday

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/may-faces-fresh-brexit-ambush-as-senior-mps-stage-crunch-vote-on-customs-union-yvette-cooper-nicky-morgan_uk_5ad87222e4b029ebe0215d70?q1q …

a motion that exposes the impossibility of (a probably soft brexit) parliament dictating negotiations instead it's the (possibly hard brexit) government