Who are you voting for OFFICIAL POLL

[markwwfc1992]

Based on what?

I would say that the Consetvatives seem to have a firmer stance on terrorism related incidents.

In the past week in the news for example you have had Jeremy Corbyn being quizzed on issues such as security, trident, and his stance on condemnation of the IRA, to which he was linked with in his youth. After multiple attempts of dodging (instead condeming all bomb attacks instead) he did eventually condem the IRA as terrorists though. As an ordinary voter, I feel that Labour don't fill me with confidence regarding security issues, and I think many other people feel the same. I feel they would hope terrorism just fades away rather than doing something to prevent it.

Immigrants are bad.

Don't tell them the attack was orchestrated by a British national, mind you.

Please Jase, save the condesending bullshit attitude, I have more respect for you than that.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Please Jase, save the condesending bullshit attitude, I have more respect for you than that.

It wasn't directed at you, but there's a fair amount of morons in the British public who will, nay do, think this way.

 

[Aber gas]

I would say that the Consetvatives seem to have a firmer stance on terrorism related incidents.

In the past week in the news for example you have had Jeremy Corbyn being quizzed on issues such as security, trident, and his stance on condemnation of the IRA, to which he was linked with in his youth. After multiple attempts of dodging (instead condeming all bomb attacks instead) he did eventually condem the IRA as terrorists though. As an ordinary voter, I feel that Labour don't fill me with confidence regarding security issues, and I think many other people feel the same. I feel they would hope terrorism just fades away rather than doing something to prevent it.



Please Jase, save the condesending bullshit attitude, I have more respect for you than that.

Haven't we just had 7 years of Tory rule? May as home security and then PM has cut numbers of police, border security and the armed forces. What part of her record makes you feel safer? Also did you actually watch Corbyn's interview?

 

[PuB]

19,000 fewer police on the streets over the last 7 years. A figure May herself was very much involved in reducing. Now we have have the army guarding important sites and public gatherings because the police no longer have the capacity to do so themselves.

It really is that simple.

 

[markwwfc1992]

It wasn't directed at you, but there's a fair amount of morons in the British public who will, nay do, think this way.

Think what way, as in feel the country is in safer hands under Theresa May than Jeremy Corbyn? And you label people 'morons' for having this opinion? That is a big generalisation right there.

Haven't we just had 7 years of Tory rule? May as home security and then PM has cut numbers of police, border security and the armed forces. What part of her record makes you feel safer? Also did you actually watch Corbyn's interview?

I confess I didn't watch the interview, I read the article from the BBC.

I get the impression from Corbyn that he would be a weak leader. For example when he was quizzed on if he would ever resort to using a nuclear weapon in an absolute emergancy, if we ourselves were a target.. and he would refuse to answer, hoping for the peaceful alternative. As sad is it sounds, the peaceful option doesn't always work and I feel if our country was ever threatened (a real possibility in our times), Corbyn would be the last person I'd feel comfortable with to defend us and our interests.

 

[PuB]

I'll just pop this here from Mother Teresa in 2012

 

[Aber gas]

Think what way, as in feel the country is in safer hands under Theresa May than Jeremy Corbyn? And you label people 'morons' for having this opinion? That is a big generalisation right there.



I confess I didn't watch the interview, I read the article from the BBC.

I get the impression from Corbyn that he would be a weak leader. For example when he was quizzed on if he would ever resort to using a nuclear weapon in an absolute emergancy, if we ourselves were a target.. and he would refuse to answer, hoping for the peaceful alternative. As sad is it sounds, the peaceful option doesn't always work and I feel if our country was ever threatened (a real possability in our times), Corbyn would be the last person I'd feel comfortable with to defend us and our interests.

In the interview he was asked 5 times if he condemned Terrorism and 5 times he condemned it. I can't even conceive of May being asked once about her overt support for a terror funding Saudi regime let alone 5 times. The game ain't straight, Corbyn has been on the right side of history on everything from pursuing a peace process in Ulster to opposing the horrific Iraq war. What's May done? Put some embarrassing signs on vans and decimating public services to the extent that she's putting troops on the streets. She's an absolute joke.

 

[Veggie Legs]

In the interview he was asked 5 times if he condemned Terrorism and 5 times he condemned it. I can't even conceive of May being asked once about her overt support for a terror funding Saudi regime let alone 5 times. The game ain't straight, Corbyn has been on the right side of history on everything from pursuing a peace process in Ulster to opposing the horrific Iraq war. What's May done? Put some embarrassing signs on vans and decimating public services to the extent that she's putting troops on the streets. She's an absolute joke.

The Conservatives will promote a firmer stance on terrorism and people will buy it, at least in the short term. It's about perception, not reality.

 

[Aber gas]

The Conservatives will promote a firmer stance on terrorism and people will buy it, at least in the short term. It's about perception, not reality.

In that case the perception needs challenging and changing. They can't erase history ( though they try) over the last seven years May has been directly responsible for security in this country.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Jeez Louise, I miss that egg...

I’m not telling you to welcome Brexit, or to look on the bright side, or to stop moaning, or to cease your ‘treacherous’ practice of talking the country down, or any other daft pish like that. Be as sulky, pissed off, worried or apocalyptic as you chuffing well please. It’s no skin off my nose.

Also, if I really wanted to rub Remainers’ faces in it, I would have been about 100,000 times more annoying than I have been to date. I’ve actually made a conscious effort to keep the crowing to a minimum.

The welcome change I referred to in my previous post was not Brexit itself, but the shift towards seeing our relationship with the EU as a central/foundational issue instead of a peripheral one. The tendency until very recently was to isolate “Europe” as a policy area and then treat it as one of secondary importance – a fringe issue that only matters to a bunch of fossils on the conservative right. I see that as a bad thing, not because I’m pro-Brexit but because it’s politically illiterate.

I’m not sure I really understand this last bit. Your argument is structured in a way that suggests a category distinction between “principles” and “personal values”, but the difference isn’t clear (they seem broadly interchangeable). As for the “future prosperity” part, I think a pretty good litmus test of one’s values/principles is whether one is willing to stick to them in cases where doing so might be disadvantageous in some way.

Forgive the tetchiness. Generally feeling quite disillusioned with politics at the moment but I'm sure it will pass, and hey, look, the sun's finally emerged! Was going to clarify a few thoughts in relation to this but, in all honesty, I'm not sure I have much to offer beyond what I've said in the past. Perhaps if I have a minute I'll try to elaborate.

The distance between the two events is big enough that the abiding emotions of most voters won't be strong enough to do critical damage to Labour's campaign gains, but I don't think that's the biggest issue. What's most damaging for Labour is that it has interrupted the momentum they were accumulating up until Monday night and the electorate will understandably not be receptive to any discussion that doesn't centre around national security for at least a week. Probably longer.

Yeah, absolutely. Obviously defence and security are, rightly or wrongly, stronger policy areas for May than they are for Corbyn, but I do think it's the lost momentum that's the most damaging thing for Labour. May was on the back foot but now attention is very much focused elsewhere. On the plus side, I suppose it may also have interrupted the relentless tabloid attacks on Corbyn (or is that just wishful thinking on my part)?

Strange how Brexit was meant to define this election. It's not turning out quite like that...

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Found a discarded Workers Revolutionary Party manifesto on my way home from work. They're promising the elusive Lexit followed by the formation of a Socialist United States of Europe should any of their five prospective parliamentary candidates win their seats (and, presumably, at least 641 seats being won by abstentionists).

Will look with interest to see whether they better the 418 votes the party received in the six constituencies they ran in in 2015.

 

[Abertawe]

Initially I thought the horrific tragedy would benefit Conservatives but perhaps it may not. I think those who had already been converted to Labour will stay strong. Reactionary people may well be swayed to UKIP if they go big on anti Islam rhetoric. If you're generalising the demographic who vote for the 'patriot' it's fair to assume any UKIP 'SURGE' is more likely to chip away at the votes the Conservatives were plying for than anyone else.

Still worried the ramping up of Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser could be an issue.

 

[smat]

Initially I thought the horrific tragedy would benefit Conservatives but perhaps it may not. I think those who had already been converted to Labour will stay strong. Reactionary people may well be swayed to UKIP if they go big on anti Islam rhetoric. If you're generalising the demographic who vote for the 'patriot' it's fair to assume any UKIP 'SURGE' is more likely to chip away at the votes the Conservatives were plying for than anyone else.

Still worried the ramping up of Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser could be an issue.

Labour could certainly compare their promise of 10,000 extra bobbies on the streets forward with the Conservatives' record of cutting the force by 19,000 since 2010. There have already been a couple of stories today about police criticising May's time at the Home Office.

What does May's manifesto say about the police force?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Forgive the tetchiness.

Think nothing of it.

Was going to clarify a few thoughts in relation to this but, in all honesty, I'm not sure I have much to offer beyond what I've said in the past. Perhaps if I have a minute I'll try to elaborate.

I think the world of online political discourse can do without the 1,476th round of our squabble about the EU and democracy. Go out and enjoy the sun.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Think what way, as in feel the country is in safer hands under Theresa May than Jeremy Corbyn? And you label people 'morons' for having this opinion? That is a big generalisation right there.

19,000 fewer police on the streets over the last 7 years. A figure May herself was very much involved in reducing. Now we have have the army guarding important sites and public gatherings because the police no longer have the capacity to do so themselves.

It really is that simple.

PuB pretty much summed it up, Mark. It is a moronic belief that the country is in 'safer hands' under Theresa 'cut 20,000 police officers' May, as compared to Labour who are going to employ a further 10,000 to, y'know, keep us safer.

So I feel the term 'morons' is a quite apt one in this situation.

 

[Krazy8]

as compared to Labour who are going to employ a further 10,000 to, y'know, keep us safer.

Are they? I thought they were going to employ 250,000...or is it 2000 and perhaps 250?

 

[Aber gas]

Are they? I thought they were going to employ 250,000...or is it 2000 and perhaps 250?

I believe the figure is circa 10,000 to begin with. I think 250,000 would be a bit silly and I'm not sure where you're getting the other figures from.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

He's getting them from the Shadow Home Secretary to be fair.

 

[Aber gas]

He's getting them from the Shadow Home Secretary to be fair.

Ah ok. It's yet another attempt at ridiculing Dianne. I'll never understand why a strong, black woman in a position of influence attracts such devoted attention. It's a conundrum.

 

[Krazy8]

Ah ok. It's yet another attempt at ridiculing Dianne. I'll never understand why a strong, black woman in a position of influence attracts such devoted attention. It's a conundrum.

 

[Aber gas]

 

[markwwfc1992]

PuB pretty much summed it up, Mark. It is a moronic belief that the country is in 'safer hands' under Theresa 'cut 20,000 police officers' May, as compared to Labour who are going to employ a further 10,000 to, y'know, keep us safer.

So I feel the term 'morons' is a quite apt one in this situation.

As compared to a man who has trouble condemming terrorism, and has links in his past to the IRA. Must be a lot of these 'morons' who think this was as it looks like the Tories will win by a landslide again.

I know which leadership I'd feel safer under.

 

[markwwfc1992]

Ah ok. It's yet another attempt at ridiculing Dianne. I'll never understand why a strong, black woman in a position of influence attracts such devoted attention. It's a conundrum.

You forgot to pick up your race card.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

As compared to a man who has trouble condemming terrorism, and has links in his past to the IRA. Must be a lot of these 'morons' who think this was as it looks like the Tories will win by a landslide again.

I know which leadership I'd feel safer under.

You literally used this argument earlier in the thread. And got the below response. Which you didn't respond to. Come on, Mark...

In the interview he was asked 5 times if he condemned Terrorism and 5 times he condemned it. I can't even conceive of May being asked once about her overt support for a terror funding Saudi regime let alone 5 times. The game ain't straight, Corbyn has been on the right side of history on everything from pursuing a peace process in Ulster to opposing the horrific Iraq war. What's May done? Put some embarrassing signs on vans and decimating public services to the extent that she's putting troops on the streets. She's an absolute joke.

 

[Aber gas]

You forgot to pick up your race card.

What do you mean?

 

[Aber gas]

As compared to a man who has trouble condemming terrorism, and has links in his past to the IRA. Must be a lot of these 'morons' who think this was as it looks like the Tories will win by a landslide again.

I know which leadership I'd feel safer under.

What would you consider a landslide? ( interested for betting purposes)

 

[Techno Natch]

As compared to a man who has trouble condemming terrorism, and has links in his past to the IRA. Must be a lot of these 'morons' who think this was as it looks like the Tories will win by a landslide again.

I know which leadership I'd feel safer under.

The one that arms Saudi Arabia of course.

What are these links to the IRA? Genuinely interested? Was he funding them? Arming them? Selling secrets to them?

I'm sure that Cameron and his fellow tories weren't supporting Apartheid in South Africa before this? Oh wait they were? Why is this not mentioned more I wonder?

I've never once seen anything that made me think Corbyn condones terrorism and I've not always been his biggest supporter.

 

[Aber gas]

The one that arms Saudi Arabia of course.

What are these links to the IRA? Genuinely interested? Was he funding them? Arming them? Selling secrets to them?

I'm sure that Cameron and his fellow tories weren't supporting Apartheid in South Africa before this? Oh so wait they were.

He talked to them, got them to the table, paved the way for the Good Friday Agreement. Did what secretly and badly Thatcher did. Continuously on the right side of history.

 

[Techno Natch]

Also just to add that people like Corbyn don't justify direct attacks on innocent civilians but they might actually be sympathetic to an overall cause.

For example I am extremely sympathetic towards people in Gaza and the West Bank. It doesn't mean that I agree when they send missiles over the Israel.

 

[Abertawe]

Labour could certainly compare their promise of 10,000 extra bobbies on the streets forward with the Conservatives' record of cutting the force by 19,000 since 2010. There have already been a couple of stories today about police criticising May's time at the Home Office.

What does May's manifesto say about the police force?

It sounds like cuts. Savings by merging everything despite the differing agencies wanting to be left alone. It doesn't mention numbers of officers whatsoever and Rudd hasn't been able to rule out cuts to the existing numbers so the answer is pretty obvious. Manchester might make them change policy perhaps if the heat was put on them.

Do our Tory supporting friends go along with cuts to policing as solid policy and how does that tie in with their vision of Britain post brexit?

• [*]Create a "national infrastructure police force", which brings together the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and British Transport Police
  [*]Serious Fraud Office to be incorporated into the National Crime Agency
  [*]£1bn to modernise the prison estate
  [*]Legislation to make changes in police practices if "stop and search does not become more targeted and stop to arrest ratios do not improve"
  [*]Legislate if progress not made to reduce the "disproportionate use of force" against black, Asian and ethnic minority people in prison, young offender institutions and secure mental health units.