• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK General Election

baron said:
And yet the only 'solution' to terrorism in the Labour manifesto - a subject considered so unimportant it doesn't even have its own section - is to scrap the only effective initiative currently in place - the Prevent programme (it actually says 'review' but we all know what that means). Why cheer a soundbite over the evidence of 30 years, in which Corbyn has come up with not a single domestic initiative to counter the problem of Islamic terrorism.
Click to expand...

I'm hardly cheering it.

At the risk of being again accused of cheering it, my understanding of his approach to combat terrorism is restoration of some of the cut police numbers (that's in the manifesto), stopping (in his view) ill advised military intervention that just makes things worse, and just trying to understand more about the root causes and potential solutions by more reasoned discourse rather than knee jerk reaction.

Whether you think those are reasonable options is up to you but I think claiming their only solution is the one you quoted betrays your bias and that you may have fallen for 'soundbites' from the other side.

To make it clear, I do not support Jeremy Corbyn nor Labour. I have voted Labour just once in my life and that was more about the local MP than the party. I am, however, able to sideline my personal bias (at least to a certain extent) and acknowledge that he has performed reasonably well in the debates which I found surprising considering how poor he's been as an opposition leader.

The Tories meanwhile are botching it slightly. They'll still win, but they haven't helped themselves.
 
Darat said:
Just so folks are clear, baron's claim that ".....not even deeming the subject worthy of a section in its manifesto...." was demonstrably false.

The actual section quoted from The Labour Manifesto, page 77
Click to expand...
I've read it three times, and I still can't figure out what it says about terrorism. It's got "counter-terrorism" in the title, but it doesn't even seem to say much about that. Just some banal platitudes about security cooperation.

If that's your best evidence, then Labour was trying to avoid the topic of terrorism, or Labour just didn't think it was worth talking about.

Did you mean to cite some other section?
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
I like that.

"Sell me the car for the money I want or I'll set myself on fire right here and my immolation might just cause some of your stock to become covered in soot"

That just about covers the leaving the EU argument and the strength of the UKs bargaining position.
Click to expand...

There's some kind of weird masocism going on in pro-eu Brits, where exiting the EU is seen as akin to suicide.
 
Giz said:
There's some kind of weird masocism going on in pro-eu Brits, where exiting the EU is seen as akin to suicide.
Click to expand...

3point14 said:
Not suicide, just an extremely stupid move with absolutely no upside.
Click to expand...

....and the harder the Brexit then the more likely that we'll have severe consequences.

A Brexit that has the UK still part of the EEA (with all that entails in terms of freedom of movement and adoption of EU laws) would be financially and politically disadvantageous to the current position but would otherwise reflect "business as usual". OTOH an out-out-out Brexit could result in a significant drop in UK GDP, a diminution of UK influence abroad and turmoil for millions :(.
 
theprestige said:
I've read it three times, and I still can't figure out what it says about terrorism. It's got "counter-terrorism" in the title, but it doesn't even seem to say much about that. Just some banal platitudes about security cooperation.

If that's your best evidence, then Labour was trying to avoid the topic of terrorism, or Labour just didn't think it was worth talking about.

Did you mean to cite some other section?
Click to expand...

Glad to see you agree that there is a section in the Labour manifesto that Baron claimed wasn't there.
 
Tolls said:
The benefit is that it shows a certain willingness to deal and not be an arse about it.
Click to expand...

In what way is revealing your hand a willingness to deal? Or maybe you mean that the EU would welcome negotiations with a party that has stated even the worst deal imaginable would be better than no deal, in which case you're quite correct. I'm still waiting for you to cite a benefit for us.

Tolls said:
This does not have to be the confrontational negotiation that May has been pushing, for local consumption.
Click to expand...

In what way is it confrontational to give away your negotiating position? Have you ever negotiated anything? I can't imagine it was a great experience if you approached it along these lines.

Tolls said:
The EU wants a deal as well, you know.
Click to expand...

Er, yes, exactly! So the idea that the UK would walk away rather than accept a bad deal is a pretty strong negotiation strategy, and the reverse a very poor one, clearly.
 
Last edited:
Ethan Thane Athen said:
I'm hardly cheering it.

At the risk of being again accused of cheering it, my understanding of his approach to combat terrorism is restoration of some of the cut police numbers (that's in the manifesto), stopping (in his view) ill advised military intervention that just makes things worse, and just trying to understand more about the root causes and potential solutions by more reasoned discourse rather than knee jerk reaction.

Whether you think those are reasonable options is up to you but I think claiming their only solution is the one you quoted betrays your bias and that you may have fallen for 'soundbites' from the other side.
Click to expand...

You mean 'Prevent'? No, it's certainly not the only solution, it's not even a particularly good one, but it's the only one we've got and Corbyn wants to get rid of it, along with most other anti-terrorist measures currently in place. Neither party has the balls to tackle the main issue, but whilst one at least pretends to combat the extremist threat, the other practically embraces it.

Ethan Thane Athen said:
To make it clear, I do not support Jeremy Corbyn nor Labour. I have voted Labour just once in my life and that was more about the local MP than the party. I am, however, able to sideline my personal bias (at least to a certain extent) and acknowledge that he has performed reasonably well in the debates which I found surprising considering how poor he's been as an opposition leader.
Click to expand...

That's why I don't put much credence in debates. Anybody can say anything, and does, it means nothing. The only thing people should be looking at is the evidence in terms of past action, and Corbyn's record of tacitly (and not so tacitly) supporting terrorism is clear.
 
Tolls said:
The benefit is that it shows a certain willingness to deal and not be an arse about it.
This does not have to be the confrontational negotiation that May has been pushing, for local consumption.
Click to expand...

May has taken from the referendum result that any deal that doesn't give UK control of immigration will be seen as 'not really leaving the EU' and probably results in a Conservative party split and UKIP Mk 2.

The EU have said 'no freedom of movement' means no single market.

Therefore you get a 'Hard Brexit'.

May has called for a 'deep and special relationship' - probably as near to where we are now as possible.

The EU wants a deal as well, you know.
Click to expand...

And have asked for a Brexit bill of 50bn+ to be agreed before discussing a future relationship. 'No deal' is mainly in response to this.
 
baron said:
You mean 'Prevent'? No, it's certainly not the only solution, it's not even a particularly good one, but it's the only one we've got and Corbyn wants to get rid of it, along with most other anti-terrorist measures currently in place. Neither party has the balls to tackle the main issue, but whilst one at least pretends to combat the extremist threat, the other practically embraces it.



That's why I don't put much credence in debates. Anybody can say anything, and does, it means nothing. The only thing people should be looking at is the evidence in terms of past action, and Corbyn's record of tacitly (and not so tacitly) supporting terrorism is clear.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're a million miles apart. I would expect any politician to have some skill at debate (not that that means they mean what they say) though I am often sadly disappointed. The quite obvious lack of intelligence from Dianne Abbott every time she opens her mouth always leaves me bemused that she's sustained a political career...
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
I don't think we're a million miles apart. I would expect any politician to have some skill at debate (not that that means they mean what they say) though I am often sadly disappointed. The quite obvious lack of intelligence from Dianne Abbott every time she opens her mouth always leaves me bemused that she's sustained a political career...
Click to expand...

We definitely agree on that, and although the Labour party would benefit from replacing Abbot with somebody boasting at least half a brain, Abbott's humour value would be a sad loss to us all.
 
baron said:
We definitely agree on that, and although the Labour party would benefit from replacing Abbot with somebody boasting at least half a brain, Abbott's humour value would be a sad loss to us all.
Click to expand...

And the Tories could do the same with the brain at the top :)
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
I don't think we're a million miles apart. I would expect any politician to have some skill at debate (not that that means they mean what they say) though I am often sadly disappointed. The quite obvious lack of intelligence from Dianne Abbott every time she opens her mouth always leaves me bemused that she's sustained a political career...
Click to expand...
Must be her hairstyle!
 
baron said:
It does work. It may not be perfect but it works. Labour would first render it useless then scrap it, within a single term. I'd bet a lot of money on that.
Click to expand...

All Governments in the U.K. review both the defense and security arrangements in their first 100 days. It is both to ensure Ministers understand what is in place as they now have higher clearance and to ensure that it will still fit against their queens speech policies.
 
Aber said:
May has taken from the referendum result that any deal that doesn't give UK control of immigration will be seen as 'not really leaving the EU' and probably results in a Conservative party split and UKIP Mk 2.

The EU have said 'no freedom of movement' means no single market.

Therefore you get a 'Hard Brexit'.

May has called for a 'deep and special relationship' - probably as near to where we are now as possible.



And have asked for a Brexit bill of 50bn+ to be agreed before discussing a future relationship. 'No deal' is mainly in response to this.
Click to expand...

When we leave the EU in 2019 we will still have large number of organisations in receipt of funding from H2020 to CAP which affects large number of small companies, farmers, fishermen and research and universities until 2020 plus pensions to people like Farage and all the MEPs and past and existing staff members still living for the last 40+ years until they die, plus various other commitments like europol and security etc.
We know that from the 350 million a week paid to the EU we get back for these programmes and other commitments approximately 127 million a week that will still need to be paid as we have already signed up to these agreements and these organisations are counting on receiving that cash or many will go under. If you do that calculation it's not hard to get to 50 billion. The problem with that degree of transparency is then everyone can actually see where we were benefiting from EU membership which doesn't help the Brexiteer's story. 127 million for the 91 weeks between March 2019 and December 2020 comes to £11557000000 or 115 billion
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom