Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Review : 2015 – 2017 Parliament

145679

Comments

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    He didn't say that. He said that he talked to representatives of the Republican movement. Different.
    I am not sure the issue matters anywhere near as much as the Tories hope it would but on a basic point of accuracy he is lying through his back teeth.
    I've said for ages it is priced in, older voters remember it, but they generally vote Tory.

    Younger voters have seen the likes of Martin McGuinness meet The Queen, so it's not an issue.
    People just don't believe Jezza has it in him to be cheerleading terrorists on. It just goes against their idea of him as a cuddly harmless granddad.

    Where he's much more vulnerable is the idea that he's naive -- that he thinks we can all just hug it out and then terrorists or enemy states won't want to do bad things anymore. Which is why Trident is so potentially damaging.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 833
    Schards said:

    May - 6/10

    Corbyn - 4/10

    Corbyn catastrophic on Nuclear Weapons, if he stood for decommissioning trident that would be defensible but incurring all the cost and not being prepared to use it is the worst of all worlds

    lol it's not a deterrent if the enemy knows you will never use it.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,690

    Danny565 said:

    An alternative version of Corbyn who supported Trident and was a bit more immigration-sceptic would be romping home with a 100-seat majority.

    Yep

    Sad but true why couldnt he lie just a little bit and say potentially there were circumstances where he would push the fookin button.

    May does it in every answer
    In practice, neither of them would press it (unless they are psychopaths and I don't think either of them are).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,488
    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Trident is the biggest waste of public money. £70bn-£100bn depending on who you listen too. The fact that 51% of the population apparently support it is shows blackmail works.

    Well why didn't the Labour mainfesto vow to scrap it then.
    With a nuclear defense system you're a target and whoever is in charge needs to be prepared to use it.
    200 nations do not have nuclear weapons. Have they been annihilated ? You are right. We could be a target because we have nuclear weapons.
    I wonder if Japan would have been targeted had they had nuclear weapons.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,911
    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JGForsyth: Corbyn just said that businesses were doing well because of the corporation tax cuts. But that's the point--leads to more tax revenue & jobs

    Rightwingers seriously claim that lowering tax rates means you get more tax revenue, yet they accuse the Left of lacking arithmetical skills.
    Lowering Corporation Tax led to a much wider tax base with more companies establishing themselves in the UK and led to a very big increase in the tax take. There is a good article in the FT on it. The actual increase in CT in 2016 24% but they only ascribe about half of that to the decrease in the rate.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283
    jonny83 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    I am sure I read articles saying he played no part in the peace process.
    It's a sick joke to suggest he was involved in peace process.

    John Owls is probably screaming "liar liar" at him.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,028
    'I didn't know Jeremy Corbyn dislikes nuclear weapons. I'd never have imagined it possible. I'd better change my vote.'

    ..Things people never say #456
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    chloe said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn says his corporation tax rate would be lower than any of the major western European nations, certainly not Ireland though

    Not great when we are leaving the EU and want to remain competitive. We need companies and jobs to stay.
    Exactly
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,488
    Floater said:

    jonny83 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    I am sure I read articles saying he played no part in the peace process.
    It's a sick joke to suggest he was involved in peace process.

    John Owls is probably screaming "liar liar" at him.
    Cheers for the laugh!
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,667
    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JGForsyth: Corbyn just said that businesses were doing well because of the corporation tax cuts. But that's the point--leads to more tax revenue & jobs

    Rightwingers seriously claim that lowering tax rates means you get more tax revenue, yet they accuse the Left of lacking arithmetical skills.
    I don't believe in trickle down economics, but Corbyn cannot seriously pay for every free owl by only raising corporation tax and 'tax on the rich.'

    Post-2008 neither the right nor the left have the answers on the economy.
  • ScarfNZScarfNZ Posts: 29
    Interesting leaders debate. I conclude the UK is pretty much #$%^ed with either of them!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    IanB2 said:

    GeoffM said:

    llef said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    A majority back nuclear weapons though, whether Trident or not and it also plays into the weak on national security narrative
    foxinsoxuk - so are you saying that 51% of Britons are warmongers then?
    I think he's saying that 49% of the population are idiots.

    Statistically, he's right.
    At least that's a downward trend?
    No, its up from 48% as recorded in the last nationwide vote on stupidity.
  • TMA1TMA1 Posts: 225

    Danny565 said:

    An alternative version of Corbyn who supported Trident and was a bit more immigration-sceptic would be romping home with a 100-seat majority.

    And remove the whole IRA backstory from him, Abbott, and McDonnell and you'd be right.
    Abbott and McDonnell .... Abbott and Costello more like. '... meet the deficit'
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 13,826
    If I am being completely honest

    I would go for

    May 5/10

    Corbyn 3/10
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,541
    edited June 2017
    ELECTORATE DATA - Link below

    Data available for 100 seats

    7 seats - up more than 5%
    13 seats - up between 3% and 5%
    62 seats - up between 0% and 3%
    18 seats - down

    If these seats are representative, this looks good for Con - no sign of any widespread significant increase in the electorate.

    NB. Electorate should rise a bit anyway just to stand still with ageing population.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/exclusive-newly-registered-voters-focused-on-student-seats

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    Did he talk to Ian Paisley? Or even the SDLP?
    Good point
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 18,093
    edited June 2017

    Point of order boys and girls. What you and I think isn't always what normal punters think.

    My partner not impressed by either. Says neither are suited to be PM, May because she seems incompetent and Corbyn because he can't keep the country safe. Would abstain on the night (not that she can vote anyway).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    But he rewrites history and is getting away with it but when the alternative is no better with no prospect for the future then maybe it's time to change the voting system to allow a wider view of alternatives
    Like Nuttall, Farron, Lucas and Sturgeon
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283
    TMA1 said:

    Floater said:

    nichomar said:

    He's just lost the election by no first use of nuclear weapons, it's not credible that you would only retaliate once we had been attacked.

    He would not use them at all - well, maybe on the Americans......
    Triple the left wingery of this labour manifesto (and the borrowing) and that is what you woukd get under Corbyn.

    Trident is about our place in the world. Is it serious that we give it up (and we would under Corbyn) while France keeps their missiles?
    Corbyn actually WANTS Britain to be diminished in thecworld. He WANTS the West weakened.
    Anyone who thinks otherwise is a total brsinless idiot.
    John, you listening?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2017
    MikeL said:

    ELECTORATE DATA - Link below

    Data available for 100 seats

    7 seats - up more than 5%
    13 seats - up between 3% and 5%
    80 seats - up less than 3%, or down

    If these seats are representative, this looks good for Con - no sign of any widespread significant increase in the electorate.

    NB. Electorate should rise a bit anyway just to stand still with ageing population.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/exclusive-newly-registered-voters-focused-on-student-seats

    "However, many of the seats seeing the largest rises are already safe, including the student-heavy Leeds Central, Sheffield Central, Manchester Central and Liverpool Riverside, which have added a combined 22,663 voters since the 2015 election.

    This may fuel concerns that Labour's young vote is mostly concentrated in existing safe Labour seats."
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283
    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    Which is utter, utter bollocks
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,641

    Right, I missed almost all of it.

    How badly has May fucked it, or are we still alive?

    May 6 out of 10, no fuck ups.

    Corbyn has well and truly fucked up over defence/Trident.

    He's been as bad as we thought he'd be in 2015.
    I so hope you're right.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,667
    MaxPB said:

    Point of order boys and girls. What you and I think isn't always what normal punters think.

    My partner not impressed by either. Says neither are suited to be PM, May because she seems incompetent and Corbyn because he can't keep the country safe. Would abstain on the night (not that she can vote anyway).
    She's 150% right.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283
    chloe said:

    Why won't he condem the IRA?

    You need to ask?
  • Does having the election when students are dispersed back around to their home towns, not centred in the university cities make a significant difference to how the Corbyn support will vote?
  • TravelJunkieTravelJunkie Posts: 431
    7 people watched the debate.

    2 think may 5 corbyn. 4 tory voters, 1 ld, 1 ukip, 1 lab

    big debates
    corbyn - hes man enough not to say he could never kill millions of people.
    may - please find someone new. boris gove or even rees mogg got mentioned
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,911

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Not true. The French have them to. The rest of Europe relies upon ourselves, the French and the US to provide the deterrent.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 31,557
    Danny565 said:

    My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.

    This is going to be big issue on the broadcast media all tomorrow and in the sundays. His failure on nuclear is a big moment
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    jonny83 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    I am sure I read articles saying he played no part in the peace process.
    He actually opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was one of the important stepping stones to the Good Friday Agreement. He opposed peace on any terms except a unified Ireland.
    The Good Friday Agreement did not result in a unified Ireland yet Corbyn supported it, so the last part of your comment cannot be true. Corbyn did oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as did many unionists and some Conservatives. Really this is only an issue because early on, some Tories muddled up the two agreements and believed Corbyn voted against the GFA.
  • TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,541
    No mention of North Korea on BBC1 10pm news edit.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 18,093

    woody662 said:

    Business is doing well, lets tax them more so they don't. Great economic policy.

    And all the companies that were here in 2010 when Corporation Tax was 28% will flee when it's 26% in 2020...
    When they've been paying 18%, it seems likely.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyan said:

    A fairer society for all....except Jewish people.

    That is not what he said. He described the Holocaust as the biggest stain on human history.
    There is a difference between words and actions.
    Questions and answers are about words.
    The line that Ken Livingstone is anti-Semitic is made-up, dishonest, disingenuous garbage and hardly anybody gives a crap about it.

    So, just to be clear, you say both that the claim that Livingstone is anti-semitic is unfounded (even though his own party suspended him for it), and that hardly anybody cares anyway. Is that because nobody cares about racism, or because anti-semitism is markedly less serious than other forms of racism, or for some other reason?
    Most realise the allegations are made by specious liars who are themselves racist.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    edited June 2017
    May comes across as quite honest and saying it as it is on BBC news clips even what she says is not always popular eg she will invest more in the NHS but there is 'no magic money tree'
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Nice line from Victoria Coren on HIGNFY re Jezza and Jewish jokes
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,108
    ScarfNZ said:

    Interesting leaders debate. I conclude the UK is pretty much #$%^ed with either of them!

    Quite
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,641
    PeterC said:

    Right, I missed almost all of it.

    How badly has May fucked it, or are we still alive?

    Slightly better than average.
    ta
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655
    As a Lancastrian by birth, it is unusual for me to be thinking so kindly of the good folk of Yorkshire as I am just at the mo.

    Toby Young's take:


    "Fears that this would be the usual, predominantly left-wing Question Time audience proved to be unfounded. Is that because it was broadcast from Yorkshire, where more jobs were created last year than in the whole of France?
    To be fair, there are always Tories in the QT audience, but they usually get drowned out by the more outspoken, virtue-signalling lefties. Not this time."

    The catch is, that was Toby Young on 30 April 2015. QT and Yorkshire save the day again.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,667
    On defence, neither party are great. Corbyn's stance on Trident is problematic, but the Tories have been cutting defence during their seven years in government.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 31,557

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
    If it is a no strike weapon why haven't labour scrapped it
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,488

    On defence, neither party are great. Corbyn's stance on Trident is problematic, but the Tories have been cutting defence during their seven years in government.

    I thought defence was ring-fenced? Could be mistaken though!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Cyan said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyan said:

    A fairer society for all....except Jewish people.

    That is not what he said. He described the Holocaust as the biggest stain on human history.
    There is a difference between words and actions.
    Questions and answers are about words.
    The line that Ken Livingstone is anti-Semitic is made-up, dishonest, disingenuous garbage and hardly anybody gives a crap about it.

    So, just to be clear, you say both that the claim that Livingstone is anti-semitic is unfounded (even though his own party suspended him for it), and that hardly anybody cares anyway. Is that because nobody cares about racism, or because anti-semitism is markedly less serious than other forms of racism, or for some other reason?
    Most realise the allegations are made by specious liars who are themselves racist.

    That is wrong. The party's NEC has sanctioned members for antisemitism.
  • glwglw Posts: 6,044

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.

    That's wrong.

    France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,641
    Watching this on the news.

    Why don't we just let good Yorkshire folk run the country?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
    Trident is nothing but a giant military industrial complex psychological blackmail. You do not need trident to maintain nuclear capability.

    The rest of the world also goes to sleep at night without having trident to defend them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    edited June 2017
    Clips on Corbyn on his tax and spend policies and his promise to tax the rich more to invest in the public services and on his nuclear weapons refusal and repeats his commitment not to use a nuclear weapon but focus on global disarmament while the guy in the audience asks how he will stop N Korea and Iran
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 18,093

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
    A coastal force plus 4 nuclear capable subs. Which keeps us safe.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283

    Cyan said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyan said:

    A fairer society for all....except Jewish people.

    That is not what he said. He described the Holocaust as the biggest stain on human history.
    There is a difference between words and actions.
    Questions and answers are about words.
    The line that Ken Livingstone is anti-Semitic is made-up, dishonest, disingenuous garbage and hardly anybody gives a crap about it.

    So, just to be clear, you say both that the claim that Livingstone is anti-semitic is unfounded (even though his own party suspended him for it), and that hardly anybody cares anyway. Is that because nobody cares about racism, or because anti-semitism is markedly less serious than other forms of racism, or for some other reason?
    Most realise the allegations are made by specious liars who are themselves racist.

    That is wrong. The party's NEC has sanctioned members for antisemitism.
    Then they let them back in when no one looking

    BTW Doc - this person is a troll - do not feed.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,488

    Watching this on the news.

    Why don't we just let good Yorkshire folk run the country?

    They had their chance in 2001 :p
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    BBC News quite kind to Corbyn there with their clips tbh.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,641
    Jonathan said:

    'I didn't know Jeremy Corbyn dislikes nuclear weapons. I'd never have imagined it possible. I'd better change my vote.'

    ..Things people never say #456

    I said the same thing to you about foxhunting.

    This is more serious than foxhunting.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 13,826
    BBC News being quite kind so far but here comes Laura K
  • TMA1TMA1 Posts: 225
    HYUFD said:

    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    Did he talk to Ian Paisley? Or even the SDLP?
    Good point
    I make lots of good points.☺
    I repeat, you can triple the leftiness of Cotbyns manifesto if you give him a chance.
    He is a loony lefty, anti capitalist, anti West/Nato, terrorist appeasing barsteward. But let's be honest we all KNOW that don't we.
  • Watching this on the news.

    Why don't we just let good Yorkshire folk run the country?

    See, I'd be a great Directly Elected Dictator of the United Kingdom.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 18,093
    glw said:

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.

    That's wrong.

    France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
    France have an air delivered nuclear deterrent, much cheaper than ours iirc.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2017
    Laura Kuenssberg probably about to get a lot more flak on Twitter from Corbynistas.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655
    Cyan said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyan said:

    A fairer society for all....except Jewish people.

    That is not what he said. He described the Holocaust as the biggest stain on human history.
    There is a difference between words and actions.
    Questions and answers are about words.
    The line that Ken Livingstone is anti-Semitic is made-up, dishonest, disingenuous garbage and hardly anybody gives a crap about it.

    So, just to be clear, you say both that the claim that Livingstone is anti-semitic is unfounded (even though his own party suspended him for it), and that hardly anybody cares anyway. Is that because nobody cares about racism, or because anti-semitism is markedly less serious than other forms of racism, or for some other reason?
    Most realise the allegations are made by specious liars who are themselves racist.
    Well, if the Labour party has inflicted such an appalling injustice on Mr Livingstone, why would we trust them to run the country?
  • chloechloe Posts: 303
    Any polls tonight?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    Did he talk to Ian Paisley? Or even the SDLP?
    Good point
    I make lots of good points.☺
    I repeat, you can triple the leftiness of Cotbyns manifesto if you give him a chance.
    He is a loony lefty, anti capitalist, anti West/Nato, terrorist appeasing barsteward. But let's be honest we all KNOW that don't we.
    I think tonight has ensured a May majority, the question now is the margin
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
    LOL - go and look at all the weapon systems Corbyn wants to ban

    Then remind yourself senior members of his cabinet want to disarm police and shut down MI5.

  • BigIanBigIan Posts: 198
    Danny565 said:

    My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.

    It's not crying wolf when there's an actual wolf.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Watching this on the news.

    Why don't we just let good Yorkshire folk run the country?

    https://loudribs.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/yorkshire-map-from-illustrator.png
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,667
    Wonder what Corbyn supporters are thinking re Laura K's report just now.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    edited June 2017
    Danny565 said:

    BBC News quite kind to Corbyn there with their clips tbh.

    They had the clip of the guy demanding how he would defend the UK from N Korea and Iran though
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: CCHQ will have been delighted at how the debate went. But they'll be breaking outchampagne at how it was clipped on the ten o'clock news.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Not true. The French have them to. The rest of Europe relies upon ourselves, the French and the US to provide the deterrent.
    Which is why it was referred to as an umbrella.

    Who wants to rely on Trump now?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Interesting. All these raving PB Tories and Len McCluskey on the same side !
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MaxPB said:

    glw said:

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.

    That's wrong.

    France, China, Israel (cruise missiles), and India all have sub launched nuclear weapons. Pakistan is developing them. So it is believed is North Korea.
    France have an air delivered nuclear deterrent, much cheaper than ours iirc.
    And easier to destroy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,732
    edited June 2017
    Farage milking the Craig Mackinlay charges now on the BBC news, UKIP lose Clacton but gain Thanet South?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,028
    So to be PM you basically have to be OK with a bit of genocide or at the very least be prepared to lie about it.

    Not sure what to make of that.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Floater said:

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Exactly this. Tridrnt isn't a first strike weapon. Or a second strike weapon. It's a NO strike weapon. We need to defend ourselves in an unstable world. A big navy might be a start, but as Jeremy pointed out the Tories have cut it to barely a coastal force
    LOL - go and look at all the weapon systems Corbyn wants to ban

    Then remind yourself senior members of his cabinet want to disarm police and shut down MI5.

    What about all the people who will be thrown out of work at defence orientated exporters? Surely it is not just Barrow where concentrations of hundreds if not thousands of workers will be thrown on the scrapheap due to the pacifist dogma of Corbyn's Labour party.
  • MattyNethMattyNeth Posts: 60
    Disappointed there wasn't a question to Corbyn on whether he would negotiate dual sovereignty on Gibralter and the Falklands
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,283

    7 people watched the debate.

    2 think may 5 corbyn. 4 tory voters, 1 ld, 1 ukip, 1 lab

    big debates
    corbyn - hes man enough not to say he could never kill millions of people.
    may - please find someone new. boris gove or even rees mogg got mentioned

    But will still spend money on a system he will not use.

    Typical Labour approach re spending money.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    BBC News quite kind to Corbyn there with their clips tbh.

    They had the clip of the guy demanding how he would defend the UK from N Korea and Iran though
    Why not Saudi Arabia ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,036

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Not true. The French have them to. The rest of Europe relies upon ourselves, the French and the US to provide the deterrent.
    Your definition of Europe obviously doesn't include Moscow or St Petersburg.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,369
    Danny565 said:

    My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.

    Why is that your hope?

    This is a serious question.
  • BigIanBigIan Posts: 198

    TMA1 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    That's it. Sunk.

    Not really, 49% of the UK population either want rid of Trident or want empty subs

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Not every Briton is a warmongerer.
    If we've got them, you need to be prepared to use them. If we're not prepared to use them - dump from the manifesto. Corbyn's stance is a nonsense.
    Read the link. 49% want empty subs or none, including me.

    It is obselete, a system designed for a Cold War that ended 25 years ago.
    Revealing tripe from you. Knock on kim il wotsits door and tell him that. Or Pakistans president
    Submarine launched missiles are designed to hide retaliation in the ocean. They woiuld only be used when our Islands were already a smouldering ruin. Turning Chelyabinsk into a smoking ruin would not improve things.

    Most countries in Europe and the remainder of the world do not need nuclear submarine s to defend themselves.

    Indeed, only us, Russia and the Yanks have them. Even other nuclear countries do not.
    Not true. The French have them to. The rest of Europe relies upon ourselves, the French and the US to provide the deterrent.
    It's not just the USSR we're frightened of. It could be the Fre...
    The who?
    The... frigging Chinese!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 13,826
    HYUFD said:

    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    Did he talk to Ian Paisley? Or even the SDLP?
    Good point
    I make lots of good points.☺
    I repeat, you can triple the leftiness of Cotbyns manifesto if you give him a chance.
    He is a loony lefty, anti capitalist, anti West/Nato, terrorist appeasing barsteward. But let's be honest we all KNOW that don't we.
    I think tonight has ensured a May majority, the question now is the margin
    I think May would have won anyway but it will be bigger now


    Chance of TMICIPM now circa 99.9% up from about 90% in mt view.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SeanT said:

    FAR better from TMay.

    Still a bit boring, but that's what she is. Capable, honest, direct, and dull.

    Hopefully an election-saver at just the right time.

    Is she more or less dull than Thatcher do you think?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,541
    Laura K says very clearly that Corbyn will not push the button (without any caveat - ie she didn't say no first use).

    Not helpful for Corbyn.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Wonder what Corbyn supporters are thinking re Laura K's report just now.....

    She is a Tory Party Political Broadcast every evening.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,667
    TMay was saved by Corbyn losing it, as she wasn't that great tonight.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    You Gov reckons that, even in a hung parliament, Tories will be gaining Barrow & Furness (aka Trident Central).
  • ScarfNZScarfNZ Posts: 29

    TMay was saved by Corbyn losing it, as she wasn't that great tonight.

    I thought May was going to bust into tears at one point!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    TMay was saved by Corbyn losing it, as she wasn't that great tonight.

    To survive an encounter with a bear, all you need is a companion with a twisted ankle.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 13,826
    AndyJS said:

    Laura Kuenssberg probably about to get a lot more flak on Twitter from Corbynistas.

    She really is a biased fooker but Jezza just shot himself in the foot on Nuclear Weapons TBF
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: "Your party's policy is to renew Trident. Would you use it Mr Corbyn?". "What's it to you, nuclear fanatic!!!".
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Danny565 said:

    My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.

    Why is that your hope?

    This is a serious question.
    Because we want Labour to win !!!!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    surbiton said:

    Wonder what Corbyn supporters are thinking re Laura K's report just now.....

    She is a Tory Party Political Broadcast every evening.
    Really? She seems pretty impartial to me.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 16,300
    AndyJS said:

    Watching this on the news.

    Why don't we just let good Yorkshire folk run the country?

    https://loudribs.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/yorkshire-map-from-illustrator.png
    The pre Turd Heath Yorkshire.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,993
    edited June 2017
    Jonathan said:

    So to be PM you basically have to be OK with a bit of genocide or at the very least be prepared to lie about it.

    Not sure what to make of that.

    Well yes. Or you decommission the subs and save a bit of cash.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,553
    surbiton said:

    Danny565 said:

    My only hope is that, because the Tories and the media cried wolf so much over the past week with that IRA nonsense, the public will be tuning out everything they hear about Corbyn on security/defence, and don't even listen to the mess he made of the Trident question.

    Why is that your hope?

    This is a serious question.
    Because we want Labour to win !!!!
    And me
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,005
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    BBC News quite kind to Corbyn there with their clips tbh.

    They had the clip of the guy demanding how he would defend the UK from N Korea and Iran though
    Are they going to attack the UK ?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    HYUFD said:

    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TMA1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Audience member asks 'How can we vote for you as PM if you have supported the IRA or Hamas', Corbyn denies ever supporting them but says he talked to them as part of the peace process

    Did he talk to Ian Paisley? Or even the SDLP?
    Good point
    I make lots of good points.☺
    I repeat, you can triple the leftiness of Cotbyns manifesto if you give him a chance.
    He is a loony lefty, anti capitalist, anti West/Nato, terrorist appeasing barsteward. But let's be honest we all KNOW that don't we.
    I think tonight has ensured a May majority, the question now is the margin
    I think May would have won anyway but it will be bigger now
    Don't think it'll be that big. Don't reckon it'll have swayed many voters who are already going to Labour, but it will have killed off any slight chance of some extra floaters switching to us, as it reminded people what they distrust about Corbyn the most.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AndyJS said:

    surbiton said:

    Wonder what Corbyn supporters are thinking re Laura K's report just now.....

    She is a Tory Party Political Broadcast every evening.
    Really? She seems pretty impartial to me.
    That proves my point !
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    MikeL said:

    Laura K says very clearly that Corbyn will not push the button (without any caveat - ie she didn't say no first use).

    Not helpful for Corbyn.

    The Nuclear weapons issue is the one that I have been agonising over for weeks between not voting and voting Tory. I will definitely vote Tory now I know Corbyn is a surrender monkey defeatist on defence.
This discussion has been closed.