Tory attack ad misrepresents Corbyn views on IRA, says Labour - Polidicks

[quote] Labour has accused the [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/conservatives"]Conservatives[/URL] of creating “fake news” after a Tory attack video that went viral was edited to show Jeremy Corbyn refusing to condemn the IRA, when in fact the Labour leader said: “I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.”The 85-second montage of Corbyn’s quotes has been circulating online for the last week and has been viewed 5.3m times, three times more than any other political campaign video. The Conservatives are also paying [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook"]Facebook[/URL] to insert it into people’s news feeds. It is subtitled: “On June 9th, this man could be Prime Minister. We can’t let that happen.” Tory attack ad in fullIt includes a clip from Corbyn’s appearance on Sky News last month when interviewer Sophy Ridge asked whether he could “condemn unequivocally the IRA”. The [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/labour"]Labour[/URL] leader said: “Look, bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it.” Ridge responded: “But you’re condemning all bombing, can you condemn the IRA without equating it to.” Corbyn said: “No.” The clip was cut off there but the full quote was: “No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring about a peace process. Listen, in the 1980s Britain was looking for a military solution, it clearly was never going to work. Ask anyone in the British army at the time … I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.” [/quote] [Quote] Despite the Labour leader’s rising popularity the Conservatives are heavily targeting Corbyn with nine out of 10 of [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/tory-attack-ad-corbyn-remarks-context"]their adverts attacking him[/URL], according to an analysis of 889 Facebook ads placed by the three main parties into the feeds of more than 8,000 voters. [/Quote] [quote] Labour, by contrast, is hardly mentioning Theresa May in its social media campaign with only 9% of the 136 different ads seen so far by Who Targets Me referring to the prime minister. The adverts that Labour is promoting hardest are not related to policy, but are urging people to get out and vote. The next most common topics addressed in paid for ads by the party are the NHS and tuition fees. [/quote] Absolutely disgusting tactics. Abusing a loophole in the law to create attack adds full of lies and twisting of truths. [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/labour-accuses-tories-of-fake-news-over-video-of-corbyn-ira-comments[/URL]

Typical tory strategy, they did the same with Miliband. They know they can't fight him on his policies so they resort to shit flinging.

I don't think the Conservatives actually care about the victims of the IRA or the victims of the Loyalist forces in Northern Ireland. Or the collusion of some British soldiers with Loyalist forces. They don't give a damn about Northern Ireland, really. But I am biased of course. And bitter.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52304816]I don't think the Conservatives actually care about the victims of the IRA or the victims of the Loyalist forces in Northern Ireland. Or the collusion of some British soldiers with Loyalist forces. They don't give a damn about Northern Ireland, really. But I am biased of course. And bitter.[/QUOTE] The only time England has ever cared about Ireland is when it concerns its subjugation. Nothing else.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52304648]Typical tory strategy, they did the same with Miliband. They know they can't fight him on his policies so they resort to shit flinging.[/QUOTE] Sadly when you have a mostly unintelligent, uneducated or unquestioning voter-base, it doesn't matter. A country full of intellectuals would be death for Conservatives but alas, we do not have that. The worse things get, the better they get for Tories.

If you think this is smearing, you're completely missing the point. Whether Corbyn met with the IRA because he sincerely wanted peace is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that he supports a United Ireland, the fact is that he wanted the British out of Northern Ireland. Now given this man has actively supported the dismemberment of this country, he is not fit to become it's leader.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307902]If you think this is smearing, you're completely missing the point. Whether Corbyn met with the IRA because he sincerely wanted peace is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that he supports a United Ireland, the fact is that he wanted the British out of Northern Ireland. Now given this man has actively supported the dismemberment of this country, he is not fit to become it's leader.[/QUOTE] i'd prefer to see northern ireland be a part of ireland, and i don't think that's dismemberment of the country. northern ireland was always an artificial creation

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307902]If you think this is smearing, you're completely missing the point. Whether Corbyn met with the IRA because he sincerely wanted peace is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that he supports a United Ireland, the fact is that he wanted the British out of Northern Ireland. Now given this man has actively supported the dismemberment of this country, he is not fit to become it's leader.[/QUOTE] If the only way you can attack a candidate is by editing a clip so that they are saying something they never said, then you're the one in the wrong, not them. That's the point.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52307903]i'd prefer to see northern ireland be a part of ireland, and i don't think that's dismemberment of the country. northern ireland was always an artificial creation[/QUOTE] If that's your view then fair enough. But you must accept that this view is at odds with the electorate, and so when the Conservatives highlight Corbyn's IRA links, they are only drawing attention to the fact that he holds an unpopular view rather than smearing him. [QUOTE=Glent;52307910]If the only way you can attack a candidate is by editing a clip so that they are saying something they never said, then you're the one in the wrong, not them. That's the point.[/QUOTE] But they didn't. They demonstrated that he refused to condemn the IRA as an organisation, even if he did condemn their bombings. Which as I just said, is a view at odds with that of the electorate.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307902]If you think this is smearing, you're completely missing the point. [B]Whether Corbyn met with the IRA because he sincerely wanted peace is irrelevant[/B], the fact of the matter is that he supports a United Ireland, the fact is that he wanted the British out of Northern Ireland. Now given this man has actively supported the dismemberment of this country, he is not fit to become it's leader.[/QUOTE] I think that is probably the most relevant part, actually, and editing the clip to misrepresent his views on the matter is absolutely disgusting. This is something the Tory party has been doing consistnetly this election, focusing more on discrediting other people than actually coming up with event a coherent sentence on what they want for the future of this country. At least literally every other party is able to do this, yet with the conservatives we get bumbling idiots and terrible sound bites which are going to come back and bite them in the arse. Here's some shit leaflets we've had through the door in the last few days: [thumb]https://i.imgur.com/ftN7jXY.jpg[/thumb] It is disgusting scaremongering, no one can support this. Theresa May has actively repressed gay rights in her parliament voting record, and voted for the Iraq war. But she now supports gay rights and voted for the Iraq war investigation. It would disingenuous of anyone to say she is still to this day actively dislikes gays, because peoples opinions change. And unlike Corbyn, she was voting for this stuff just over 10 years ago, and we have proof of this, along with tax cuts to the wealthy, voting against the fox hunting ban etc. Compare this to dragging up stuff from the 1980's and then actively twisting it in the wrong way to lie to people like you.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307919]But they didn't. They demonstrated that he refused to condemn the IRA as an organisation, even if he did condemn their bombings. Which as I just said, is a view at odds with that of the electorate.[/QUOTE] If the IRA had never been a terrorist organisation, if there had been no bombings or killings, what would there be to condemn? You can't condemn them just on the basis of wanting a United Ireland because there's nothing wrong with that (the Good Friday Agreement would later go on to make sure that such a decision was left to the people of NI). It's only when they do something wrong - like bombings - that you have a right to condemn them. So of course, the IRA deserves condemnation for its bombing campaigns (and other killings) - and Corbyn condemned them for that. What Corbyn said was right, too. The British military campaign in Northern Ireland wasn't achieving anything but leading to more violence. When you refuse to negotiate and be diplomatic, you only escalate the situation. Good Friday showed that you can "negotiate with terrorists" to bring about peace, which is a worthy goal. And that agreement ensures that the decision whether or not to unite Ireland is left to the people of Northern Ireland, so it doesn't really matter what Corbyn wants in that regard.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307919]If that's your view then fair enough. But you must accept that this view is at odds with the electorate, and so when the Conservatives highlight Corbyn's IRA links, they are only drawing attention to the fact that he holds an unpopular view rather than smearing him.[/QUOTE] So you're saying it's okay to edit out the full context of what someone says as long as it fits with the electorate's narrative?

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307902]If you think this is smearing, you're completely missing the point. Whether Corbyn met with the IRA because he sincerely wanted peace is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that he supports a United Ireland, the fact is that he wanted the British out of Northern Ireland. Now given [B]this man has actively supported the dismemberment of this country[/B], he is not fit to become it's leader.[/QUOTE] So did David Cameron in retrospect

[QUOTE=icemaz;52307931]I think that is probably the most relevant part, actually, and editing the clip to misrepresent his views on the matter is absolutely disgusting. This is something the Tory party has been doing consistnetly this election, focusing more on discrediting other people than actually coming up with event a coherent sentence on what they want for the future of this country. At least literally every other party is able to do this, yet with the conservatives we get bumbling idiots and terrible sound bites which are going to come back and bite them in the arse. Here's some shit leaflets we've had through the door in the last few days: [thumb]https://i.imgur.com/ftN7jXY.jpg[/thumb] It is disgusting scaremongering, no one can support this. Theresa May has actively repressed gay rights in her parliament voting record, and voted for the Iraq war. But she now supports gay rights and voted for the Iraq war investigation. It would disingenuous of anyone to say she is still to this day actively dislikes gays, because peoples opinions change. And unlike Corbyn, she was voting for this stuff just over 10 years ago, and we have proof of this, along with tax cuts to the wealthy, voting against the fox hunting ban etc. Compare this to dragging up stuff from the 1980's and then actively twisting it in the wrong way to lie to people like you.[/QUOTE] Well no it isn't relevant, for the simple reason that he wanted peace on their terms (I.e A United Ireland), which would have meant capitulation to the demands of terrorists. Therefore just saying "Well he wanted Peace" isn't good enough because it belies his reasons for wanting peace. The Conservatives are scaremongering, but they are very real possibilities. The fact of the matter is that unless Corbyn were to have a Blair in 1997 level of popularity in England, he would have to rely on other parties to pass legislation. Thus putting any potential government at the mercy of minor parties and creating inherent instability. Since the Conservatives already have a majority and all other minor parties (apart from the DUP and the UUP) probably wouldn't work with them, a vote for the Conservatives is by necessity a vote for a stable government. There is nothing untrue about any of the Conservative's rhetoric surrounding a "Coalition of Chaos" As far as Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn's comparative records are concerned, as I've said repeatedly Corbyn's past views have been to oppose Britain's overseas actions whether they be in Northern Ireland or the Falklands as some kind of imperialism. Therefore I don't believe he genuinely thinks that British people or the security of the British state should be the goal of British foreign policy which is concerning to say the least. [QUOTE=Glent;52307935]If the IRA had never been a terrorist organisation, if there had been no bombings or killings, what would there be to condemn? You can't condemn them just on the basis of wanting a United Ireland because there's nothing wrong with that (the Good Friday Agreement would later go on to make sure that such a decision was left to the people of NI). It's only when they do something wrong - like bombings - that you have a right to condemn them. So of course, the IRA deserves condemnation for its bombing campaigns (and other killings) - and Corbyn condemned them for that. What Corbyn said was right, too. The British military campaign in Northern Ireland wasn't achieving anything but leading to more violence. When you refuse to negotiate and be diplomatic, you only escalate the situation. Good Friday showed that you can "negotiate with terrorists" to bring about peace, which is a worthy goal. And that agreement ensures that the decision whether or not to unite Ireland is left to the people of Northern Ireland, so it doesn't really matter what Corbyn wants in that regard.[/QUOTE] Whilst maybe the idea of a United Ireland is not worthy of something as strong as a condemnation by a British politicians. It is still an idea which inherently seeks to undermine the territorial control of the British state, and so not to rule out your belief in it as a politician necessarily raises the possibility that you are willing to cede British territory or deny the protection of the state to British civilians. I admit that I don't know alot about "The Troubles", but it is my opinion that the British military campaign in Northern Ireland did achieve the primary aim of ensuring the region did remain under the sovereign control of the British state. If the British hadn't used the military in Nothern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement wouldn't have been possible as the IRA would have had no incentive to give up their arms.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307957] a vote for the Conservatives is by necessity a vote for a stable government.[/quote] Sure, stability of decline in civil liberties and social services. [quote] There is nothing untrue about any of the Conservative's rhetoric surrounding a "Coalition of Chaos".[/QUOTE] Conjecture at best

[QUOTE]a vote for the Conservatives is by necessity a vote for a stable government.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the stability of people suffering under shitty economic conditions and the stability of... leaving the EU because of a referendum, a type of vote Britain has only ever had three times in the last 50 years, causing immense political and economic ramifications, particularly in Northern Ireland? Very stable indeed.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307957]Well no it isn't relevant, for the simple reason that he wanted peace on their terms (I.e A United Ireland), which would have meant capitulation to the demands of terrorists. Therefore just saying "Well he wanted Peace" isn't good enough because it belies his reasons for wanting peace. The Conservatives are scaremongering, but they are very real possibilities. The fact of the matter is that unless Corbyn were to have a Blair in 1997 level of popularity in England, he would have to rely on other parties to pass legislation. Thus putting any potential government at the mercy of minor parties and creating inherent instability. Since the Conservatives already have a majority and all other minor parties (apart from the DUP and the UUP) probably wouldn't work with them, a vote for the Conservatives is by necessity a vote for a stable government. There is nothing untrue about any of the Conservative's rhetoric surrounding a "Coalition of Chaos" As far as Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn's comparative records are concerned, as I've said repeatedly Corbyn's past views have been to oppose Britain's overseas actions whether they be in Northern Ireland or the Falklands as some kind of imperialism. Therefore I don't believe he genuinely thinks that British people or the security of the British state should be the goal of British foreign policy which is concerning to say the least. Whilst maybe the idea of a United Ireland is not worthy of something as strong as a condemnation by a British politicians. It is still an idea which inherently seeks to undermine the territorial control of the British state, and so not to rule out your belief in it as a politician necessarily raises the possibility that you are willing to cede British territory or deny the protection of the state to British civilians. I admit that I don't know alot about "The Troubles", but it is my opinion that the British military campaign in Northern Ireland did achieve the primary aim of ensuring the region did remain under the sovereign control of the British state. If the British hadn't used the military in Nothern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement wouldn't have been possible as the IRA would have had no incentive to give up their arms.[/QUOTE] I voted for the "Coalition of Chaos" because something troubled me about Theresa May triggering the Brexit and lying about not triggering an early general election until we've reached some stability, something tells me that she knows things are going to be far from stable for a while. Heck all the point of this thread is to show that the Tories are being obscene with their misrepresentation of the Labour party and it's just unthinkable that you would defend this behaviour given that all it does is show how unstable things have gotten between the Conservatives and Labour, May even refuses to debate Corbyn which must mean that things are getting incredibly tense between the two parties, I don't believe this will lead to actual violence but there's a definite breakdown of diplomacy between any of the Conservatives opposition parties and they need to start giving clear answers because they've been running on these white lies for long enough for some voters.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52307957]a vote for the Conservatives is by necessity a vote for a stable government. There is nothing untrue about any of the Conservative's rhetoric surrounding a "Coalition of Chaos".[/QUOTE] If you believe that a Conservative government is the most "stable" of the possible outcomes, you believe their rhetoric as such, then why aren't you questioning the fact they called an election at all? That seems like the opposite of being a 'stable' entity, when you decide to go back on everything you had been saying for the last year, and call an election as a power grab. They are lying to you constantly about what they believe, about what their actions will be, how can you call this stable? You have no proof about what they will do in the future, you have no figures, or costings. The Conservative party is in absolute unplanned shambles [I]in spite of[/I] their majority government. [QUOTE=The mouse;52307957]Well no it isn't relevant, for the simple reason that he wanted peace on their terms (I.e A United Ireland), which would have meant capitulation to the demands of terrorists. Therefore just saying "Well he wanted Peace" isn't good enough because it belies his reasons for wanting peace.[/QUOTE] If you believe that a United Ireland would be 'capitulation to the demands of terrorists', then you are an incredibly weak willed individual. Even more so as it would be put to a referendum for the people to decide, which sounds like the complete opposite of giving into the demands of the IRA. It isn't the governments land to control, it belongs to the people and they must decide, if they so choose. [QUOTE=The mouse;52307957]As far as Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn's comparative records are concerned, as I've said repeatedly Corbyn's past views have been to oppose Britain's overseas actions whether they be in Northern Ireland or the Falklands as some kind of imperialism. Therefore I don't believe he genuinely thinks that British people or the security of the British state should be the goal of British foreign policy which is concerning to say the least. [/QUOTE] Both of those things happened decades ago, yet you don't refer to his opposing of the Iraq war? Do you think the government was justified at the time with the Iraq war, and that Corbyn was wrong to vote against it?

[QUOTE=icemaz;52308015]If you believe that a Conservative government is the most "stable" of the possible outcomes, you believe their rhetoric as such, then why aren't you questioning the fact they called an election at all? That seems like the opposite of being a 'stable' entity, when you decide to go back on everything you had been saying for the last year, and call an election as a power grab. They are lying to you constantly about what they believe, about what their actions will be, how can you call this stable? You have no proof about what they will do in the future, you have no figures, or costings. The Conservative party is in absolute unplanned shambles [I]in spite of[/I] their majority government. If you believe that a United Ireland would be 'capitulation to the demands of terrorists', then you are an incredibly weak willed individual. Even more so as it would be put to a referendum for the people to decide, which sounds like the complete opposite of giving into the demands of the IRA. It isn't the governments land to control, it belongs to the people and they must decide, if they so choose. Both of those things happened decades ago, yet you don't refer to his opposing of the Iraq war? Do you think the government was justified at the time with the Iraq war, and that Corbyn was wrong to vote against it?[/QUOTE] First of all, they called an election as a means of ensuring stability. Everyone acknowledges that Brexit will be the most grueling experience any British government has had to face for a generation. The last thing the government needs is to be worried that it's negotiation attempts will be frustrated by Parliament, either from it's own backbenches or the opposition. Therefore a large majority is a means of ensuring that anything the government negotiates will almost certainly have the backing of Parliament. Second of all, stability is relative. I don't dispute the fact that the government has frequently changed it's tune over the course of the last year, but the government has at least been both united and disciplined. You may not like Theresa May or the Conservatives, but they are definitely more fit to govern than Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. One only needs to see the brutal internecine conflict which has engulfed the Labour Party over the last 2 years, and the complete and utter incompetence of Labour's front bench. Yes, the Conservatives were divided over Europe, but there was always much more besides it they agreed on. Whilst in the Labour Party the left and the right of the party aren't just divided on a single issue, or even a whole host of issues, but rather an entire world view. With the Left of the party believing in state solutions to every problem and the right, accepting the Thatcherite reforms to the economy. You may not like the Conservative Party's front bench but they at least are all experienced, have plans and show deference to their leader. To argue that somehow voting for the Conservative Party invites relative instability requires enormous leaps in logic. With regards to Northern Ireland, you might (or might not) be aware that there was infact a border poll in 1973 which the Nationalist community boycotted. The IRA weren't interested in what the people wanted or in engaging with the democratic system (even after the rigged Northern Irish Parliament was dissolved) However despite all of this, the solution to the Northern Irish problem is far too complicated for a simple referendum to solve anyway. If you thought the Scottish Independence and EU Referendums were divisive, you have no idea how divisive a united Ireland referendum would be to the North. With regards to Corbyn's opposition to the Iraq War. Given that he has opposed every single war that Britain has been engaged in over the last 30 years, being right once is hardly an achievement. He also opposed "Just" wars such as the Falklands War and The First Gulf War.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52308075]He also opposed "Just" wars such as the Falklands War and The First Gulf War.[/QUOTE] So? Anti-war is a legit stance. Your opinion isn't all defining.

Mouse, your posts are basically just repeating what the Conservatives themselves are repeating, in more words. I don't have the privilege of sitting down and having a good hard think about whether I like someone, personally, enough for them to deserve to be prime minister based on their opinions in the eighties. Before I was even born. And even if I did, I'm Bisexual, the Conservative party- Notably Theresa May herself- have some very [i][b] interesting[/b] [/i] ideas about people like me- so they aren't going to win any popularity contests even if we did ignore their disgusting austerity policy, blatant power-plays, and rudderless Brexit cock-ups in favour of making everything about personal attacks on party members. Tory Austerity is driving people like me out onto the streets- and without Labour's changes to the minimum wage and ban on exploitative zero hour contracts, and accessible university, There's no stable employment or affordable education available for us to jump into before the Tories pull the rug out from under us completely. Even if this "He's a terrorist!!!" trash was even remotely credible, [i]and it's not[/i], I honestly wouldn't care- because I'm more likely to die of hypothermia after losing my flat, or starvation when I can't afford to pay for both my bills and the weekly shop, as the Tories tighten the noose on the poor and the disabled- than I am to be blown up by time-travelling members of the fucking IRA. [i] and that's coming from someone whose mum worked at one of the big london branches of lloyds that the IRA attempted to bomb back when they were actually a threat[/i] And as for the Terrorists of the present, the ones actually attacking our country [i] now[/i]- why would I vote for the party selling weapons to the countries funding and arming those groups?, Why should I vote for a woman that, as home secretary, bleated about scaremongering while she cut the police service standing between us and attacks like the Manchester bombing? They have nothing to offer but vitriol and spite, and you sitting here re-articulating that spite isn't going to convince anyone.

[QUOTE]With regards to Northern Ireland, you might (or might not) be aware that there was infact a border poll in 1973 which the Nationalist community boycotted. The IRA weren't interested in what the people wanted or in engaging with the democratic system (even after the rigged Northern Irish Parliament was dissolved) However despite all of this, the solution to the Northern Irish problem is far too complicated for a simple referendum to solve anyway. If you thought the Scottish Independence and EU Referendums were divisive, you have no idea how divisive a united Ireland referendum would be to the North.[/QUOTE] It's almost as if the Troubles were in full flight at that period and they had no trust that the result would be accepted as the Nationalist community were still very oppressed. Unionists, as the majority, would have likely won anyway and if they didn't - do you think they'd have accepted the result? It's almost as if the Sunningdale Agreement was also brought down around this time by Unionists. Are you really implying that somehow nationalists didn't really want an United Ireland at the time? Or an actual democracy? Do you REALLY believe somehow that the system wasn't still dramatically rigged against them in 1973? How well do you actually know the history of the region? Funny you didn't mention the Loyalist violence that was going on at the time or the awful rhetoric of sectarian men like Ian Paisley. Or the fact there was SOME collusion between British soldiers and Loyalist . And yeah, of course an United Ireland referendum would be divisive. But it's not going to be violent anymore. There's been at-least 20 years of very solid peace. All sides have accepted a referendum, if it happens, will be accepted, it will be open, and it will be free. All sides have been clear on this. Implying that anyone thinks a border poll will magically solve the problems in Northern Ireland is frankly moronic. Nobody thinks that way. If an United Ireland happens (and I want it to happen), I recognise it's going to be tough. It's going to lead to a [I]dramatic[/I] change in Ireland. But it's looking very likely that there might be one in the next five years because, gasp. [B][I][U]NORTHERN IRELAND AND ITS PEOPLE, ALONG WITH THE ATTITUDES OF IRISH AND BRITISH PEOPLE, AND ITS POLITICS, HAVE CHANGED.[/U][/I][/B] And you seemingly think it hasn't.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52308075]You may not like the Conservative Party's front bench but they at least are all experienced, [B]have plans[/B] and show deference to their leader.[/QUOTE] If they have a plan, then you should have no problem linking me to actual figures, projections, literally anything for what the Tories want over the next 5 years. All I have heard so far is "We will get the best deal", "A strong and stable leadership" etc without any indication to the [I]how[/I]. While other leaders are openly discussing their policies, Tory top bods hide away, and spout bile. Even their manifesto, whilst probably the most boring document I have ever had the pleasure of looking at in the last few years, offered nothing of substance.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52308075]First of all, they called an election as a means of ensuring stability. Everyone acknowledges that Brexit will be the most grueling experience any British government has had to face for a generation. The last thing the government needs is to be worried that it's negotiation attempts will be frustrated by Parliament, either from it's own backbenches or the opposition. Therefore a large majority is a means of ensuring that anything the government negotiates will almost certainly have the backing of Parliament. Second of all, stability is relative. I don't dispute the fact that the government has frequently changed it's tune over the course of the last year, but the government has at least been both united and disciplined. You may not like Theresa May or the Conservatives, but they are definitely more fit to govern than Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. One only needs to see the brutal internecine conflict which has engulfed the Labour Party over the last 2 years, and the complete and utter incompetence of Labour's front bench. Yes, the Conservatives were divided over Europe, but there was always much more besides it they agreed on. Whilst in the Labour Party the left and the right of the party aren't just divided on a single issue, or even a whole host of issues, but rather an entire world view. With the Left of the party believing in state solutions to every problem and the right, accepting the Thatcherite reforms to the economy. You may not like the Conservative Party's front bench but they at least are all experienced, have plans and show deference to their leader. To argue that somehow voting for the Conservative Party invites relative instability requires enormous leaps in logic.[/QUOTE] It's funny really. One of the reasons people voted to leave was because they felt like their views on national issues weren't being heard by the "bureaucrats in Brussels" and they wanted a greater say on national issues. Yet we have a government that seems intent on ignoring these people by attempting to bypass parliament where it thinks it can, rushing through a general election to capitalise on the relative unpopularity of the opposition, running smear campaigns against the opposition, and [URL="http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/three-minutes-of-nothing-herald-reporter-reflects-on-pm-encounter/story-30363961-detail/story.html"]offering absolutely no useful information about people's issues[/URL], all under the guise of "stability" and preventing the "coalition of chaos" from getting any power. If this is how the government will continue operate after leaving the EU then I will be even more deeply troubled about the future of the country.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52308103]Mouse, your posts are basically just repeating what the Conservatives themselves are repeating, in more words. I don't have the privilege of sitting down and having a good hard think about whether I like someone, personally, enough for them to deserve to be prime minister based on their opinions in the eighties. Before I was even born. And even if I did, I'm Bisexual, the Conservative party has some very [i][b] interesting[/b] [/i] ideas about people like me- so they aren't going to win any popularity contests even if we did ignore their disgusting austerity policy, blatant power-plays, and rudderless Brexit cock-ups in favour of making everything about personal attacks on party members. Tory Austerity is driving people like me out onto the streets- and without Labour's changes to the minimum wage and ban on exploitative zero hour contracts, and accessible university, There's no stable employment available for us to jump into before the Tories pull the rug out from under us completely. Even if this "He's a terrorist!!!" trash was even remotely credible, [i]and it's not[/i], I honestly wouldn't care- because I'm more likely to die of hypothermia after losing my flat, or starvation when I can't afford to pay for both my bills and the weekly shop, as the Tories tighten the noose on the poor and the disabled- than I am to be blown up by time-travelling members of the fucking IRA. And as for the Terrorists of the present, the ones actually attacking our country [i] now[/i]- why would I vote for the party selling weapons to the countries funding those groups?, Why should I vote for a woman that bleated about scaremongering while she cut the police service standing between us and attacks like the Manchester bombing? They have nothing to offer but vitriol and spite, and you sitting here re-articulating that spite isn't going to convince anyone.[/QUOTE] Look, all I'm trying to say is that the Tories aren't evil and Corbyn is not a saint. I will freely admit that the governments of the last 7 years have done a lot of things which have negatively impacted a large amount of people in this country. However under every and all types of governments, there are always going to be people who suffer as a result of their actions. If you want to vote for Labour or any other party, I completely understand why but don't be surprised when good intentioned policies and platitudes don't translate into good outcomes. Just because you might have only seen a negative impact on your life by this government, doesn't mean that this government has sought only to cause people pain. You can call them out of touch, ignorant or misguided but it doesn't change the fact that they still believe themselves to be doing the right thing. For Example They genuinely consider Corbyn to be a threat to national security, not because they're some rich powerful elite seeking to defend their interests and those of others. But because they're patriots who see Corbyn as someone who has consistently sided with people who have threatened this country. Now you might (even rightly) believe these views to be outright wrong, but they've come to hold these views entirely sincerely based on their own individual experiences. I hope you can understand that I and many others in this country have not shared your experiences and so have not reached the same conclusions about this government as you have.

I find it odd that the mouse is saying that they wish to vote for more stability, when paradoxically, in the past, he stated [QUOTE=The mouse;51403155] I really don't care about restricted weaponry [/QUOTE] You would think that someone so concerned about stability would be worried about a party selling weapons to hostile nations, hmm? [sp] If you dont get the joke, click the link in the quote to see its source [/sp] [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=The mouse;52308208]Look, all I'm trying to say is that the Tories aren't evil and Corbyn is not a saint. I will freely admit that the governments of the last 7 years have done a lot of things which have negatively impacted a large amount of people in this country. However under every and all types of governments, there are always going to be people who suffer as a result of their actions. If you want to vote for Labour or any other party, I completely understand why but don't be surprised when good intentioned policies and platitudes don't translate into good outcomes. Just because you might have only seen a negative impact on your life by this government, doesn't mean that this government has sought only to cause people pain. You can call them out of touch, ignorant or misguided but it doesn't change the fact that they still believe themselves to be doing the right thing. [B]For Example They genuinely consider Corbyn to be a threat to national security, not because they're some rich powerful elite seeking to defend their interests and those of others. But because they're patriots who see Corbyn as someone who has consistently sided with people who have threatened this country. Now you might (even rightly) believe these views to be outright wrong, but they've come to hold these views entirely sincerely based on their own individual experiences. [/B] I hope you can understand that I and many others in this country have not shared your experiences and so have not reached the same conclusions about this government as you have.[/QUOTE] literally feels before reals. they [I]feel[/I] that way because they have been given misguided information. A nation governed by the lie will eventually die. We must respect the truth, not those who twist it for their own benifit

[QUOTE=da space core;52308213] literally feels before reals. they [I]feel[/I] that way because they have been given misguided information. A nation governed by the lie will eventually die. We must respect the truth, not those who twist it for their own benifit[/QUOTE] Even if that were true, don't act like it's a phenomenon exclusive to the Conservatives. Corbyn and his allies continue to identify as democratic socialists despite the utter failure of states like Venezuela because as you put it "Feels before Reals"

[QUOTE=The mouse;52308316]Even if that were true, don't act like it's a phenomenon exclusive to the Conservatives. Corbyn and his allies continue to identify as democratic socialists despite the utter failure of states like Venezuela because as you put it "Feels before Reals"[/QUOTE] There's a load of Scandinavian and other European countries with far more comparable economies and policies but let's go with Venezuela. Even if Corbyn's policies don't benefit you, they're not going to lead to catastrophe. At worst we have to raise taxes more than we'd like or reduce some of the spending commitments.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52308316]Even if that were true, don't act like it's a phenomenon exclusive to the Conservatives. Corbyn and his allies continue to identify as democratic socialists despite the utter failure of states like Venezuela because as you put it "Feels before Reals"[/QUOTE] this is like saying that anything remotely conservative wont work because the Nazis were a thing.

I am pretty sure Venezuela's woes are not all because of democratic socialism.