Snap uk election..

[852147]

Whereas they chat all the time with May?

We have been one of the principle agressors around the southern and eastern mediterranean, Quite a bit of the north side too. A lot to do with traditional perceptions of the importance of the sea route through the med to the British empire. So we regarded nations such as Iraq, iran, Egypt, Arabia as our own possessions and therefore attacks upon them as attacks upon us. But then we were thrown out. It isnt appeasement to let people sort out their own politics in their own countries, and that is what we have failed to do. The UK, the US and Russia in particular have continued to meddle and push our own favourites. Of course some of those we have attacked now want to get back at us.

It was UKIPs manifesto launch today, and they took the opportunity to attack May and the conservatives for being far too weak on security. Exactly what you have been saying.

What I meant was Corbyn talk's like he could open peace talk's which is totally unrealistic especially with him as leader. We are semi pointless anyway if they listen to anyone will be Russia or USA. Well they never stay in there own countries in the middle east alway's spill out in to surrounding neighbour's if Russia had not got involved lord know's how powerful ISIS would be now Sometimes we have to intervene. Also ISIS hates the western way of life and would attack us regardless of no western intervention.

 

[dandelion]

What I meant was Corbyn talk's like he could open peace talk's which is totally unrealistic especially with him as leader. We are semi pointless anyway if they listen to anyone will be Russia or USA.

Which is another interesting point about the timing of this. Who wanted to interrup the elections? I'd go for the Russians. And who might have the resources to leak police photographs and reports? Probably also the Russians. they seem to be into hacking national computer systems. Cause marvellous trouble between the UK and US to leak this, with each denying it was them and blaming the other.

 

[852147]

Which is another interesting point about the timing of this. Who wanted to interrup the elections? I'd go for the Russians. And who might have the resources to leak police photographs and reports? Probably also the Russians. they seem to be into hacking national computer systems. Cause marvellous trouble between the UK and US to leak this, with each denying it was them and blaming the other.

I don't see how leaking pictures of police photograph's or report's helps any candidate? Russia I don't think is keen on any of our candidates but Corbyn they would be least keen on for sure so May would be preferred candidate.

 

[dandelion]

The Russians seem to have been implicatd in interfering in both French and US elections. I'd say their strategy is simply to sow discord and discredit everyone. In the US plainly they preferred Trump to win, because Clinton would likely have been more competent. In Europe, obviously they want to weaken the EU as much as possible, because it is their chief enemy in the world. The US is bigger, but on the other side and it is in Europe they want to make territorial gains.

The EU has changed the pattern of war in Europe. We have been cooperating instead of fighting each other for territorial gains. Obviously onle possible at each other's expense. Russia no doubt sees it that the EU has made huge gains at its expense in recent decades, and they want them back. The UK was one of the main architects of EU gain, so also for this reason they wanted us out of the EU. We havnt left yet, so their interest would probably now be in a conservative victory.

 

[852147]

The Russians seem to have been implicatd in interfering in both French and US elections. I'd say their strategy is simply to sow discord and discredit everyone. In the US plainly they preferred Trump to win, because Clinton would likely have been more competent. In Europe, obviously they want to weaken the EU as much as possible, because it is their chief enemy in the world. The US is bigger, but on the other side and it is in Europe they want to make territorial gains.

The EU has changed the pattern of war in Europe. We have been cooperating instead of fighting each other for territorial gains. Obviously onle possible at each other's expense. Russia no doubt sees it that the EU has made huge gains at its expense in recent decades, and they want them back. The UK was one of the main architects of EU gain, so also for this reason they wanted us out of the EU. We havnt left yet, so their interest would probably now be in a conservative victory.

I disagree with a lot of this they did not want Clinton as she would be hard on them Like Obama was and Trump is not hard on them at all. They do want to weaken the EU as it's a threat to there domination of eastern Europe and it's basically run now by Germany and Russia hates Germany.

Please stop rewriting history because your a huge EU fan! War's in Europe for most part have stopped due to Nato and Germany having no army as well as all the power's of Europe being much weaker since ww2 on a world stage so are not competing to be a world power anymore also USA would stop any war between two big European nation's nothing to do with the EU.

 

[852147]

The EU without USA would have no chance at stopping Putin taking over most of Europe it's a fact.

 

[dandelion]

! War's in Europe for most part have stopped due to Nato and Germany having no army as well as all the power's of Europe being much weaker since ww2 .

Now why is that? Germany had no army after WW1 also. Didnt stop WW2 happening. The real difference was after WW1 the winners set out to punish the losers. After WW2 they tried to create an integrate trading system which would benefit everyone and make war counter productive. (Hint: EU)

Of course, they also took away the losers guns, and placed their own troops as occupying forces. It is possible to change an enemy into a friend through military action, but seldom works. For it to work there has to be good will by the victor, and indeed a willingness to pay for reconstruction and so forth. The US in recent times has broken all these rules. It has set up government which have little local support and then refused to provide the troops and money to keep the locals safe and happy, for as long as it takes. Imposing our ideology on them is also a problem. Germany was simple, because as a European state we all have pretty similar outlook. Trying to turn an arab country into a western democracy was rather asking for trouble unless you were going to spend 50 years doing it.

 

[852147]

Now why is that? Germany had no army after WW1 also. Didnt stop WW2 happening. The real difference was after WW1 the winners set out to punish the losers. After WW2 they tried to create an integrate trading system which would benefit everyone and make war counter productive. (Hint: EU)

Of course, they also took away the losers guns, and placed their own troops as occupying forces. It is possible to change an enemy into a friend through military action, but seldom works. For it to work there has to be good will by the victor, and indeed a willingness to pay for reconstruction and so forth. The US in recent times has broken all these rules. It has set up government which have little local support and then refused to provide the troops and money to keep the locals safe and happy, for as long as it takes. Imposing our ideology on them is also a problem. Germany was simple, because as a European state we all have pretty similar outlook. Trying to turn an arab country into a western democracy was rather asking for trouble unless you were going to spend 50 years doing it.

They did have an army of WW1 look it up and they ignored rules and in secret built ip the army reason why now is peace is still a is big us troop presents in Germany. EU has almost nothing to do with European peace most historians including myself agree on this. Just basically made up to make EU sound better then it is. I agree trying to make an Arab nation a western democracy is fool hardy and naive.

 

[dandelion]

The election is taking an interesting turn. The political parties are treading on eggshells, but Labour has raised the question of whether the government is not taking the right approach to stopping terrorism.

The security services have explained how very difficult it is to track everyone who might possibly become a terrorist, most of whom will turn out to be completely innocent. They are right. it is a needle in a haystack task to stop a determined terrorist. the way to halt the war is to get rid of the reasons why people want to do this. It has little to do with religion.

The reason is simple. We invaded their countries, or interfered trying to choose who rules. They dont like this, and hit back however they can. So long as we keep interfering , they will keep fighting back. There is nothing strange about that, Brits would do exactly the same if the situation was reversed.

The question is, will the public side with labour and decide that a fundamental change is needed. We need to stop creating terrrorists.

 

[marinera]

The EU without USA would have no chance at stopping Putin taking over most of Europe it's a fact.

Those are two suppositions coupled, actually.

 

[852147]

There is a theory that voters try to avoid feeling the pain of losing (a bit like with the football!) and want to be on the winning side. That's why the parties want to appear to be gathering momentum in the polls during the final run into polling day. The Tories have had a tradition they call the Wednesday Wobble which dates back to Thatcher's 1979 landlide. The purpose of the Wobble is to scare out the Tory vote. Interesting I can believe this as tories have been worried people will be complacent of victory and not turn out on the day this is to make sure tory vote come's out and does not presume victory, the Clinton camp and rightly so was worried about people not turning out too as it was thought victory was assured. Also Yougorv is owned by two prominent tories so this theory is highly believable in my book! In the last week or so of election don't be surprised if Tory lead widen's again to give view of tories having momentum going into election day thou.

 

[dandelion]

report her by the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-condemning-boris-johnson-extremism-comments

It appears defence secretary Michael Fallon was being interviewed on TV about Corbyn's linking foreign policy with terrorism here. Fallon denied it. Then the interviewer quoted him a piece which said there was a link, but did not tell him it had been said by Boris Johnson. Fallon then proceeded to attack his own foreign secretary before it was pointed out who had said it.

The words in fact were spoken by Johnson in 2005 after the bombing incident then. He knows there is a link even if he refuses to admit it now. ten years gone by, most of it this tory government. No better foreign policy than then, still inciting terrorists without solving problems in the middle east.

Doing the best you can to stop terrorist at work is all very well, but it can never be a solution. The only real solution is to tackle the reasons making them terrorists and making us the enemy in their eyes.

don't be surprised if Tory lead widen's again to give view of tories having momentum going into election day thou.

On the contrary, the way to ensure a conservative win is accepted to be to annouce labour are winning. the effect of this is always that people from the side supposed to be winning do not bother to vote, because they think they have already won. Whereas the ones who think they are just losing become determined to vote to ensure it doesnt happen.

 

[852147]

report her by the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-condemning-boris-johnson-extremism-comments

It appears defence secretary Michael Fallon was being interviewed on TV about Corbyn's linking foreign policy with terrorism here. Fallon denied it. Then the interviewer quoted him a piece which said there was a link, but did not tell him it had been said by Boris Johnson. Fallon then proceeded to attack his own foreign secretary before it was pointed out who had said it.

The words in fact were spoken by Johnson in 2005 after the bombing incident then. He knows there is a link even if he refuses to admit it now. ten years gone by, most of it this tory government. No better foreign policy than then, still inciting terrorists without solving problems in the middle east.

Doing the best you can to stop terrorist at work is all very well, but it can never be a solution. The only real solution is to tackle the reasons making them terrorists and making us the enemy in their eyes.

On the contrary, the way to ensure a conservative win is accepted to be to annouce labour are winning. the effect of this is always that people from the side supposed to be winning do not bother to vote, because they think they have already won. Whereas the ones who think they are just losing become determined to vote to ensure it doesnt happen.

Agreed on last part I think this is all Tory spin to get the vote out and will be a repeat of 2015 when conservatives do far better on the day then last polls suggest and a easy conservative victory.

 

[rbkwp]

thanks for the indepth response dands,interesting indeed,totally agree re the below regarding May, could see it happen in a short period, prior to Manchester hence the query

guts of it all is i am now thinkinmg her popularity is on the wane enough,and i dont think the people have enough confidence she or any leader will be able to pull the UK thru BREXIT successfully, getting the/a best deal possible,dont think it will be viable enough for the UK to go thru with it,and almost feel now BREXIT wont happen

was good while it lasted,satisfied many people/maybe
but too hard basket now i think,May as PM with her penchant to chop and change like Trump, is she able to put a stop to it

However, confidence in May is starting to slip.

edit

Whereas May at least appears to have promised to go through with Brexit at all cost. But has she?


tend to agree thats possible

I still see her coming to the commons at the end of negotiations and saying brexit must be cancelled because it cannot be afforded by the nation. .

 

[rbkwp]

UK election campaigns resume after concert attack

Britain’s political parties have restarted their campaigning ahead of a June 8 general election.
Following a deadly attack at a music venue in Manchester, security has dominated the political debate.
Barnaby Phillips reports from London

The UK election explained

 

[Jason]

Corbyn in his own words: https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/

Corbyn, friend of IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, anti-Semite, enemy of the United Kingdom.

 

[852147]

I disagree that May is no the wane her number's they have stay the same around 45% a crazy number as Thatcher never got that or Blair at height of there popularity. I think Labour is getting a lot of the remain vote rather then the Lib dem's as people have realised Labour are the only realistic chance of winning and then they can force a weak Corbyn to block brexit. Although as I stated before it could all be a Tory electoral ploy to get out the base that could be complacent also the poll's are all over the shop one say's tory leader of 6 points another 12 they have no clue at the moment lol!

 

[Jason]

I disagree that May is no the wane her number's they have stay the same around 45% a crazy number as Thatcher never got that or Blair at height of there popularity. I think Labour is getting a lot of the remain vote rather then the Lib dem's as people have realised Labour are the only realistic chance of winning and then they can force a weak Corbyn to block brexit. Although as I stated before it could all be a Tory electoral ploy to get out the base that could be complacent also the poll's are all over the shop one say's tory leader of 6 points another 12 they have no clue at the moment lol!

Three polls out this eve:

CON 43, 44, 46
LAB 36, 38, 34

The average of these is CON 44% and LAB 36%.

Several thoughts:
* This would give Conservatives an overall majority of 60+
* We seem to see LibDems collapsing, with the vote mostly going to Labour. The UKIP collapse seems more equal.
* These figures leave out Scotland where Con are doing well against SNP and predictions suggest will gain a few seats. They also leave out NI. Unionists would support Con to keep Corbyn out of power.
* When people are asked about who would make the best PM there is an enormous preference for May, as for just about every policy issue. What we seem to be seeing is people who are prepared to vote Lab (or anything else) so that May doesn't get a landslide, but do actually want May to win.
* The won't votes are hardest to calculate. The Labour vote does seem weak.
* The Conservatives' campaign has been a car crash. Surely it can't get any worse.
* Corbyn will claim victory at anything over 30%. These figures would entrench Corbyn as Labour leader for years to come.
* The election is of course being fought on the gerrymandered boundaries that should have been sorted out in the 1990s. The new boundaries will be in lace 2018.

 

[852147]

Three polls out this eve:

CON 43, 44, 46
LAB 36, 38, 34

The average of these is CON 44% and LAB 36%.

Several thoughts:
* This would give Conservatives an overall majority of 60+
* We seem to see LibDems collapsing, with the vote mostly going to Labour. The UKIP collapse seems more equal.
* These figures leave out Scotland where Con are doing well against SNP and predictions suggest will gain a few seats. They also leave out NI. Unionists would support Con to keep Corbyn out of power.
* When people are asked about who would make the best PM there is an enormous preference for May, as for just about every policy issue. What we seem to be seeing is people who are prepared to vote Lab (or anything else) so that May doesn't get a landslide, but do actually want May to win.
* The won't votes are hardest to calculate. The Labour vote does seem weak.
* The Conservatives' campaign has been a car crash. Surely it can't get any worse.
* Corbyn will claim victory at anything over 30%. These figures would entrench Corbyn as Labour leader for years to come.
* The election is of course being fought on the gerrymandered boundaries that should have been sorted out in the 1990s. The new boundaries will be in lace 2018.

Agree on most point's

. Tories will win at the moment with 50 plus at least seat majority if not more.
. Lib demos are at same as 2015 levels basically not collapsed UKIP have completely collapsed with i'd say most going to tories.
Agree Tories under Ruth Davidson are doing extremely well could win upto 11 seat's further increasing a tory majority an amazing result can see Ruth Davidson being a future PM!
.Yes May is preference as PM by a big margin and party with most popular leader normally win's election' in the UK.
.The won't voter's will not turn out hugely IMO defiantly less then Brexit that was once in a generation turn I'd be shocked if we get 70% plus turnout again in the next 20 years! Apparently Labour is relying on them heavily for these mid to late 30 poll number's if they don't turn out they could fall back to around 30%.
.Conservative campaign has been a disaster so far but will rally after Manchester I reckon.
.Mcdonell has said if Corbyn matches Ed miliband for vote share Corbyn will stay leader meaning he will be leader till 2022 and I thing he will for sure be leader now after election and party may split depending on size of likely defeat.
. Yes new boundary lines will further increase Conservative majority like my area will go conservative from 2018 under new boundaries.

 

[rbkwp]

not suggesting Corbyn has a shits show of getting in
but do think May well be showing the mousy qualities Cameron was a master at

and
i do think she may well eventually capitulate to the Europeans and say
BREXIT, cant be achieved??