General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcfc1632 said:
He had the power and opportunity to have supportive dialogue with all parties rather than just one...........

You are just ignoring the reality for convenience I would suggest
Click to expand...
Again you're just making things up to suit your agenda like you did your other post.

Have you forgotten the meetings he had with Unionists? Or what Ian Paisley said about him?

Fact is, Corbyn has been on the right side of history with regards to every conflict he's protested or negotiated.
 
Well I do not want to waste any of my time in a toing and froing with those that are too fixated in their views to have any ability to debate - but 2 quick points

1. You say:

Corbyn said he would rather bring him to trial than kill him. Now, given the supposed wish of these twats to die for their cause, wouldn't locking the fucker up forever have been more of a 'punishment'?

My view: Well that is fair - of sorts - but also (IMO) disingenuous.

We would all (well most of us) prefer people like Jihadi John to be captured - but he was hidden away out of reach in Raqqa - committing these atrocities.

This is where the dissembling of Corbyn is fully exposed - he could have said things like -"..... whilst in general I am opposed to these types of action until all other avenues have been explored, but in this case - with this disgusting man committing such dreadful atrocities - I accept that the means justifies the end........."

Did he say anything like that? - or did he just criticise the action?

2. You say:

And give over with all this 'lefty' this 'lefty' that bollocks.

Fair enough - You are right

I am thinking that you will likely suggest that the term LWNJ is the right one to use - is that right??

I am assuming this because the term RWNJ has been in wide use across the political threads these last months and a quick search does not show you picking anyone up on that term
 
Last edited:
bobmcfc said:
Why is he voting against them all though ? Some ok, but all ?
Click to expand...

Fair point, but you would probably have to read through them all Bob. It seems nearly all MPs vote against them at some point. To be fair to him what we have is a shambles and its the ones voting yes for these shambles i would be looking at.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
Fair point, but you would probably have to read through them all Bob. It seems nearly all MPs vote against them at some point. To be fair to him what we have is a shambles and its the ones voting yes for these shambles i would be looking at.
Click to expand...
I just posted some above. Now I get there are three stages of voting and you can be against in some stages if they need amendment and then vote accordingly at later stages. He outright voted against the lot or abstained. I don't get this at all. Some made perfect sense. Yes I don't agree with ID cards or 90 day detention without cause but surely if things are made clearer or amended so they are fairer then he could at least look like he wants to protect the uk
 
Tanzeylee said:
And yet Blair is the only labour leader to win power since 1974
Click to expand...

nicely worded to suit, you could easily have said out of 9 GE it's been 5-3 to the tories with one draw(hung parliment) either way there have been 4 tory PMs to 2 Labour in that time, and in winning election terms it's 3-1 to the tories
 
jay_mcfc said:
Again you're just making things up to suit your agenda like you did your other post.

Have you forgotten the meetings he had with Unionists? Or what Ian Paisley said about him?

Fact is, Corbyn has been on the right side of history with regards to every conflict he's protested or negotiated.
Click to expand...

Oh no I am not..........

I could easily say that you are indeed guilty of doing that - but I will give you a bit more credit and just suggest that you have allowed yourself to be taken in by all the 're-engineering' of the facts

It does not take much effort to get to the reality of Corbyn - just a degree of objectivity - you need to bring that to the party
 
bobmcfc said:
I just posted some above. Now I get there are three stages of voting and you can be against in some stages if they need amendment and then vote accordingly at later stages. He outright voted against the lot or abstained. I don't get this at all. Some made perfect sense. Yes I don't agree with ID cards or 90 day detention without cause but surely if things are made clearer or amended so they are fairer then he could at least look like he wants to protect the uk
Click to expand...

Its ok Bob we dont all think alike. If i had all the info of the MPs i might have voted for or against depending.
He does seem to be way ahead of the tories on foreign policy and by including all the stakeholders in the UK's security i am sure we will get a better result than the current slash and burn policy that has brought the fuckin jerks onto our streets. You will probably also find the Muslims, who are the key to this, will be a lot more receptive to helping clean out the vermin than tinpot tess who clearly cannot understand others may have a better bearing on this subject. There is also the very valid point that while she and her ilk have stakes and shares in arms, she cannot be untainted with self-interest.
Things must change she says, she is right, after 6 years of utter shite she is now counting the cost of her inadequacies and off she goes.
 
urban genie said:
nicely worded to suit, you could easily have said out of 9 GE it's been 5-3 to the tories with one draw(hung parliment) either way there have been 4 tory PMs to 2 Labour in that time, and in winning election terms it's 3-1 to the tories
Click to expand...

I could of but I didn't, yet he's still the only labour leader to win an election since 1974, I could have worded it as he's the only labour leader to have won elections in 38 years, and after Thursday you can probably add at least 5 years to that
 
Quote from Corbyn's speech:

'No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough, sometimes they will get through'.

They got through in 7/7 in a much more sophisticated and devastating manner than any of the recent atrocities. Were there cuts then?

Blaming the Tories and police cuts is reprehensible in the extreme and blatant electioneering.

As Cresida Dick stated, they have prevented another 5 in recent months. The fact is that with Isis retreating in Syria and Iraq they are taking the fight to UK streets and there is a vast escalation in attempts to kill on UK soil. We're the French atrocities due to cuts too?

Clearly, in light of recent events, their needs to be a review of policy, but to blame Tory cuts when there can be no possible direct link found is simply politics of the sewer and hopefully it will backfire spectacularly.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Well I do not want to waste any of my time in a toing and froing with those that are too fixated in their views to have any ability to debate
Click to expand...

First reaction - Hallelujah!
Second reaction - you're not fixated?
 
These are people involved in our emergency services speaking the truth on what this government is doing, making us less safe and secure







 
On May 7, 2014 the Home Secretary Theresa May brought forward a bill to deprive those fighting with ISIS of their citizenship. The legislation would allow if

… the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom

… them to be deprived of their citizenship, lose their passport and become stateless. Essentially exiling those fighting for ISIS.

no-exile.jpg


The roll-call above shows who voted to allow terrorist fighters to return to Britain

--------

Clearly May has a lot to make up for and fix but she is not a complete loon like Corbyn and company. There's not enough time in the day to catalogue Corbyn, McConnell and Abbott's - at best - naive and appeasing attitude towards terror and national defence in general.

Labour would win this election if it wasn't led by these dodgy fuckers
Make Labour Sane Again
 
Silva_Spell said:
On May 7, 2014 the Home Secretary Theresa May brought forward a bill to deprive those fighting with ISIS of their citizenship. The legislation would allow if

… the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom

… them to be deprived of their citizenship, lose their passport and become stateless. Essentially exiling those fighting for ISIS.

no-exile.jpg


The roll-call above shows who voted to allow terrorist fighters to return to Britain

--------

Clearly May has a lot to make up for and fix but she is not a complete loon like Corbyn and company. There's not enough time in the day to catalogue Corbyn, McConnell and Abbott's - at best - naive and appeasing attitude towards terror and national defence in general.

Labour would win this election if it wasn't led by these dodgy fuckers
Make Labour Sane Again
Click to expand...

And there it is, the truth laid bare.. a potential pm, home Secretary and chancellor who despise the values of this country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top