2017 GE 1

[Christmas Tree 4711]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

What about the report into Saudi funding that the Tories are presently actively suppressing?

 

No nothing about it? Link?

 

Regardless, I don't think kitchen knives and a deposit for a van require much funding.

 

These individuals think they are doing allahs work and getting their rewards in the sky. 

 

Hard not to think a lot of our follies are coming home to roost.

 

[Christmas Tree 4711]

10 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

These loners to a man have all been known to the security services. So then it becomes a question of resources. 

 

Not really. If they've been flagged a couple of years ago, not committed a crime, not identified as plotting anything, honestly what can you do.

 

Even if (which is totally unrealistic) you had phone taps and 24 hour surveillance, you couldn't stop one jumping in his van and mowing down the public.

[Alex 34913]

He's trolling tbh

[Rayvin 5186]

6 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

No nothing about it? Link?

 

Regardless, I don't think kitchen knives and a deposit for a van require much funding.

 

These individuals think they are doing allahs work and getting their rewards in the sky. 

 

Hard not to think a lot of our follies are coming home to roost.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia

 

Cameron had previously given assurances that it would be published:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/tim-farron-terror-funding-report-published-cameron-lib-dems

 

So yes, you can question the resource issue, but the government is here actively playing down the role of a state that funds terrorism because it is politically inconvenient to them. How is that going to keep us safe?

[PaddockLad 17124]

7 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Not really. If they've been flagged a couple of years ago, not committed a crime, not identified as plotting anything, honestly what can you do.

 

Even if (which is totally unrealistic) you had phone taps and 24 hour surveillance, you couldn't stop one jumping in his van and mowing down the public.

 

You're allegedly voting for the best solution to this, stop the corporation tax cut for companies and give it to the police, MI5 and if they're not already involved I'd say increase recruitment into the Army's intelligence corps. If that's not enough, borrow the rest, or justf fuckin print it like QE. Make life for radicalised Moslems in this country extreamly uncomfortable within the confines of present uk law.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

32 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia

 

Cameron had previously given assurances that it would be published:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/tim-farron-terror-funding-report-published-cameron-lib-dems

 

So yes, you can question the resource issue, but the government is here actively playing down the role of a state that funds terrorism because it is politically inconvenient to them. How is that going to keep us safe?

 

35 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia

 

Cameron had previously given assurances that it would be published:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/tim-farron-terror-funding-report-published-cameron-lib-dems

 

So yes, you can question the resource issue, but the government is here actively playing down the role of a state that funds terrorism because it is politically inconvenient to them. How is that going to keep us safe?

 

Hopefully it will get published on Friday.

[Alex 34913]

See what I mean?

[Rayvin 5186]

Just now, Christmas Tree said:

 

 

Hopefully it will get published on Friday.

 

If it is highly critical of Tory policy with respect of Saudi Arabia, and they intend to continue pursuing this policy, we will have voted to continue supporting a rogue state that actively tries to destabilise us through terrorism. If they release it on Friday I'd be appalled. If they don't release it, I'll assume they're all culpable and guilty as sin.

[Ayatollah Hermione 13838]

11 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

Wonder if Diane Abbot, if she somehow, in some bizzare parallel universe obviously, became Home  Secretary on Friday morning, would she do anything as monumentally fuckin stupid as send known radicalised Uk Moslems off to fight with jihadis in North Africa? ..and then cut police numbers and funding so that they and others (some of whom were publicaly self confessed jihadis and went on tv to advertise it) couldn't possibly be properly monitored and then went on to murder innocent members of the public?  I'll grant you that's what the media perception of Abbott would have us beleive she'd be capable of, but with all this now in the public realm (obviously not being reported properly by the compliant media) having a go at her and Corbyn for their beliefs just smacks of being petty and snide, and completely misses the point about how unbeleiveably and possibly criminally incompetent May has been as  both Home Secretary and PM. 

 

The choices on Thursday are admittedly abysmally poor and are being brought into stark detail during this horrific wave of attacks the country is experiencing.but there's nothing to suggest that given the chance Jezza and Di won't finally grow up, leave the 6th form common room and make a decent go of it. Corbyn's demeanour and stature have grown hugely and visibly in the the last month. He's beginning to grasp right from wrong. Knocking him for old pronouncements is the stuff of the daily mail. After the learning curve of the last four weeks where he's stood tall and got almost everything spot on on every issue that even most of the preveiously hostile media have had to say "well, he's got a point there", all the while that spineless bitch has basically hidden away behind sound bites and underlings who are every bit as poor as anything on the Labour front bench.  

 

May called this election basically as another Brexit referendum. Even before Manchester and the events at the weekend that was out the window due to the Tory manifesto, seemingly jotted down on to the back of 20 Regal. If she's returned the EU council will publicaly slap her so hard in the face during negotiations she'll have to go running into the arms of the Donald, who will want the NHS on a plate for his US private healthcare chums  in return for other favourable trade deals, which he'll likely go back on as he, like the EU, hold all the aces. Id rather take my chances with Red Jezz and Mad Di and have a softer business friendly Brexit negotiated by ex attorney general Kier Starmer QC than see the most incompetent senior politician in my lifetime drive us off the end of a cliff. 

 

I still iexpect the Tories to win like, just had to get all that off my chest  

 

Too fucking right. Staring down the barrel of a transparently evil Tory government, seemingly hell bent on dragging 90% of the country through the shit and people are still in two minds over it because Corbyn said something 2 years ago. Wish I was that sheltered from it all tbh

[Christmas Tree 4711]

20 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

You're allegedly voting for the best solution to this, stop the corporation tax cut for companies and give it to the police, MI5 and if they're not already involved I'd say increase recruitment into the Army's intelligence corps. If that's not enough, borrow the rest, or justf fuckin print it like QE. Make life for radicalised Moslems in this country extreamly uncomfortable within the confines of present uk law.

 

Im still voting Labour, however have little confidence that much can be done against these loners. The problem is if these attacks continue then a pressure will grow for extreme action by governments which seem unthinkable and will only inflame the situation.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

If it is highly critical of Tory policy with respect of Saudi Arabia, and they intend to continue pursuing this policy, we will have voted to continue supporting a rogue state that actively tries to destabilise us through terrorism. If they release it on Friday I'd be appalled. If they don't release it, I'll assume they're all culpable and guilty as sin.

 

Im on about Jeremy releasing it. But let's be honest, all governments snuggle up to these rich states.

 

I was quite shocked yesterday reading what Quatar owned in the U.K.

[Rayvin 5186]

Just now, Christmas Tree said:

 

Im on about Jeremy releasing it. But let's be honest, all governments snuggle up to these rich states.

 

I was quite shocked yesterday reading what Quatar owned in the U.K.

 

Oh I see. I don't think Corbyn is gonna be in number 10 on Friday but yeah, it'd be good if that happened and he released it.

 

As for foreign states owning the UK, it's just Thatcherite Neoliberalism taken through to conclusion. Don't worry though, it made a lot of wealthy people even richer.

[Andrew 4721]

It doesn't come as any surprise but boris really is a right twat isn't he?

[PaddockLad 17124]

15 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Im still voting Labour, however have little confidence that much can be done against these loners. The problem is if these attacks continue then a pressure will grow for extreme action by governments which seem unthinkable and will only inflame the situation.

 

If May increases her majority I think she'll play to the crowd and try to bring in internment in some form. 

[Happy Face 29]

14 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Im still voting Labour, however have little confidence that much can be done against these loners. The problem is if these attacks continue then a pressure will grow for extreme action by governments which seem unthinkable and will only inflame the situation.

 

If anyone is voting based soleley on the extermist muslim situation then Corbyn would be their only choice.

 

May will keep the same foreign policy we've had for decades, she'll keep the same trade in place with the nations that offer material support to ISIS, she will not increase the budgets of the police, MI5 or GCHQ and having failed to hit 4 or 5 immigration targets as home secretary and Tory leader, her new target is worthless and both she and David Davis have said it is not to be achieved by the end of the next parliament.

 

On the other hand, Corbyn offers an entirely new approach to foreign affairs that will pursue ALL diplomatic solutions before considering any strikes whatsoever (if he ever would).  He promises to end the trade with states funding terror AND he promises to increase budgets of security services.  He's also more likely to reduce immigration, purely because his £10 minimum wage and abolishment of zero hours contracts makes it much more attractive to hire Brits and there's less low paid work for immigrants to come for.

[Alex 34913]

Yeah but he was in the IRA

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

20 minutes ago, Andrew said:

It doesn't come as any surprise but boris really is a right twat isn't he?

 

The supposedly neutral Sky News have described it on their app as Tories unleashing "attack dog" Boris on Corbyn. Buried underneath their disproportionate coverage of Abbott being an embarrassment

[Andrew 4721]

1 minute ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

 

The supposedly neutral Sky News have described it on their app as Tories unleashing "attack dog" Boris on Corbyn. Buried underneath their disproportionate coverage of Abbott being an embarrassment

 

He just did his usual trick tbh, talk nonsense that can't be backed up, use odd words and dodge questions so he could make his own point.

 

I don't understand how it's not completely transparent by now, like mourinhos whining.

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

1 minute ago, Andrew said:

 

He just did his usual trick tbh, talk nonsense that can't be backed up, use odd words and dodge questions so he could make his own point.

 

I don't understand how it's not completely transparent by now, like mourinhos whining.

 

Gove did try and tell us 

[Renton 21393]

10 minutes ago, Happy Face said:

 

If anyone is voting based soleley on the extermist muslim situation then Corbyn would be their only choice.

 

May will keep the same foreign policy we've had for decades, she'll keep the same trade in place with the nations that offer material support to ISIS, she will not increase the budgets of the police, MI5 or GCHQ and having failed to hit 4 or 5 immigration targets as home secretary and Tory leader, her new target is worthless and both she and David Davis have said it is not to be achieved by the end of the next parliament.

 

On the other hand, Corbyn offers an entirely new approach to foreign affairs that will pursue ALL diplomatic solutions before considering any strikes whatsoever (if he ever would).  He promises to end the trade with states funding terror AND he promises to increase budgets of security services.  He's also more likely to reduce immigration, purely because his £10 minimum wage and abolishment of zero hours contracts makes it much more attractive to hire Brits and there's less low paid work for immigrants to come for.

You'll need to explain the last sentence to me. If the minimum wage is raised to 10 quid an hour, won't that incentivise immigrants? You know, since he's said in the past he is in favour of open doors immigration policy, despite being anti-EU (showing HF levels of contrariness).

 

Also, it's great BAE won't be allowed to do business with Saudi. But what is the economic impact of thus going to be? Especially in the contact of free university places etc?

 

None of this will have any impact on the toxic ideology that makes these young men child murderers in any case imo. 

[Happy Face 29]

Said it on the last Abbot shambles and will say it again, disgraceful media behaviour. 

 

Fella is revelling in drip feeding clues about a report he's just read that day but was published 8 months ago and included 127 separate recommendations.

 

Any fair interviewer would provide context within the question "8 months ago Lord harris recommended more physical barriers, would you agree with that?"

 

The first thing Abott said was "we need to revisit the report" suggesting that it's a mistake to have not acted on it and it needs reconsideration, but Mr Sky man has put a lot of work into learning specific bits that afternoon, so he goes after her for detailed, specifics so he can get his retweets.

 

She's fucking useless at waffling her way out of a question so she got caught like a rabbit in the headlights.  That has to be an MP's main ability in this day and age.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

38 minutes ago, Happy Face said:

 

If anyone is voting based soleley on the extermist muslim situation then Corbyn would be their only choice.

 

May will keep the same foreign policy we've had for decades, she'll keep the same trade in place with the nations that offer material support to ISIS, she will not increase the budgets of the police, MI5 or GCHQ and having failed to hit 4 or 5 immigration targets as home secretary and Tory leader, her new target is worthless and both she and David Davis have said it is not to be achieved by the end of the next parliament.

 

On the other hand, Corbyn offers an entirely new approach to foreign affairs that will pursue ALL diplomatic solutions before considering any strikes whatsoever (if he ever would).  He promises to end the trade with states funding terror AND he promises to increase budgets of security services.  He's also more likely to reduce immigration, purely because his £10 minimum wage and abolishment of zero hours contracts makes it much more attractive to hire Brits and there's less low paid work for immigrants to come for.

 

I can't se any uk government turning it's back on oil state investment. Just won't happen. 

 

As for extra money, the Tories have already budgeted 30% extra for counter terrorism and whether we need more 20,000 more police is debatable given the 30% drop in crime, the country's finances and imo, the little impact (if any) it would have on terrorism.

 

As for immigration, I'm not sure how increasing the minimum wage would reduce it? It will be even more appealing to migrants and just cause a knock on effect through most wage structures.

 

Im all for all this free stuff and extra spending, just not as euphoric about it as some of you. A lot of trust is being put in a handful of inexperienced old "marxists", to have suddenly found the formula to shangri-la. Let's not forget thirst people couldn't even galvanise the support of their own MP's and have only been kept in situ by a well organised "young" movement.

 

Nothing wrong with that in principal except the younger generation tend to be less aware of the past economic difficulties caused by Tax and Spend.

 

If it goes wrong, everyone's taxes go up, borrowing / mortgage rates rise, more is taken from public spending to pay ever higher debt payments and recession job losses follow.

 

I obviously hope it works, but I won't be surprised in the slightest if we're in the shit before the next election. 

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

the labour manifesto is more keynesian than marxist tbf - no magic forumla but an established economic model that boosted global growth after the war.

 

and a lot of what corbyn is suggesting would be considered mainstream policies in many european countries. he's talking about renationalising public services utilities, not the ftse 100 - how is that marxist? meanwhile the promise to spend over 200bn on infrastructure could stimulate growth, improve productivity and raise living standards. we should have been doing this throughout the austerity years, which tbf, have been shown to be a massive failure. 

[Rayvin 5186]

17 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

Nothing wrong with that in principal except the younger generation tend to be less aware of the past economic difficulties caused by Tax and Spend.

 

If it goes wrong, everyone's taxes go up, borrowing / mortgage rates rise, more is taken from public spending to pay ever higher debt payments and recession job losses follow.

 

I obviously hope it works, but I won't be surprised in the slightest if we're in the shit before the next election. 

 

I see what you're saying but at the same time, these same young people won't be able to afford to buy houses, have unstable incomes, and zero hours contracts. Little risk to them because they're already suffering through what you've just outlined the consequences of 'the economy in difficulty' to be.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Rayvin