UK General Election/Politics

First topic message reminder :

Here's a possible thread for it all, despite the lack of political input from me to start it!

Mods if you want to/can cut and paste the recent obviously political "discussions" from the Anything Goes, here might serve?

Digs - I think BoJo Gove and Fox do add a few more dimensions!!!!!

True, I think Boris has actually lost the plot in the past month or so, he's coming across as some demented lunatic.

Super

Would you describe yourself as anti Trump?

pedro wrote:

super_realist wrote:You asked if America would "stand by" and I said they had before, why wouldn't they again?

Eeh, Nato?

Trump signally failed to endorse NATO's Article 5 (i.e. coming to the defence of other members) during his recent visit to Europe.

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

To be fair, we don't know what May has said to Trump re. his ridiculous tweets through rather less public diplomatic channels. Just because Trump's a child, isn't reason for her to stoop to his level.

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

You clearly don't have a clue how diplomacy works then and it's telling that you think that she should have come to the defence of a Labour politician but don't hold the same view in reverse, strange that. Whether his comments are right or wrong, some of the things Khan has said are indefensible.

McLaren wrote:Super

Would you describe yourself as anti Trump?

Of course I would Mac. What's wrong with you?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

You clearly don't have a clue how diplomacy works then and it's telling that you think that she should have come to the defence of a Labour politician but don't hold the same view in reverse, strange that. Whether his comments are right or wrong, some of the things Khan has said are indefensible.

Oh the irony of you lecturing about understanding diplomacy.
Which of his comments are indefensible, and why? I know it's hard for you, but try and give some detail.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

To be fair, we don't know what May has said to Trump re. his ridiculous tweets through rather less public diplomatic channels. Just because Trump's a child, isn't reason for her to stoop to his level.

She should have shown more, by not doing so she appears weak...that isn't diplomatically great IMO. I'd imagine Trump feels he is totally in control in that relationship.

Diggers wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

You clearly don't have a clue how diplomacy works then and it's telling that you think that she should have come to the defence of a Labour politician but don't hold the same view in reverse, strange that. Whether his comments are right or wrong, some of the things Khan has said are indefensible.

Oh the irony of you lecturing about understanding diplomacy.
Which of his comments are indefensible, and why? I know it's hard for you, but try and give some detail.

Clueless as ever then, keep digging.

His comment about living in a big city was correct but it's not something I'd expect or want my Mayor to say.

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:Super

Would you describe yourself as anti Trump?

Of course I would Mac. What's wrong with you?

I just thought you might not object to his travel restrictions on Muslims, pro business stance or pulling out of the Paris climate agreement?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

You clearly don't have a clue how diplomacy works then and it's telling that you think that she should have come to the defence of a Labour politician but don't hold the same view in reverse, strange that. Whether his comments are right or wrong, some of the things Khan has said are indefensible.

Oh the irony of you lecturing about understanding diplomacy.
Which of his comments are indefensible, and why? I know it's hard for you, but try and give some detail.

Clueless as ever then, keep digging.

His comment about living in a big city was correct but it's not something I'd expect or want my Mayor to say.

The way he has spoke and acted has received great praise, and quite rightly so, the same applies to Burnham. Maybe when you actually leave grammar school you'll begin to understand these things a little better, but I doubt it.

Why? Because I work in oil?

Great deduction mac.

Interesting that, among others, all the mayors of major cities in the US seem to think Khan is spot on. Oh, and the European ones. Some people disagree, but so far they are all called Trump plus one on this board!

Diggers wrote:

The way he has spoke and acted has received great praise, and quite rightly so, the same applies to Burnham. Maybe when you actually leave grammar school you'll begin to understand these things a little better, but I doubt it.

When you leave the land of Pixies, Unicorns and Mermaids get back to me.

super_realist wrote:Why? Because I work in oil?

Great deduction mac. :roll:

I was just curious. Sometimes you will adopt a position of apathy when we are discussing actions people take that don't directly impact you.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:

The way he has spoke and acted has received great praise, and quite rightly so, the same applies to Burnham. Maybe when you actually leave grammar school you'll begin to understand these things a little better, but I doubt it.

When you leave the land of Pixies, Unicorns and Mermaids get back to me.

Do you understand the difference between a common noun and a proper noun?

McLaren wrote:

super_realist wrote:Why? Because I work in oil?

Great deduction mac.

I was just curious.  Sometimes you will adopt a position of apathy when we are discussing actions people take that don't directly impact you.

I despise all religion equally Mac, but at present Islam is the greatest threat, 80 years ago I would have said it was Catholicism, but times change.

We all use oil everyday for everything, so I'm no more of a polluter than you, other than I own a car and not a bus pass.

Nothing wrong with supporting business though.

Diggers wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:

The way he has spoke and acted has received great praise, and quite rightly so, the same applies to Burnham. Maybe when you actually leave grammar school you'll begin to understand these things a little better, but I doubt it.

When you leave the land of Pixies, Unicorns and Mermaids get back to me.

Do you understand the difference between a common noun and a proper noun?

Diggers, don't lecture anyone on grammar when you use the phrase "The way he has spoke".

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:

The way he has spoke and acted has received great praise, and quite rightly so, the same applies to Burnham. Maybe when you actually leave grammar school you'll begin to understand these things a little better, but I doubt it.

When you leave the land of Pixies, Unicorns and Mermaids get back to me.

Do you understand the difference between a common noun and a proper noun?

Diggers, don't lecture anyone  on grammar when you use the phrase "The way he has spoke".

You need a comma after phrase.

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

To be fair, we don't know what May has said to Trump re. his ridiculous tweets through rather less public diplomatic channels. Just because Trump's a child, isn't reason for her to stoop to his level.

She should have shown more, by not doing so she appears weak...that isn't diplomatically great IMO. I'd imagine Trump feels he is totally in control in that relationship.

But you don't don't jump up and down in public, despite that idiot Trump doing it. She only appears 'weak' because we somehow feel we have a right to know anything and everything that's said by anyone these days. We don't. In fact, with Trump, everything about him suggests that public embarrassment doesn't work (he has no shame) and just makes him act the idiot even more.

Diggers wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:

The way he has spoke and acted has received great praise, and quite rightly so, the same applies to Burnham. Maybe when you actually leave grammar school you'll begin to understand these things a little better, but I doubt it.

When you leave the land of Pixies, Unicorns and Mermaids get back to me.

Do you understand the difference between a common noun and a proper noun?

Diggers, don't lecture anyone  on grammar when you use the phrase "The way he has spoke".

You need a comma after phrase.

Let's not degenerate too far...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

To be fair, we don't know what May has said to Trump re. his ridiculous tweets through rather less public diplomatic channels. Just because Trump's a child, isn't reason for her to stoop to his level.

She should have shown more, by not doing so she appears weak...that isn't diplomatically great IMO. I'd imagine Trump feels he is totally in control in that relationship.

But you don't don't jump up and down in public, despite that idiot Trump doing it. She only appears 'weak' because we somehow feel we have a right to know anything and everything that's said by anyone these days. We don't. In fact, with Trump, everything about him suggests that public embarrassment doesn't work (he has no shame) and just makes him act the idiot even more.

Nobody is saying she should jump up and down, but she could certainly make it clear that Khan deserves support. She would not even need to name Trump directly. The attacks are not a minor incident, this discourse has been running for far too long now and warrants her intervention. At what point would she feel the need to actually to say something? I think most Londoners would like her to show greater support to Khan.

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.  

To be fair, we don't know what May has said to Trump re. his ridiculous tweets through rather less public diplomatic channels. Just because Trump's a child, isn't reason for her to stoop to his level.

She should have shown more, by not doing so she appears weak...that isn't diplomatically great IMO. I'd imagine Trump feels he is totally in control in that relationship.

But you don't don't jump up and down in public, despite that idiot Trump doing it. She only appears 'weak' because we somehow feel we have a right to know anything and everything that's said by anyone these days. We don't. In fact, with Trump, everything about him suggests that public embarrassment doesn't work (he has no shame) and just makes him act the idiot even more.

Nobody is saying she should jump up and down, but she could certainly make it clear that Khan deserves support. She would not even need to name Trump directly. The attacks are not a minor incident, this discourse has been running for far too long now and warrants her intervention. At what point would she feel the need to actually to say something? I think most Londoners would like her to show greater support to Khan.

They might, but that doesn't mean we have a right to expect her to do what we want. If it's felt the best approach is to use quieter diplomatic channels, so be it. How do you know she hasn't been in touch with Kahn and his team to express support in private?

I'm easy on it TBH. If she expressed more public support for Kahn, absolutely fine and I think he would merit it. If not, so be it, although I certainly hope Trump and his team are being left in no doubt how inappropriate his behaviour is.

I think the only way the POTUS will be "left in no doubt how inappropriate his behaviour is" will be for any notion of a State visit this year to be withdrawn.
That can be reviewed in a year's time, by which time he'll hopefully have been wheeled out of office by people in white coats.

If you look at the trends in the polls, if there isn't some sort of wobble in the next couple of days, it could actually be very very close. Abbot very quickly needs locking up and/or gagged until at least Friday. Has anybody else noticed the subtle (or not) switch to negging Abbot instead of Corbyn??

JAS wrote:If you look at the trends in the polls, if there isn't some sort of wobble in the next couple of days, it could actually be very very close. Abbot very quickly needs locking up and/or gagged until at least Friday. Has anybody else noticed the subtle (or not) switch to  negging Abbot instead of Corbyn??

Depends what polls you're looking at, the more reliable ones from 2015 like ComRes have it wide for the Tories while YouGov which has taken a beating recently has it closed based non representation.

Sweet Jesus Diane, FFS shut up! Even the Tories know of you have a dud, like Hammond or Davies, you hide them away. Has such a senior minister as Hammond ever been kept out of the spotlight so much during an election?

The personal attacks by the right wing media have been pretty poor recently, but the front pages of the express, sun and mail today are all pretty disgusting. They are obviously scared about the polls and have gone all out on the final day of campaigning.

Ah yes, the poor, persecuted left wing.

Super


How would you evaluate the balance of reporting in UK newspapers of the Left and right wing parties?

I haven't really been reading them Mac. Who buys newspapers these days?

Super

I guess we could include the online versions if you want, as often they are the same stories just in digital format. But even without reading the actual papers have you not formed an idea of how each outlet covers left and right wing parties?

If you don't want to read negative press about the left, don't read right wing news outlets.

I don't see the problem. It won't affect your vote, so what are you moaning about?

Super

I am more interested in your opinion of the balance of reporting in the UK media in terms of right and left wing parties?

Mac, I couldn't care less about the balance in the UUK media, because it doesn't influence me.

Even if it doesn't influence you do you not have any concerns about how the papers in the UK might be influencing how others vote, and therefore who governs the country you live in?

If people are gullible enough to be influenced by a newspaper, more fool them.

Are you saying gullible people getting fooled into voting for #Brexit or for Theresa has no impact on you?

Mac, regardless of who is in power and regardless of what happens in Europe, it probably won't have a massive impact on my life or yours.

While you are at it you could say that people may have been conned into voting for Corbyn or staying in too couldn't you? It works both ways.

super_realist wrote:It works both ways.

That is sort of the question I have trying to get you to answer. Does it work both ways?

Do you think there are more newspapers with a bias towards the right wing than those with a bias towards the left wing?

If this is true, what does a higher proportion of the population reading right wing biased newspapers mean for our democracy?

Of course it works both ways, have you not seen how rabidly left wing things like Facebook are? More people use that than read newspapers. Facebook is full of people imploring you how to vote, newspapers are at least more subtle than that.

Hardly anyone DOES read newspapers Mac, so who cares? Circulation is nosediving.

I don't understand your reluctance to answer the question; Do you think there are more newspapers with a bias towards the right wing than those with a bias towards the left wing?


(whether it matters or not surely you can answer this question)

I've answered the question. I've told you I don't read them, so how can I answer whether they are biased or not.
I keep hearing they are towards the right, but if you're left wing, you won't be reading those anyway.

Jesus super, just because I don't read something it doesn't mean it doesn't alter the mindset of those that do.

I didn't say it didn't. I am saying it doesn't really affect things. Life is no different for me under any government.

Stick to Doak, that obviously affects your mindset.

I kind of get where Mac is coming from, in an ideal world it would be really useful if newspapers (or at lease some of them) could be trusted to be impartial. however as is abundantly clear...we don't live in an ideal world. So newspapers are biased and partisan, for the most part that's fine, most of us here are well aware that the Mirror and the Guardian, trumpet the optimistic views and stances of the broad left whilst the others run rabidly negative smear and fear campaigns on behalf of the right. What I think Mac is getting at is that there is a significant chunk of the population who are thick enough to believe that everything they read in a paper is true so when a paper prints lies it's a form of deception. The scale of that deception may well influence the eventual result of the election.

super_realist wrote:I didn't say it didn't. I am saying it doesn't really affect things. Life is no different for me under any government.

Stick to Doak, that obviously affects your mindset.

How? Governments have impact on everyone's lives. Have you not noticed the cost of living increase? thats due to the government and its policies.

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:I didn't say it didn't. I am saying it doesn't really affect things. Life is no different for me under any government.

Stick to Doak, that obviously affects your mindset.

How? Governments have impact on everyone's lives. Have you not noticed the cost of living increase? thats due to the government and its policies.

Christ, why is everything so literal? VIRTUALLY no change under any government.

Cost of living is down to many things, not just government and policy.