Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
You do realise you are insulting the police, intelligence agencies, military, and civil servants who work night and day to keep you safe? People who do not do it or for the money, but because they care about you? People who bust a gut to disrupt terror plots all the time and sacrifice time with their families to do so? I can't use the words I'd like to use to describe you.
No. I am accusing Theresa May who cut their funding.
The intelligence services have had very big increases in funding.
Whereas a Labour shadow cabinet member wanted MI5 abolished.
Because they practice knuckle-dragging, wiping snot on their sleeves, showing the tops of their arse-cracks, etc., before they go out canvassing in unprivileged areas.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
How will we get on without MI5?
BTW do some people in your party still want a peoples militia?
Are we really saying this doesn't help radicalise some people in part:
twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/868116290539540481
Missing the point, I'm afraid. Read what Daesh write: they don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of what we are (kaffir) - and we could stop fighting them and they would still fight us and try to kill us.
That last bit is NOT what they say. Jimmy Rushmore quoted out of context in his tweet. (He fooled me for a while into thinking the Daesh propaganda line had changed more than it has.) You can download issue 15 of Dabiq and read the article "Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You" for yourself. What they actually say is this:
Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.
(emphasis added)
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood that segment. They're not saying they won't fight us if we don't fight them; they're saying they won't fight us if we surrender to them and pay the Jizda, essentially making us dhimmis in an Islamic State.
Despicable. And of course no-one will bat an eyelid here! F*cking western hypocrisy!
Most of them ISIS human shields, unfortunately you will not free Mosul without civiliancasualties
That maybe so but are attacks on human shields lawful? I know the Yanks are not the most disciplined and law abiding military in the World.
Corbyn is 100% right - events like this only help the radicalisation process.
It eas no a deliberate attack on civilians but you cannot defeat ISIS otherwise this is a war not a human rights seminar
You think our masters care about killing civilians?
Yes. I know they do. As do the people in the armed forces.
Some in the armed forces care, certainly. Others don't give a toss and would love to wipe the "Muzzies" and "Pakis" out, civilians included. You can find both attitudes on the main unofficial online discussion site for the British army, Arrse.co.uk.
As for our masters, come the f*** on. Their hearts don't bleed for the hoi polloi, never have.
His advice would be more powerful had he followed it while he was President.
Eh? Can't see that there was anything O did that wasn't. He even nominated a Republican for the Supreme Court, but sadly one who wasn't crazy enough for the fundies.
Despicable. And of course no-one will bat an eyelid here! F*cking western hypocrisy!
Most of them ISIS human shields, unfortunately you will not free Mosul without civiliancasualties
That maybe so but are attacks on human shields lawful? I know the Yanks are not the most disciplined and law abiding military in the World.
Corbyn is 100% right - events like this only help the radicalisation process.
It eas no a deliberate attack on civilians but you cannot defeat ISIS otherwise this is a war not a human rights seminar
You think our masters care about killing civilians?
Yes. I know they do. As do the people in the armed forces.
You serious? The Americans don't give a sh*t about the Geneva convention. They will do whatever they want to do knowing they will get away with it. Without the prospect of having any ramifications, why would any military care? Thankfully we are better...
Despicable. And of course no-one will bat an eyelid here! F*cking western hypocrisy!
Most of them ISIS human shields, unfortunately you will not free Mosul without civiliancasualties
That maybe so but are attacks on human shields lawful? I know the Yanks are not the most disciplined and law abiding military in the World.
Corbyn is 100% right - events like this only help the radicalisation process.
It eas no a deliberate attack on civilians but you cannot defeat ISIS otherwise this is a war not a human rights seminar
You think our masters care about killing civilians?
Yes. I know they do. As do the people in the armed forces.
Some in the armed forces care, certainly. Others don't give a toss and would love to wipe the "Muzzies" and "Pakis" out, civilians included. You can find both attitudes on the main unofficial online discussion site for the British army, Arrse.co.uk.
As for our masters, come the f*** on. Their hearts don't bleed for the hoi polloi, never have.
Well, having seen up close the deliberation at the highest level as to whether to send in the missiles or not, my direct experience is the exact opposite - the guys and gals at the very top agonize over every decision to go kinetic.
But I am sure your dogma is more reliable than my evidence.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
So you wanted them to raid the homes of all the random family, friends and acquaintances of every one of the 3000 people they currently have on their lists? Assuming they only raid the homes of 12 people associated with each person that is still 36,000 raids. On people against whom they have no evidence apart from the fact they happen to know someone who has appeared on the Security Service's radar.
Hell, with the 5 degrees of separation rule they will probably be knocking on your door in that case.
Of course MI5 won't stop every intending terrorist before he starts carrying a bomb. There needs to be tighter physical security at crowded events and locations. Unfortunately my point that Britain could learn from Israel in that department got swamped because I noted my opposition to the existence of that regime. But that is neither here nor there. At the very least, security staff at sports stadiums, railway stations and shopping centres need to be talked to by the army and meet soldiers regularly. Security when there hasn't been an attack for a while can be disgracefully lax. Often those who work in security are knuckleheads with a bad attitude towards "the public" generally (there should be more education of the population too - there is a role for almost everyone who goes out of the house), and many security teams are gangster-linked and sometimes they are interested most of all in selling drugs, stopping anyone else selling drugs, and ensuring that the only people with shooters in their belts are in their own gang. (FFS, Manchester!) The country could be better equipped against the threat of these attacks, without MI5 busting down the doors of everyone 3 degrees of separation away from a known jihad fan, without the state interning thousands of people, etc. (which wouldn't work anyway).
It's good that some newspapers have noticed by now that security at the Manchester Arena was crap. (FT, Metro, etc.)
Opposition to the existence of Israel is opposition to the existence of its citizens.
If Jeremy said squares had four sides, Fallon would be on the box within minutes to denounce him for saying triangles had 5 sides
Fallon looks very much like a minister in a government that's on its way to an electoral defeat, to the rubbish bin where it belongs. His job is mainly signing weapons deals, including to Salafist headchoppers. A convicted drunk driver, a parliamentary expenses over-claimer who said his overclaims could be "reassigned" to other expenses once he got found out, and the Tory MP for Sevenoaks - he'll make sure we're all safe. Right. He
His advice would be more powerful had he followed it while he was President.
Eh? Can't see that there was anything O did that wasn't. He even nominated a Republican for the Supreme Court, but sadly one who wasn't crazy enough for the fundies.
Called Republican voters the enemy, called GOP members of Congress 'terrorists', failed to condemn an attack ad for a Dem candidate that had a GOP candidate literally in the crosshairs ... I could go on, but life is too short.
Obama is not the saint Europeans seem to think he is.
His advice would be more powerful had he followed it while he was President.
Eh? Can't see that there was anything O did that wasn't. He even nominated a Republican for the Supreme Court, but sadly one who wasn't crazy enough for the fundies.
Called Republican voters the enemy, called GOP members of Congress 'terrorists', failed to condemn an attack ad for a Dem candidate that had a GOP candidate literally in the crosshairs ... I could go on, but life is too short.
Obama is not the saint Europeans seem to think he is.
Agreed but he was still probably the most popular US president in Europe since JFK
His advice would be more powerful had he followed it while he was President.
Eh? Can't see that there was anything O did that wasn't. He even nominated a Republican for the Supreme Court, but sadly one who wasn't crazy enough for the fundies.
'Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.'
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
No government, Labour or Conservative, has ever been led by someone with such an ......equivocal record on terrorism as Corbyn. Labour politicians like Roy Jenkins, Merlin Rees, or Roy Mason did not demonstrate when members of the IRA went on trial, or vote against every piece of anti-terrorist legislation. They didn't call for MI5 to be disbanded, or welcome the defeat of the British State.
11 people arrested sounds like a considerable success.
The Greater Manchester Police are under the command of Andy Burnham, and until a month ago the Labour PCC.
Just caught the last 5 minutes of audience interview with Welsh LIb Dems leader Mark Williams-seems like he was having a hard time over the 1p income tax rise for NHS
What could he say, apart from "I'm sorry, I've suddenly gone deaf, I can't hear what you're saying. Goodness, is that the time? I have train to catch."
His advice would be more powerful had he followed it while he was President.
Eh? Can't see that there was anything O did that wasn't. He even nominated a Republican for the Supreme Court, but sadly one who wasn't crazy enough for the fundies.
Called Republican voters the enemy, called GOP members of Congress 'terrorists', failed to condemn an attack ad for a Dem candidate that had a GOP candidate literally in the crosshairs ... I could go on, but life is too short.
Obama is not the saint Europeans seem to think he is.
Utter nonsense. Most Republicans, including the current incumbent were questioning his very origin and right to be President. He had far more thrown at him by the fundies than he threw at others.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
No government, Labour or Conservative, has ever been led by someone with such an ......equivocal record on terrorism as Corbyn. Labour politicians like Roy Jenkins, Merlin Rees, or Roy Mason did not demonstrate when members of the IRA went on trial, or vote against every piece of anti-terrorist legislation. They didn't call for MI5 to be disbanded, or welcome the defeat of the British State.
11 people arrested sounds like a considerable success.
The Greater Manchester Police are under the command of Andy Burnham, and until a month ago the Labour PCC.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
Despicable. And of course no-one will bat an eyelid here! F*cking western hypocrisy!
Most of them ISIS human shields, unfortunately you will not free Mosul without civiliancasualties
That maybe so but are attacks on human shields lawful? I know the Yanks are not the most disciplined and law abiding military in the World.
Corbyn is 100% right - events like this only help the radicalisation process.
It eas no a deliberate attack on civilians but you cannot defeat ISIS otherwise this is a war not a human rights seminar
You think our masters care about killing civilians?
Yes. I know they do. As do the people in the armed forces.
You serious? The Americans don't give a sh*t about the Geneva convention. They will do whatever they want to do knowing they will get away with it. Without the prospect of having any ramifications, why would any military care? Thankfully we are better...
They very much do. The traditional way of war is to kill everything that moves, and burn everything that doesn't. That's not how the UK or USA fight.
Today we are hearing that the Security services have been successful and have raided 12 homes .
Great ! Why didn't they do it last week, last month, last year.
Apparently, Labour will be weak on terrorism. Well, Manchester happened under Theresa May's watch ! She was the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister.
The failure of the Intelligence is glaring.
That's a stupid comment. Plenty of terrorist outrages have happened under every government of the past 50 years. Most get stopped, but a few get through.
Then why accuse the next government if it happens under every government. The failure regarding Manchester is incredible if so many cells can now be found. This government was weak on terrorism.
11 people now arrested. What a failure.
No government, Labour or Conservative, has ever been led by someone with such an ......equivocal record on terrorism as Corbyn. Labour politicians like Roy Jenkins, Merlin Rees, or Roy Mason did not demonstrate when members of the IRA went on trial, or vote against every piece of anti-terrorist legislation. They didn't call for MI5 to be disbanded, or welcome the defeat of the British State.
11 people arrested sounds like a considerable success.
The Greater Manchester Police are under the command of Andy Burnham, and until a month ago the Labour PCC.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
It's high risk if something can credibly be pinned on her.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
Corbyn just relaunched his campaign with a major speech on terrorism being our fault, thus "using the bombing for party political advantage". His choice. He opened up the way for the Tory attack machine, and by God does it need to get stuck into this hard.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
It's high risk if something can credibly be pinned on her.
If not, it's overdue.
I mean it's high risk for her to do it personally rather than leaving it to others - because there's a danger that she, personally, may be seen to be trying to use the bombing for political advantage.
Despicable. And of course no-one will bat an eyelid here! F*cking western hypocrisy!
Most of them ISIS human shields, unfortunately you will not free Mosul without civiliancasualties
That maybe so but are attacks on human shields lawful? I know the Yanks are not the most disciplined and law abiding military in the World.
Corbyn is 100% right - events like this only help the radicalisation process.
It eas no a deliberate attack on civilians but you cannot defeat ISIS otherwise this is a war not a human rights seminar
You think our masters care about killing civilians?
Yes. I know they do. As do the people in the armed forces.
You serious? The Americans don't give a sh*t about the Geneva convention. They will do whatever they want to do knowing they will get away with it. Without the prospect of having any ramifications, why would any military care? Thankfully we are better...
They very much do. The traditional way of war is to kill everything that moves, and burn everything that doesn't. That's not how the UK or USA fight.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
Corbyn just relaunched his campaign with a major speech on terrorism being our fault, thus "using the bombing for party political advantage". His choice. He opened up the way for the Tory attack machine, and by God does it need to get stuck into this hard.
I think you're making my point. If Corbyn is being attacked for making the bombing a political issue, isn't it unwise for May to lay herself open to the same charge by responding in kind? When instead she could leave the responding to others and serenely ascend to the moral high ground?
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
Corbyn just relaunched his campaign with a major speech on terrorism being our fault, thus "using the bombing for party political advantage". His choice. He opened up the way for the Tory attack machine, and by God does it need to get stuck into this hard.
I think you're making my point. If Corbyn is being attacked for making the bombing a political issue, isn't it unwise for May to lay herself open to the same charge by responding in kind? When instead she could leave the responding to others and serenely ascend to the moral high ground?
Serenity and the high ground are worthless when Corbyn is dominating the airwaves, climbing in the polls, and making us look weak. Voters respect strength, so let's show Corbyn what being a "nasty Tory" is really all about.
What could he say, apart from "I'm sorry, I've suddenly gone deaf, I can't hear what you're saying. Goodness, is that the time? I have train to catch."
This should be shared as much as possible. This guy does not know his arse from his elbow. It's frightening, he is Britain's Defence Secretary.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
Corbyn just relaunched his campaign with a major speech on terrorism being our fault, thus "using the bombing for party political advantage". His choice. He opened up the way for the Tory attack machine, and by God does it need to get stuck into this hard.
I think you're making my point. If Corbyn is being attacked for making the bombing a political issue, isn't it unwise for May to lay herself open to the same charge by responding in kind? When instead she could leave the responding to others and serenely ascend to the moral high ground?
Serenity and the high ground are worthless when Corbyn is dominating the airwaves, climbing in the polls, and making us look weak. Voters respect strength, so let's show Corbyn what being a "nasty Tory" is really all about.
Well, again, I think that's what I'm saying. Theresa May presumably thinks her position is not strong enough to avoid taking the risk. If she felt she had a choice she would certainly not want to appear a "nasty Tory".
What could he say, apart from "I'm sorry, I've suddenly gone deaf, I can't hear what you're saying. Goodness, is that the time? I have train to catch."
This should be shared as much as possible. This guy does not know his arse from his elbow. It's frightening, he is Britain's Defence Secretary.
Well, he doesn't know his Johnson from his Jez. :-)
The Tories are mistaken to focus exclusively on Corbyn. Corbyn's press for 2 years has been awful, so people have thought that one through - it'll be enough for a decent May majority. But the lode Is exhausted now. People are thinking about policies and how they might affect their lives now. And the Tories are just offering more of the same pain.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
Corbyn just relaunched his campaign with a major speech on terrorism being our fault, thus "using the bombing for party political advantage". His choice. He opened up the way for the Tory attack machine, and by God does it need to get stuck into this hard.
I think you're making my point. If Corbyn is being attacked for making the bombing a political issue, isn't it unwise for May to lay herself open to the same charge by responding in kind? When instead she could leave the responding to others and serenely ascend to the moral high ground?
Serenity and the high ground are worthless when Corbyn is dominating the airwaves, climbing in the polls, and making us look weak. Voters respect strength, so let's show Corbyn what being a "nasty Tory" is really all about.
That might involve May actually answering a question, which is a big risk.
That strikes me as a high-risk strategy. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the press to attack Corbyn, rather than doing it herself - which could easily be interpreted as trying to use the bombing for party political advantage? Presumably this means she's so rattled that she doesn't think she has any choice.
Corbyn just relaunched his campaign with a major speech on terrorism being our fault, thus "using the bombing for party political advantage". His choice. He opened up the way for the Tory attack machine, and by God does it need to get stuck into this hard.
I think you're making my point. If Corbyn is being attacked for making the bombing a political issue, isn't it unwise for May to lay herself open to the same charge by responding in kind? When instead she could leave the responding to others and serenely ascend to the moral high ground?
Serenity and the high ground are worthless when Corbyn is dominating the airwaves, climbing in the polls, and making us look weak. Voters respect strength, so let's show Corbyn what being a "nasty Tory" is really all about.
Well, again, I think that's what I'm saying. Theresa May presumably thinks her position is not strong enough to avoid taking the risk. If she felt she had a choice she would certainly not want to appear a "nasty Tory".
The sooner she realises this isn't a stroll in the park, the better.
Brilliant! Condemned by both his own words and his own silences.
I'm not sure it's as effective as some on here think. It doesn't seem to me to indicate that he's a supporter of terrorism but a pacifist. Whether the public have a problem with pacifists I don't know but the poll posted earlier indicate not.
Talking to Tories is beneath contempt. They should have expelled without appeal.
You really don't get just how toxic the relationship is between the SNP grouping and their opponents in Aberdeen City Council, but then neither did Kezia Dugdale! Just ask yourself why those decent and hardworking Labour councillors felt compelled to make the decision they did at the risk of being suspended, or worse expelled from their party. Or why one of the Libdem councillors crossed the floor to become an Independant. Its pretty hard to accept your party Leader demanding you do not go into coalition with a party that inposes 'austerity', but would accept you working with the SNP at a local level while their Government at Holyrood is the one really imposing austerity that is effecting the delivery of vital local services!
He won't be the last politician to do this. I like Labour's attitude at the moment. Are you pro trident? Yes the party is pro trident. Are you anti trident? Well yes Jeremy has always been anti trident and will be a strong advocate for this. Cake and eat it!
Brilliant! Condemned by both his own words and his own silences.
I'm not sure it's as effective as some on here think. It doesn't seem to me to indicate that he's a supporter of terrorism but a pacifist. Whether the public have a problem with pacifists I don't know but the poll posted earlier indicate not.
Just out of interest, in 1983 of course Michael Foot was attacked mercilessly by the press (and Kenny Everett). But I can't call to mind any personal attacks made directly on him by Margaret Thatcher. I may be wrong, though. Do other people remember such personal attacks, or did Thatcher leave them to others?
The Tories are mistaken to focus exclusively on Corbyn. Corbyn's press for 2 years has been awful, so people have thought that one through - it'll be enough for a decent May majority. But the lode Is exhausted now. People are thinking about policies and how they might affect their lives now. And the Tories are just offering more of the same pain.
Corbyn says NATO is a 'Frankenstein' organisation and refuses 6 times to guarantee a Trident replacement. Whilst Corbyn brushes up his alt-lefty credentials May is successfully dealing with real matters at the G7.
The Tories are mistaken to focus exclusively on Corbyn. Corbyn's press for 2 years has been awful, so people have thought that one through - it'll be enough for a decent May majority. But the lode Is exhausted now. People are thinking about policies and how they might affect their lives now. And the Tories are just offering more of the same pain.
I have to disagree with you there. People in general are not interested in politics aside from a few days near elections. And up to now the only stuff I have seen about Corbyn and terrorists is the momentum disinformation Facebook meme, which makes out Corbyn ran the NI peace process and TMay is supplying arms to ISIS.
Just out of interest, in 1983 of course Michael Foot was attacked mercilessly by the press (and Kenny Everett). But I can't call to mind any personal attacks made directly on him by Margaret Thatcher. I may be wrong, though. Do other people remember such personal attacks, or did Thatcher leave them to others?
Thatcher always seemed to have more respect for Michael Foot than she did for Neil Kinnock.
So income tax rates of 60 to 70% for the top 5% of earners under Corbyn?
How else can he raise the £40bn he needs from them otherwise?
Borrow. Money is cheap. Every government borrows. Option will be to use QE.
QE? hang on, I thought inflation was bad?
£435 bn of QE to save banker lifestyles didn't seem to result in much inflation, did it?
Who knows what the inflation rate would have been with out.
Indeed, but that still doesn't detract from the premise that QE since 2008 has had little inflationary impact. And if QE is good enough to protect banker lifestyles then it could be good enough for a spot of nationalising utilities. Nothing wrong with the concept.
Not that I personally see this as desirable. I'd far rather see effective regulation than nationalisation.
Comments
Labour = 7
Conservative = 2
LD = 1
Not sure / won't vote = 1
BTW do some people in your party still want a peoples militia?
https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3659489/tories-set-to-increase-majority-as-sun-poll-shows-them-with-eight-point-lead-over-labour-because-voters-want-may-as-pm/
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood that segment. They're not saying they won't fight us if we don't fight them; they're saying they won't fight us if we surrender to them and pay the Jizda, essentially making us dhimmis in an Islamic State.
Unless you're expecting us to do that?
As for our masters, come the f*** on. Their hearts don't bleed for the hoi polloi, never have.
But I am sure your dogma is more reliable than my evidence.
I think that tells us all we need to know.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3659489/tories-set-to-increase-majority-as-sun-poll-shows-them-with-eight-point-lead-over-labour-because-voters-want-may-as-pm/
So despite PBTory wobbles on that poll Corbyn would still have the fewest number of Labour MPs since Foot in 1983 and May the largest number of MPs since Thatcher in 1987
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3659489/tories-set-to-increase-majority-as-sun-poll-shows-them-with-eight-point-lead-over-labour-because-voters-want-may-as-pm/
Obama is not the saint Europeans seem to think he is.
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/868204472832544768
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/05/gimsons-election-diary-torquay-appears-totally-unmoved-by-the-care-for-the-elderly-row.html
OK, maybe Fallon not so much....but he's not even in touching distance of Diane's calamity.
If not, it's overdue.
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560
How else can he raise the £40bn he needs from them otherwise?
The Scotsman - ‘Get out of Scotland!’: watch Tory activists harassed on street
The Herald - LibDems demand suspension of SNP activist over funeral tweets
The Scottish Sun - battle of Bannockburn SNP activist’s knuckles rapped for hurling abuse at Tory canvassers while blasting independence music in bizarre Stirling drive-by
Daily Record - Truth is winning the war against the SNP's nasty election tricks
On my computer I use the main site.
I am home after the pb.com event at Lord Raglan
I wish to record my official thanks to Mike and Steve for organising it. And to all those nice people I met tonight familiar and not so familiar.
So tomorrow - the most important night in British polling history
Let's hope we can continue to carry the torch of freedom and that the enemy within of Labour do not come along to steal it!
Goodnight all
You know, as money is cheap.
Then tell us what happens when because of your parties idiotic policies money is no longer cheap, what do we do then?
Sorry you didn't win the playoffs - I wanted Bradford to go up!
Thanks bud.
https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/group_b.ebb77a08-5cd6-4e69-9096-cdc826441491/uk-general-election-seats-markets
Whilst Corbyn brushes up his alt-lefty credentials May is successfully dealing with real matters at the G7.
You underestimate Mrs May's altruism.
Not that I personally see this as desirable. I'd far rather see effective regulation than nationalisation.
Fight! Fight! Fight!