You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
How many angels are dancing on the top of your pin head? lets keep it simple Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
Neither, as far as I can tell - there doesn't seem to have been a vote in the Commons as to whether the GFA should be signed.
But he certainly voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement on the grounds that it wasn;'t a capitulation to the IRA's demands for a united Ireland.
Mr. Corbyn Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.
You might want to ask yourself why you thought he didn't. It might just be that the diet of news and information you consume is not very accurate when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn?
Confused with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, probably. But none of this stuff is the same as supporting terrorism.
How much did outsourcing save/cost British Airway? The GMB union has suggested the BA computer systems failure was "another example of the shortcomings of BA IT systems since they made a number of staff redundant, and outsourced their work to India in 2016." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40075721
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
How many angels are dancing on the top of your pin head? lets keep it simple Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
Neither, as far as I can tell - there doesn't seem to have been a vote in the Commons as to whether the GFA should be signed.
But he certainly voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement on the grounds that it wasn;'t a capitulation to the IRA's demands for a united Ireland.
There was a vote to implement the GFA and Corbyn voted in favour.
You might want to ask yourself why you thought he didn't. It might just be that the diet of news and information you consume is not very accurate when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn?
Not in 1998 he didnt. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was in 1985.
***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY Back the GE turnout to be <63% with Wm. Hill at odds of 6/5 (2.2 decimal)
Invest the same amount, backing the GE turnout to be >63% with betway at the same odds of 6/5 (2.2).
Whichever bet wins, your return is therefore 20% more than your combined stake money ..... not bad over a period of just 12 days and definitely beats working for a living!
As ever, DYOR
Oops sorry, that should read a 10% profit on your combined stake - still not a bad return though for a risk free combination bet.
Good spot! I shall raise a glass of whatever whisky I buy with the winnings in your honour.
You're welcome and good luck .... oops sorry, you don't need any luck!
You can't have as PM someone who proudly voted against every piece of anti-terrorism legislation introduced by Conservative and Labour governments, and who demonstrated against putting Patrick Magee on trial.
Perhaps his intentions were honourable (in which case, he's a naive fool) but it would be like having Lansbury as PM in 1939.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
How many angels are dancing on the top of your pin head? lets keep it simple Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
Neither, as far as I can tell - there doesn't seem to have been a vote in the Commons as to whether the GFA should be signed.
But he certainly voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement on the grounds that it wasn;'t a capitulation to the IRA's demands for a united Ireland.
There was a vote to implement the GFA and Corbyn voted in favour.
This election is proving to be full of surprises. The Lib Dems are not getting the Brexit boost from remainers I thought they would. If anything they are going backwards - a direction whose possibilities I had imagined wrongly that they had already fully exploited.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
How many angels are dancing on the top of your pin head? lets keep it simple Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
Neither, as far as I can tell - there doesn't seem to have been a vote in the Commons as to whether the GFA should be signed.
But he certainly voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement on the grounds that it wasn;'t a capitulation to the IRA's demands for a united Ireland.
Mr. Corbyn Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.
You might want to ask yourself why you thought he didn't. It might just be that the diet of news and information you consume is not very accurate when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn?
Not in 1998 he didnt. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was in 1985.
I think you're getting mixed up. We are talking about the Good Friday Agreement.
HYUFD - "My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a genuine, nice man"
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
I think she knows, hence she said 'but he does not live in the real world' though she sees him as naive rather than evil. I think a lot of mildly Tory women actually quite like Corbyn on a personal level, certainly more than Blair or Brown even though they still probably won't vote for him. May does much better with men than women hence my father's hostility to Corbyn is probably not unrepresentative
I think your mother is correct .My mother thinks the same .If I were the conservatives I would go on the naivety angle rather than the evil .As evil does not resonate .Kinnock fell apart on defence in 87 been interviewed by Frost.Then the right wing media had images of surrender and mockery.He comes across as Sgt Wilson from dad's army rather than some evil person.
Yes it is looking at the detail of what he has actually supported that is key
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
But what do you really think? That he voted against the legislation because he wanted to see more terrorist attacks?
I think it may be reasonable to assume he wanted to see fewer terrorists locked up
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
So what do you think is the natural consequence of locking up less terrorists ?
May signed of for all those Libyans to get passports back and MI5 muppets helped them go back and forth, that worked well did it not.
Anti terrorist legislation has also been used and abused in a number of ways to target legitimate protests. There are many who are cautious of increasing the power of the state to supress dissent.
Opposing Mrs May's plans to control the internet, for example, or opposing the collaboration with torturing regimes, does not mean standing up for terrorism, it means standing up for freedom.
Virtually the entirety of the Conservative Party (presumably including TM) opposed Blairs 2006 Terrorism bill. Are they all traitors and appeasers?
How much did outsourcing save/cost British Airway? The GMB union has suggested the BA computer systems failure was "another example of the shortcomings of BA IT systems since they made a number of staff redundant, and outsourced their work to India in 2016." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40075721
Cheapskates , penny pinching to try and increase profits and influence their massive bonuses. Will be a real ding dong as they try to pin the tail on the donkey who gets the blame.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
How many angels are dancing on the top of your pin head? lets keep it simple Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
Neither, as far as I can tell - there doesn't seem to have been a vote in the Commons as to whether the GFA should be signed.
But he certainly voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement on the grounds that it wasn;'t a capitulation to the IRA's demands for a united Ireland.
There was a vote to implement the GFA and Corbyn voted in favour.
There seems to be a Trump like insistence amongst the Alt-Right in PB to deliberately ignore the fact that Corbyn DID vote in favour of the Good Friday Agreement.
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.
She's the best candidate by miles. I can't think of anyone close. She personally turned around the SCONES. She's a proven winner.
I'm With You: Davidson for '22.
Davidson has got a 15% swing from the SNP with Comres yesterday and a 12.5% swing from the SNP with Yougov in Scotland, May by contrast has got a 2.5% swing from Labour with Comres UK wide and virtually no swing at all with Yougov. Albeit May starts from a much higher base
You are off your rocker, Trump gives more honest numbers than you are peddling. I know you are used to writing fantasy but for god's sake get a grip.
ICM has a lower 7% swing from the SNP but there will clearly be an SNP to Tory swing it is just a question of the size
But what do you really think? That he voted against the legislation because he wanted to see more terrorist attacks?
I think it may be reasonable to assume he wanted to see fewer terrorists locked up
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
So what do you think is the natural consequence of locking up less terrorists ?
May signed of for all those Libyans to get passports back and MI5 muppets helped them go back and forth, that worked well did it not.
Anti terrorist legislation has also been used and abused in a number of ways to target legitimate protests. There are many who are cautious of increasing the power of the state to supress dissent.
Opposing Mrs May's plans to control the internet, for example, or opposing the collaboration with torturing regimes, does not mean standing up for terrorism, it means standing up for freedom.
Virtually the entirety of the Conservative Party (presumably including TM) opposed Blairs 2006 Terrorism bill. Are they all traitors and appeasers?
But what do you really think? That he voted against the legislation because he wanted to see more terrorist attacks?
I think it may be reasonable to assume he wanted to see fewer terrorists locked up
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
So what do you think is the natural consequence of locking up less terrorists ?
May signed of for all those Libyans to get passports back and MI5 muppets helped them go back and forth, that worked well did it not.
Anti terrorist legislation has also been used and abused in a number of ways to target legitimate protests. There are many who are cautious of increasing the power of the state to supress dissent.
Opposing Mrs May's plans to control the internet, for example, or opposing the collaboration with torturing regimes, does not mean standing up for terrorism, it means standing up for freedom.
Virtually the entirety of the Conservative Party (presumably including TM) opposed Blairs 2006 Terrorism bill. Are they all traitors and appeasers?
How much did outsourcing save/cost British Airway? The GMB union has suggested the BA computer systems failure was "another example of the shortcomings of BA IT systems since they made a number of staff redundant, and outsourced their work to India in 2016." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40075721
Cheapskates , penny pinching to try and increase profits and influence their massive bonuses. Will be a real ding dong as they try to pin the tail on the donkey who gets the blame.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Yes please.
Even if he was so inclined he would not do so, because the IRA was a proscribed organisation, and expressing support of a proscribed organisation is an offense under the Terrorism Act (2000) and Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act (2001).
This election is proving to be full of surprises. The Lib Dems are not getting the Brexit boost from remainers I thought they would. If anything they are going backwards - a direction whose possibilities I had imagined wrongly that they had already fully exploited.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Yes please.
There is plenty of evidence that he opposed any form of resistance to the IRA.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
Are you suggesting that SeanT is inconsistent? an extraordinary accusation!
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
I always like a bit of understatement. By the way (my apologies in advance)
"diane abbott jeremy corbyn" ="dreary batty bone mince job"
There seems to be a Trump like insistence amongst the Alt-Right in PB to deliberately ignore the fact that Corbyn DID vote in favour of the Good Friday Agreement.
So did everyone else. Why would he not? What does it prove?
But having wasted some time today looking into two other stories about how "disgusting" Jeremy Corbyn is, which turned out not to be what they seemed, I can't help wondering whether that is entirely accurate and fair. Are those words "show solidarity ..." a quotation from Corbyn, as you seem to imply? I don't think they are. If they aren't, how do you know why he was there or what he was trying to do? Did Corbyn call it a "show trial"? I looked at an online report in the Times, and although that phrase was in quotation marks, it was very difficult to tell where it came from. Not from Corbyn, I suspect.
In response to this story, Corbyn's spokesperson said he was lobbying for a fair trial. Some people may think the idea that alleged terrorists wouldn't get a fair trial is ridiculous and "disgusting". But is it really, viewed in the context of the serious miscarriages of justice that are known to have taken place?
I don't understand why, if Corbyn really expressed clear support for terrorism in his speeches, those speeches can't just be quoted, and then there would be no question about it.
Try this quiz. Who said these various quotes, Jeremy Corbyn's Stop the War Coalition, or ISIS?
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
I really don't give a fuck what you think. If you want to support this nasty, querulous, IRA-loving, terrorist-appeasing old fool, go ahead, knock yourself out. Endex.
I
Sean, flapping again, two weeks in a row, how much trouble are the Tories in.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
Are you suggesting that SeanT is inconsistent? an extraordinary accusation!
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
This election is proving to be full of surprises. The Lib Dems are not getting the Brexit boost from remainers I thought they would. If anything they are going backwards - a direction whose possibilities I had imagined wrongly that they had already fully exploited.
I'm sad that Labour probably won't get the scale of wipeout they deserve, but the tantalising prospect of the Lib Dems actually losing seats does a lot to make up for it.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Yes please.
Ah, so you are trolling. I thought so.
Thanks, Edmund!
Not at all. I just think if people are going to accuse Corbyn of supporting terrorism, they need to produce some clear evidence that he did.
It's telling that you find the suggestion so ridiculous.
Apparently a third. yes a third US carrier group is either on the way or already on station in the North Korean region. Lots of chat on the internet, you tube etc re imminent war.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
Are you suggesting that SeanT is inconsistent? an extraordinary accusation!
Pure fantasy.
sean is consistent in his inconsistency
Nevertheless he deserves a small piece of chicken whenever he posts anything that isn't another brainless rant against Muslims.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Yes please.
Ah, so you are trolling. I thought so.
Thanks, Edmund!
Not at all. I just think if people are going to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, they need to produce some clear evidence that he did.
It's telling that you find the suggestion so ridiculous.
If you see a small waterfowl waddling past and quacking, do you call it an elephant ?
Apparently a third. yes a third US carrier group is either on the way or already on station in the North Korean region. Lots of chat on the internet, you tube etc re imminent war.
Presumably Corbynites will be tweeting that May has got her mate Trump to start a war in the middle of the GE campaign to distract from her crap manifesto.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
Are you suggesting that SeanT is inconsistent? an extraordinary accusation!
Pure fantasy.
sean is consistent in his inconsistency
Nevertheless he deserves a small piece of chicken whenever he posts anything that isn't another brainless rant against Muslims.
Yes David Davis and Shami Chakrabati were glued at the hip for many a year.Many conservatives also opposed control orders.,I bet many would agree with them now if they were brought in again.
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
Well, it's a lorra people, and current indications are 36% of everybody are considering voting for Corbynite Labour. I mean, yes under-18s, yes international viewers, yes me, but some of it must be hitting its target.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
Are you suggesting that SeanT is inconsistent? an extraordinary accusation!
Pure fantasy.
sean is consistent in his inconsistency
Nevertheless he deserves a small piece of chicken whenever he posts anything that isn't another brainless rant against Muslims.
Ah - diversity of view is bad then ?
Diversity of thoughtfulness, definitely. Ignorant bigotry, not so much.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Yes please.
Ah, so you are trolling. I thought so.
Thanks, Edmund!
Not at all. I just think if people are going to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, they need to produce some clear evidence that he did.
It's telling that you find the suggestion so ridiculous.
If you see a small waterfowl waddling past and quacking, do you call it an elephant ?
You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that he ever supported the IRA or even spoke about it.
Supporting the unity of Ireland is not endorsing violence. I support the independence of Scotland.
In any case, ironically, Brexit has brought forward the re-unification of Ireland. And Northern Ireland will not have to wait in the queue to join the EU.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Yes please.
Ah, so you are trolling. I thought so.
Thanks, Edmund!
Not at all. I just think if people are going to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, they need to produce some clear evidence that he did.
It's telling that you find the suggestion so ridiculous.
If you see a small waterfowl waddling past and quacking, do you call it an elephant ?
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
Are you suggesting that SeanT is inconsistent? an extraordinary accusation!
Pure fantasy.
sean is consistent in his inconsistency
Nevertheless he deserves a small piece of chicken whenever he posts anything that isn't another brainless rant against Muslims.
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
After watching the video then clearly I am totally misguided in voting for Hilary Benn.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
I don't think anyone is ever swayed by a single thing (well, rarely, at any rate). It's more about cumulative impact, which is one reason I think such attacks are priced in already, although it at least has been watched more than most such things.
There seems to be a Trump like insistence amongst the Alt-Right in PB to deliberately ignore the fact that Corbyn DID vote in favour of the Good Friday Agreement.
So did everyone else. Why would he not? What does it prove?
My brother was a Labour member before he left when Corbyn got voted in. If you live somewhere that the IRA has bombed, if you know neighbours who were injured, and regularly see the parents of those killed it puts Corbyn's views in a different light. Now it has been on here for long enough that his sympathetic views towards terrorists might pose a risk to his suitability to lead the country. It was discussed by labour members during leadership contest. It's not really a right wing conspiracy but genuine concern. Surely Corbyn has had time enough to come up with a message that would work better than the current messaging.
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
You see? You can't bring yourself to say he wanted more terrorist attacks! It's just too silly. :-)
That isn't the question.
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
No, sorry, we did that in the other thread earlier. Wanting a united Ireland isn't the same as supporting terrorism.
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Are you seriously expecting people to find a direct quote of Corbyn saying "I support the IRA"?
Yes please.
Ah, so you are trolling. I thought so.
Thanks, Edmund!
Not at all. I just think if people are going to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, they need to produce some clear evidence that he did.
It's telling that you find the suggestion so ridiculous.
If you see a small waterfowl waddling past and quacking, do you call it an elephant ?
You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that he ever supported the IRA or even spoke about it.
Supporting the unity of Ireland is not endorsing violence. I support the independence of Scotland.
In any case, ironically, Brexit has brought forward the re-unification of Ireland. And Northern Ireland will not have to wait in the queue to join the EU.
A very fine line between honouring and supporting, apparently
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
It's what we've been hearing for weeks. Not reflected in any way by polling, which is an interesting occurrence.
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
After watching the video then clearly I am totally misguided in voting for Hilary Benn.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
I don't think anyone is ever swayed by a single thing (well, rarely, at any rate). It's more about cumulative impact, which is one reason I think such attacks are priced in already, although it at least has been watched more than most such things.
It's more about ensuring that the 43-46% turn out for the Tories.
Supporting the unity of Ireland is not endorsing violence.
Agreed. However, supporting the Republican movement that tried to bomb Britain into submission (Sinn Fein/IRA) rather than the one that tried to win the argument peacefully and democratically (SDLP) categorically is endorsing violence.
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
After watching the video then clearly I am totally misguided in voting for Hilary Benn.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
I don't think anyone is ever swayed by a single thing (well, rarely, at any rate). It's more about cumulative impact, which is one reason I think such attacks are priced in already, although it at least has been watched more than most such things.
It's more about ensuring that the 43-46% turn out for the Tories.
I'm only half-joking, but one wonders whether Theresa May might have done much better to just promise the voters nothing more than blood, tears, toil and sweat.
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
It's what we've been hearing for weeks. Not reflected in any way by polling, which is an interesting occurrence.
I believe that it is reflected in the polling. It's a big driver of the Conservative vote share.
Supporting the unity of Ireland is not endorsing violence.
Agreed. However, supporting the Republican movement that tried to bomb Britain into submission (Sinn Fein/IRA) rather than the one that tried to win the argument peacefully and democratically (SDLP) categorically is endorsing violence.
HYUFD - "My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a genuine, nice man"
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
I think she knows, hence she said 'but he does not live in the real world' though she sees him as naive rather than evil. I think a lot of mildly Tory women actually quite like Corbyn on a personal level, certainly more than Blair or Brown even though they still probably won't vote for him. May does much better with men than women hence my father's hostility to Corbyn is probably not unrepresentative
I think your mother is correct .My mother thinks the same .If I were the conservatives I would go on the naivety angle rather than the evil .As evil does not resonate
It's the struggle between choosing the 'useless' vs 'dangerous' attack lines. Now, the argument might be he is so useless he is dangerous, but that's harder to sell, and he does sound reasonable a lot of the time, so the 'evil' attacks are harder to make stick. Naivety seems an easier sell, without making people uncomfortable that the attack is going too far.
Yes but mockery hurts look at May when she tells us she had not u turned and everyone present laughs as it is a straight line.Even Peston was mocking Fallon today over saying he a greed with Boris comments but did not when the same comment was uttered by Corbyn risible.
HYUFD - "My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a genuine, nice man"
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
I think she knows, hence she said 'but he does not live in the real world' though she sees him as naive rather than evil. I think a lot of mildly Tory women actually quite like Corbyn on a personal level, certainly more than Blair or Brown even though they still probably won't vote for him. May does much better with men than women hence my father's hostility to Corbyn is probably not unrepresentative
I think your mother is correct .My mother thinks the same .If I were the conservatives I would go on the naivety angle rather than the evil .As evil does not resonate
It's the struggle between choosing the 'useless' vs 'dangerous' attack lines. Now, the argument might be he is so useless he is dangerous, but that's harder to sell, and he does sound reasonable a lot of the time, so the 'evil' attacks are harder to make stick. Naivety seems an easier sell, without making people uncomfortable that the attack is going too far.
Yes but mockery hurts look at May when she tells us she had not u turned and everyone present laughs as it is a straight line.Even Peston was mocking Fallon today over saying he a greed with Boris comments but did not when the same comment was uttered by Corbyn risible.
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
After watching the video then clearly I am totally misguided in voting for Hilary Benn.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
I don't think anyone is ever swayed by a single thing (well, rarely, at any rate). It's more about cumulative impact, which is one reason I think such attacks are priced in already, although it at least has been watched more than most such things.
It's more about ensuring that the 43-46% turn out for the Tories.
I'm only half-joking, but one wonders whether Theresa May might have done much better to just promise the voters nothing more than blood, tears, toil and sweat.
That pitch was queered by Dave n George in 2010 - we are all in this together, sunlit uplands etc.
It's a brilliant video, one of the best political ads I've ever seen. Ruthlessly simple and powerful. It's not got 2m views, and rising. This ain't good for The Jezbollah
I quite liked a Tory PEB in 2015 showing an image of a mechanical clock, and a voice over about how things were getting fixed, don't let Labour wreck it, followed by the clock being smashed. And though I quite liked Cameron, him then showing up for an extra minute of waffle somewhat diminished the simple effectiveness of it for me.
It had nothing on the fantastic Green Party musical showpiece PEB though. Loved that one.
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
If that's true, then the Labour brand is just as strong as it's ever been and Theresa May has merely united the Right, rather than chiselling lumps off Labour for good, and Labour's present predicament is largely down to their leader alone.
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
After watching the video then clearly I am totally misguided in voting for Hilary Benn.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
I don't think anyone is ever swayed by a single thing (well, rarely, at any rate). It's more about cumulative impact, which is one reason I think such attacks are priced in already, although it at least has been watched more than most such things.
It's more about ensuring that the 43-46% turn out for the Tories.
I'm only half-joking, but one wonders whether Theresa May might have done much better to just promise the voters nothing more than blood, tears, toil and sweat.
She could have had a bigger majority with that, but no actual mandate to do anything in particular.
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
If that's true, then the Labour brand is just as strong as it's ever been and Theresa May has merely united the Right, rather than chiselling lumps off Labour for good, and Labour's present predicament is largely down to their leader alone.
Given the Labour rise, that does seem plausible. The Tories had dreams of conquering in places they have rarely or never competed in before, but that may be more difficult than thought as the brand of Labour is it turns out too strong. Though I do think Corbyn has turned out less of a turnoff than people think, even as there are too many anecdotal examples to suggest he doesn't turn off anyone.
It's a brilliant video, one of the best political ads I've ever seen. Ruthlessly simple and powerful. It's not got 2m views, and rising. This ain't good for The Jezbollah
I quite liked a Tory PEB in 2015 showing an image of a mechanical clock, and a voice over about how things were getting fixed, don't let Labour wreck it, followed by the clock being smashed. And though I quite liked Cameron, him then showing up for an extra minute of waffle somewhat diminished the simple effectiveness of it for me.
It had nothing on the fantastic Green Party musical showpiece PEB though. Loved that one.
And the famous Bailey Green Party ad from 1980s - where kids get buckets of "pollution" thrown over them.
So, I just got back from a lovely 10-day holiday in northern Portugal.
Did I miss anything?
A lot of bedwetting as Labour get within 5 points of the Tories (myself included in the wetting).
Ah. Well, that was bound to happen sooner or later. Elections campaigns are unpredictable.
But I can't deny having had several 'WTF?' moments as I caught up on the news today.
You may have also missed 'Mrs May, house snatcher'.
She is after Granny's house.
That was just breaking as I left, and I confess that took me rather by surprise - not to mention its massive political effect.
I expected the double-lock and means-testing of the WFA to be the controversial bits of the manifesto. There's also plenty of other stuff in the Tory manifesto that has largely escaped comment.
HYUFD - "My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a genuine, nice man"
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
I think she knows, hence she said 'but he does not live in the real world' though she sees him as naive rather than evil. I think a lot of mildly Tory women actually quite like Corbyn on a personal level, certainly more than Blair or Brown even though they still probably won't vote for him. May does much better with men than women hence my father's hostility to Corbyn is probably not unrepresentative
I think your mother is correct .My mother thinks the same .If I were the conservatives I would go on the naivety angle rather than the evil .As evil does not resonate
It's the struggle between choosing the 'useless' vs 'dangerous' attack lines. Now, the argument might be he is so useless he is dangerous, but that's harder to sell, and he does sound reasonable a lot of the time, so the 'evil' attacks are harder to make stick. Naivety seems an easier sell, without making people uncomfortable that the attack is going too far.
Yes but mockery hurts look at May when she tells us she had not u turned and everyone present laughs as it is a straight line.Even Peston was mocking Fallon today over saying he a greed with Boris comments but did not when the same comment was uttered by Corbyn risible.
Oh, mockery is very powerful indeed. The LDs have struggled to recover for that very reason, they are not taken seriously.
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
If that's true, then the Labour brand is just as strong as it's ever been and Theresa May has merely united the Right, rather than chiselling lumps off Labour for good, and Labour's present predicament is largely down to their leader alone.
Given the Labour rise, that does seem plausible. The Tories had dreams of conquering in places they have rarely or never competed in before, but that may be more difficult than thought as the brand of Labour is it turns out too strong. Though I do think Corbyn has turned out less of a turnoff than people think, even as there are too many anecdotal examples to suggest he doesn't turn off anyone.
It appears that the doorstep anecdotes have become fewer and fewer !!
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
After watching the video then clearly I am totally misguided in voting for Hilary Benn.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
I don't think anyone is ever swayed by a single thing (well, rarely, at any rate). It's more about cumulative impact, which is one reason I think such attacks are priced in already, although it at least has been watched more than most such things.
It's more about ensuring that the 43-46% turn out for the Tories.
I'm only half-joking, but one wonders whether Theresa May might have done much better to just promise the voters nothing more than blood, tears, toil and sweat.
She could have had a bigger majority with that, but no actual mandate to do anything in particular.
She could have done it with exactly the same manifesto she has now.
The next five years will be tough, and - strange as it may seem - we'd have liked hearing it.
There's nothing the British like more than feeling stoic under menacing clouds with a strong leader.
So, I just got back from a lovely 10-day holiday in northern Portugal.
Did I miss anything?
A lot of bedwetting as Labour get within 5 points of the Tories (myself included in the wetting).
Ah. Well, that was bound to happen sooner or later. Elections campaigns are unpredictable.
But I can't deny having had several 'WTF?' moments as I caught up on the news today.
You may have also missed 'Mrs May, house snatcher'.
She is after Granny's house.
That was just breaking as I left, and I confess that took me rather by surprise - not to mention its massive political effect.
I expected the double-lock and means-testing of the WFA to be the controversial bits of the manifesto. There's also plenty of other stuff in the Tory manifesto that has largely escaped comment.
Yes - moving to FPTP for PCC and Mayoral elections!
Not sure about this bit.
Boards should take account of the interests not just of shareholders but employees, suppliers and the wider community. To ensure employees’ interests are represented at board level, we will change the law to ensure that listed companies will be required either to nominate a director from the workforce, create a formal employee advisory council or assign specifc responsibility for employee representation to a designated non-executive director. Subject to sensible safeguards, we will introduce, for employees, a right to request information relating to the future direction of the company
How much did outsourcing save/cost British Airway? The GMB union has suggested the BA computer systems failure was "another example of the shortcomings of BA IT systems since they made a number of staff redundant, and outsourced their work to India in 2016." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40075721
Cheapskates , penny pinching to try and increase profits and influence their massive bonuses. Will be a real ding dong as they try to pin the tail on the donkey who gets the blame.
Roll on Eckageddon
pay up
You are heading for Sean terrtory Alan, Tory fanboy hsteria
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
If that's true, then the Labour brand is just as strong as it's ever been and Theresa May has merely united the Right, rather than chiselling lumps off Labour for good, and Labour's present predicament is largely down to their leader alone.
Given the Labour rise, that does seem plausible. The Tories had dreams of conquering in places they have rarely or never competed in before, but that may be more difficult than thought as the brand of Labour is it turns out too strong. Though I do think Corbyn has turned out less of a turnoff than people think, even as there are too many anecdotal examples to suggest he doesn't turn off anyone.
It appears that the doorstep anecdotes have become fewer and fewer !!
I've not seen this decline. The usual suspects are still reporting in.
Well maybe, although why would you assume for sure that anyone who was considering voting for Corbynite Labour is among those watching it?
After watching the video then clearly I am totally misguided in voting for Hilary Benn.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
Montage, not pastiche.
I note you say "Hilary Benn", not "Corbynite Labour".
I stand corrected. Every day is a school day on PB.
I'll be voting in Leeds Central. HB is my Labour candidate. He's standing on the Labour manifesto. I support both my candidate and my party's manifesto. I think HB ought to be our party leader. And I don't think any Labour, Conservative or LibDem candidates support any terrorist organisations.
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
If that's true, then the Labour brand is just as strong as it's ever been and Theresa May has merely united the Right, rather than chiselling lumps off Labour for good, and Labour's present predicament is largely down to their leader alone.
Given the Labour rise, that does seem plausible. The Tories had dreams of conquering in places they have rarely or never competed in before, but that may be more difficult than thought as the brand of Labour is it turns out too strong. Though I do think Corbyn has turned out less of a turnoff than people think, even as there are too many anecdotal examples to suggest he doesn't turn off anyone.
It appears that the doorstep anecdotes have become fewer and fewer !!
Yes, in the past week or so they have really dried up, what a coincidence!
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
If that's true, then the Labour brand is just as strong as it's ever been and Theresa May has merely united the Right, rather than chiselling lumps off Labour for good, and Labour's present predicament is largely down to their leader alone.
Given the Labour rise, that does seem plausible. The Tories had dreams of conquering in places they have rarely or never competed in before, but that may be more difficult than thought as the brand of Labour is it turns out too strong. Though I do think Corbyn has turned out less of a turnoff than people think, even as there are too many anecdotal examples to suggest he doesn't turn off anyone.
I'd say about half the voters are horrified by Corbyn, and the Tories are getting the vast majority of them, about a quarter are enthused by him, and about 10% are voting Labour despite him.
Comments
Obviously the strategy is to find something that Corbyn did support, which people can be hoodwinked into thinking is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism. The more people do that, the more obvious it is that they can't point to any actual expression of support by Corbyn for terrorism.
Mr. Corbyn Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAUdupZlzwo&feature=youtu.be
The GMB union has suggested the BA computer systems failure was "another example of the shortcomings of BA IT systems since they made a number of staff redundant, and outsourced their work to India in 2016."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40075721
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1998-07-20&number=340&mpn=Jeremy_Corbyn&mpc=Islington_North&house=commons
Perhaps his intentions were honourable (in which case, he's a naive fool) but it would be like having Lansbury as PM in 1939.
Opposing Mrs May's plans to control the internet, for example, or opposing the collaboration with torturing regimes, does not mean standing up for terrorism, it means standing up for freedom.
Virtually the entirety of the Conservative Party (presumably including TM) opposed Blairs 2006 Terrorism bill. Are they all traitors and appeasers?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm
pay up
Thanks, Edmund!
By the way (my apologies in advance)
"diane abbott jeremy corbyn" ="dreary batty bone mince job"
I wonder what that means.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/27/trump-jared-kushner-secret-channel-russia
It's telling that you find the suggestion so ridiculous.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/
Ah - diversity of view is bad then ?
Yes David Davis and Shami Chakrabati were glued at the hip for many a year.Many conservatives also opposed control orders.,I bet many would agree with them now if they were brought in again.
Supporting the unity of Ireland is not endorsing violence. I support the independence of Scotland.
In any case, ironically, Brexit has brought forward the re-unification of Ireland. And Northern Ireland will not have to wait in the queue to join the EU.
Honestly, if anyone is swayed by that pastiche I'd like to sell them Tower Bridge.
I've been canvassing for the past two days in Sundon Park, a split Labour/Lib. Dem ward. Corbyn is being raised unprompted on the doorsteps, and not in ways that are complimentary. There's a by-election for the council, and several people have emphasised that they'll vote Labour locally, but can't support them nationally.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/night-jeremy-corbyn-stood-in-honour-of-dead-ira-terrorists-1-7008757
Did I miss anything?
I note you say "Hilary Benn", not "Corbynite Labour".
But I can't deny having had several 'WTF?' moments as I caught up on the news today.
She is after Granny's house.
It had nothing on the fantastic Green Party musical showpiece PEB though. Loved that one.
I expected the double-lock and means-testing of the WFA to be the controversial bits of the manifesto. There's also plenty of other stuff in the Tory manifesto that has largely escaped comment.
Solar power creates new record
I am still bloody angry about it - better not be any Tory canvassers knocking on my door this evening.
The next five years will be tough, and - strange as it may seem - we'd have liked hearing it.
There's nothing the British like more than feeling stoic under menacing clouds with a strong leader.
Not sure about this bit.
Boards should take account of the interests not just of shareholders but employees,
suppliers and the wider community. To ensure employees’ interests are represented at
board level, we will change the law to ensure that listed companies will be required either
to nominate a director from the workforce, create a formal employee advisory council or
assign specifc responsibility for employee representation to a designated non-executive
director. Subject to sensible safeguards, we will introduce, for employees, a right to
request information relating to the future direction of the company
I'll be voting in Leeds Central. HB is my Labour candidate. He's standing on the Labour manifesto. I support both my candidate and my party's manifesto. I think HB ought to be our party leader. And I don't think any Labour, Conservative or LibDem candidates support any terrorist organisations.