Theresa May most popular leader since the late 1970s as Jeremy Corbyn hits all time low - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tacooo;52154716]but how?[/QUOTE] Same reason that Sturgeon is so popular in Scotland. She's literally done nothing at all except talk about the outcome of a referendum, it means she's guaranteed to be popular with a large proportion of the population.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52156287]first past the post doesn't allow views like this to work I'm afraid you are basically burning your vote if you don't vote for one of the major parties[/QUOTE] Unless you live in an area where a close race can reasonably be expected, you can do whatever you want with your vote really. It's a decision between the final result being either 1000 votes for Candidate A, or 999 votes for Candidate A and 1 for Willy Wonka

[QUOTE=Craigewan;52156244]And they've shifted to an "Anti-Hard Brexit" stance in the past few weeks which is clearly positioning themselves to coalition with the Tories if they get the opportunity, so not even they count. Only actively remain party is the SNP, and potentially the Greens, but neither of those are significant in the broader tapestry of UK politics.[/QUOTE] That's assuming that they'll even get many votes. They might manage to suck up gullible remainers, but the majority of people I've spoken to remember how the party fucked over their voters when they entered the coalition. I'll never vote Lib-dem again after they made me pay any extra £25k for education. Sure the Tories bullied them into it, but they simply don't have the bollocks for real politics and standing up for their voters.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52154718]If this is to be believed--and at risk of getting ahead of myself--it looks like that snap election may have been a good call after all.[/QUOTE] Did anyone ever doubt the political advantage of calling this election?

Yay 5 more years of systematic impoverishment and oppression of undesirables i.e. the poor, the infirm, and the disabled. A more honest slogan would be "If you're not #StrongAndStable prepare to starve to death." or "Don't be #WeakAndDisabled "

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;52156298]That's assuming that they'll even get many votes. They might manage to suck up gullible remainers, but the majority of people I've spoken to remember how the party fucked over their voters when they entered the coalition. I'll never vote Lib-dem again after they made me pay any extra £25k for education. Sure the Tories bullied them into it, but they simply don't have the bollocks for real politics and standing up for their voters.[/QUOTE] Voters having short memories is why we're currently sitting under the Ghost of Thatcher's Past, so I imagine someone will vote for Lib Dems again, eventually.

This is surreal. I have dreams and ambitions but I genuinely believe I'll never achieve them under the Tories as things are going to come to a grinding halt soon enough. We can't sustain another few sweeping rounds of cuts. Remember the crises that Thatcher caused? Yeah, that shit, again. And here in Wales (which is apparently strongly Tory again this time around) people have forgotten that Thatcher and the unions destroyed the entire community we lived in, and the EU poured hella money into building it back up and getting people back into work. Holy shit this country is thick as FUCK.

[QUOTE=Jon27;52156374]This is surreal. I have dreams and ambitions but I genuinely believe I'll never achieve them under the Tories as things are going to come to a grinding halt soon enough. We can't sustain another few sweeping rounds of cuts. Remember the crises that Thatcher caused? Yeah, that shit, again. And here in Wales (which is apparently strongly Tory again this time around) people have forgotten that Thatcher and the unions destroyed the entire community we lived in, and the EU poured hella money into building it back up and getting people back into work. Holy shit this country is thick as FUCK.[/QUOTE] do you hate DEMOCRACY? RESPECT the will of the people we're taking back CONTROL BREXIT means [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-politics-37551132/brexit-means-breakfast-for-welsh-tory"]breakfast[/URL]

Yeah, this is a campaign of useless slogans. And old people apparently wishing us to experience what life was like in the Miners' strikes. [editline]27th April 2017[/editline] But what the fuck, Theresa used the word 'strong' [i]twenty-four[/i] times in the last PMQs. She doesn't want to tell anyone what she's going to do to save this country from being pushed off the knife edge by Brexit. What's the agenda here? Something sinister, surely.

The Telegraph has a Con bias, of course they would report this Yet on the other hand, the Independent is reporting that Corbyn has a poll lead This is becoming a tired joke now

[QUOTE=Jon27;52156398]Yeah, this is a campaign of useless slogans. And old people apparently wishing us to experience what life was like in the Miners' strikes. [editline]27th April 2017[/editline] But what the fuck, Theresa used the word 'strong' [i]twenty-four[/i] times in the last PMQs. She doesn't want to tell anyone what she's going to do to save this country from being pushed off the knife edge by Brexit. What's the agenda here? Something sinister, surely.[/QUOTE] Well a necessary consequence of Brexit will be: increased globalisation (trade with the US + BRICS, lots of brexit peeps voted for brexiting as a vote against this) increased living costs (if stuff is shipped from further away or tariffed then its more expensive) decreased standards/regulations (EU has good standards and regulations elsewhere has lower standards and will push those on us eg like ttip tried to do). That's a tough pill to swallow so its no surprise the that "party of the people" is keeping quiet about it. Their feigned strength/resolve is a positive which will go down well with people who want stability or feel that their struggle is a result of a perceived weak government/incoherent policy.

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;52156437]The Telegraph has a Con bias, of course they would report this Yet on the other hand, the Independent is reporting that Corbyn has a poll lead This is becoming a tired joke now[/QUOTE] The UK seems to have an absolutely ridiculous habit of being unable to record voters actual preferences.

The headline is so misleading, popular or likable is the last thing that ghoul is. Her political beliefs are atrocious, like any tory, but dialed up to 11 with the orwellian security fetish and religious close-mindedness. Not to mention that she has negative charisma; I thought watching robot in obvious skin suit David Cameron was grimy but she makes him look like the god damn Fonz. I am really, really sick of everything in this country being misrepresented and twisted. Everybody goes on about Corbyn as if he's some wet blanket, but from everything I've seen of him, he's at best roughly 200% better than Brown or Blair, and at worst, just fucking [U]fine[/U]. As in, I don't feel my stomaching churning with absolute dread once again when I see him. It would be so nice to have a prime minister that didn't make me feel devoid of all hope for my future in this country, and fearful for my family's wellbeing. "Theresa May the most popular leader in decades", tune into PMQ anytime you like and watch your apparent beloved leader flounder about like the unconvincing fart in a wig that she is.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52156546]The headline is so misleading, popular or likable is the last thing that ghoul is. Her political beliefs are atrocious, like any tory, but dialed up to 11 with the orwellian security fetish and religious close-mindedness. Not to mention that she has negative charisma; I thought watching robot in obvious skin suit David Cameron was grimy but she makes him look like the god damn Fonz. I am really, really sick of everything in this country being misrepresented and twisted. Everybody goes on about Corbyn as if he's some wet blanket, but from everything I've seen of him, he's at best roughly 200% better than Brown or Blair, and at worst, just fucking [U]fine[/U]. As in, I don't feel my stomaching churning with absolute dread once again when I see him. It would be so nice to have a prime minister that didn't make me feel devoid of all hope for my future in this country, and fearful for my family's wellbeing. "Theresa May the most popular leader in decades", tune into PMQ anytime you like and watch your apparent beloved leader flounder about like the unconvincing fart in a wig that she is.[/QUOTE] I dunno. I personally find it considerably off-putting that he was supportive of the IRA. That's partly one of my biggest issues with him.

[QUOTE=David29;52156625]I dunno. I personally find it considerably off-putting that he was supportive of the IRA. That's partly one of my biggest issues with him.[/QUOTE] At least he didn't negotiate with them behind closed doors for the last few decades whilst claiming not to like numerous successive Tory governments including Thatcher. He talked to them - yes - but he didn't support them afaik that just seems to be some kind of really poor smear attempt. [QUOTE]One of the most commonly occurring personal attack points that right-wingers use against Jeremy Corbyn is that he openly talked to the IRA in the 1980s and '90s. The problem with this right-wing narrative (like with so many other right-wing narratives) is that it's totally undermined by facts and reality. These people know that Corbyn talked to the IRA because he did it openly, but at the very same time Corbyn was openly talking to the IRA the political establishment were conducting secret backdoor deals with them. [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2601875.stm"]In 1972 the Tory government of Edward Heath conducted secret negotiations with the IRA[/URL]. The truth was only revealed in 2003. Margaret Thatcher always used to insist that she did not negotiate with terrorists, [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413"]but in 2011 declassified documents revealed that that's exactly what she did[/URL]. She negotiated with the IRA in 1981 during the hunger strikes, and the documents detailing the negotiating position of the UK government even featured annotations in her handwriting! Thatcher also [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher"]gave her personal approval to secret talks with the IRA in 1990 too[/URL]. So much for her not negotiating with terrorists rhetoric eh? [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-secret-ira-meetings-revelation-body-blow-to-major-premiers-authority-damaged-by-his-risky-1507416.html"]In 1993 the revelation that John Major's government had been conducting secret talks with the IRA created a huge political scandal[/URL], with several Tory MPs (who were clearly unaware of Thatcher's secret talks with the IRA) reacting with horror at the revelation that the not negotiating with terrorists line was a total lie. In 2008 it was revealed that [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past"]the UK government maintained a secret back channel to talk with the IRA for two decades all the way from 1973 and 1993[/URL]. From 1997 onward Tony Blair's government conducted negotiations with the IRA that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement, the power-sharing deal and the successful deescalation of the troubles. [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/414558.stm"]During this process Tony Blair had secret talks with the IRA in 1999[/URL]. In 2010 [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lords-stunned-by-tory-peers-ira-funding-claim-2126723.html"]an Tory peer called David James openly admitted that he had a history of secretly laundering money for the IRA[/URL]. He still sits in the unelected House of Lords as a Tory peer! It's astoundingly hypocritical for right-wingers to slam Corbyn for having openly talked to the IRA when the political establishment they're defending were doing the same thing in [B]but in secret[/B] for decades. But then hypocrisy (which stems from fact-aversion and immunity to cognitive dissonance) is an extremely common trait amongst right-wingers, and especially extreme right-wingers isn't it?[/quote] Sources here [URL]http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/the-absurd-ira-hypocrisyof-right-wing.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;52156649]At least he didn't negotiate with them behind closed doors for the last few decades whilst claiming not to like numerous successive Tory governments including Thatcher. He talked to them - yes - but he didn't support them afaik that just seems to be some kind of really poor smear attempt. Sources here [URL]http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/the-absurd-ira-hypocrisyof-right-wing.html[/URL][/QUOTE] That article doesn't disprove that he supported them, though. Plus, I read reports that he attended the funeral of IRA fighters. If nothing else, he continuely refuses to condemn them.

[QUOTE=David29;52156686]That article doesn't disprove that he supported them, though. Plus, I read reports that he attended the funeral of IRA fighters. If nothing else, he continuely refuses to condemn them.[/QUOTE] Maybe he believes that is the best way to have peace. Condemning a group probably isn't the best way to stop them from fighting.

None of the political establishment seem keen on condemning Saudi Arabia either despite it's activities in Yemen and various human rights abuses throughout recent history. Probably because British firms sell them the weapons I guess...

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52156714]Maybe he believes that is the best way to have peace. Condemning a group probably isn't the best way to stop them from fighting.[/QUOTE] That's not a particularly convincing logic.

[QUOTE=David29;52156727]That's not a particularly convincing logic.[/QUOTE] I don't find condemning them to be convincing logic either - it just leads to one way communication as opposed to a two way dialogue with said group.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;52156739]I don't find condemning them to be convincing logic either - it just leads to one way communication as opposed to a two way dialogue with said group.[/QUOTE] Yet he was happy to condemn British Forces - the forces he hopes to command. Odd.

What I find strange is that he opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 apparently despite the fact that was absolutely important on the road to peace?

[QUOTE=David29;52156766]Yet he was happy to condemn British Forces - the forces he hopes to command. Odd.[/QUOTE] Source of this? Only thing I can find for this is him criticising violence from both sides. Are you 100% sure you're not accidentally carping some misinformation you read in the sun?

[QUOTE=David29;52156766]Yet he was happy to condemn British Forces - the forces he hopes to command. Odd.[/QUOTE] are you comparing communicating with the IRA to communicating with [I]the British army? [/I] if you don't understand why condemning the IRA is different from condemning the actions of the british army, then that would explain why you thought your zinger had any substance at all

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52156793]Source of this? Only thing I can find for this is him criticising violence from both sides. Are you 100% sure you're not accidentally carping some misinformation you read in the sun?[/QUOTE] Come now, give me a bit more credit than that. [url]http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jeremy-corbyn-the-artful-dodger-a-transcript-of-his-nolan-interview-31430884.html[/url] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52156807]are you comparing communicating with the IRA to communicating with [I]the British army? [/I] if you don't understand why condemning the IRA is different from condemning the actions of the british army, then that would explain why you thought your zinger had any substance at all[/QUOTE] No. You're doing that thing again where you try to twist my posts.

[QUOTE=David29;52156838]Come now, give me a bit more credit than that. [url]http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jeremy-corbyn-the-artful-dodger-a-transcript-of-his-nolan-interview-31430884.html[/url] No. You're doing that thing again where you try to twist my posts.[/QUOTE] nope, your points are just total shit that dude said that condemning the IRA wasn't convincing logic because it prevents dialogue with the group you then said "Yet he was happy to condemn British Forces - the forces he hopes to command. Odd." so, you are equating the dialogue that was had with [I]the IRA, to the dialogue that Corbyn would possibly have with the british army[/I]

[QUOTE=David29;52156838]Come now, give me a bit more credit than that. [url]http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jeremy-corbyn-the-artful-dodger-a-transcript-of-his-nolan-interview-31430884.html[/url][/QUOTE] I saw this while I searched for proof earlier. Did you read it? excerpts from your source: [quote] SN: But do you condemn what the IRA did? JC: I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened. [/quote] He says a few times in that interview that he condemns the violence from both sides. It would be inconsistent and disingenuous to suggest he simultaneously condemns the BAF and doesn't condemn the IRA. He condemns violence from both sides; if that means he condemns the BAF then he condemns the IRA, if that means he doesn't condemn the IRA then he doesn't condemn the BAF. You can't have it both ways. To quote you : this is not convincing logic.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52156863]I saw this while I searched for proof earlier. Did you read it? excerpts from your source: He says a few times in that interview that he condemns the violence from both sides. It would be inconsistent and disingenuous to suggest he simultaneously condemns the BAF and doesn't condemn the IRA. He condemns violence from both sides; if that means he condemns the BAF then he condemns the IRA, if that means he doesn't condemn the IRA then he doesn't condemn the BAF. You can't have it both ways. To quote you : this is not convincing logic.[/QUOTE] Then why didn't he just say "yes, I condemn what the IRA as well as what other groups did"? He seemed happy to comment on what the British Forces did - without any prompting - but refused to answer the interviewers question. It's easy to say "I condemn violence and want peace" - some of histories worst men have said similar things to that. It just comes as a vague, blanket statement that ultimately dodges the question. Sorry, not convinced by it. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52156862]nope, your points are just total shit that dude said that condemning the IRA wasn't convincing logic because it prevents dialogue with the group you then said "Yet he was happy to condemn British Forces - the forces he hopes to command. Odd." so, you are equating the dialogue that was had with [I]the IRA, to the dialogue that Corbyn would possibly have with the british army[/I][/QUOTE] No, I'm really not.

[QUOTE=David29;52156904]Then why didn't he just say "yes, I condemn what the IRA as well as what other groups did"? He seemed happy to comment on what the British Forces did - without any prompting - but refused to answer the interviewers question. It's easy to say "I condemn violence and want peace" - some of histories worst men have said similar things to that. It just comes as a vague, blanket statement that ultimately dodges the question. Sorry, not convinced by it. No, I'm really not.[/QUOTE] you're not getting it why do you think he would be happier to make comments and condemn the actions of a state military, over an independent group of terrorists that aren't accountable to a government if he condemns the british army, the worst thing that happens is the british army possibly loses some face, and maybe an army spokesman has to make a statement if he condemns the IRA, as someone who has been in communication with them (someone who they were comfortable talking to), they possibly decide that talking isn't working as well as they'd like and go back to bombing civilians it is [I]incredibly[/I] obvious why he would avoid making directed comments condemning them when he was trying to talk to them, even when that tension is no longer a factor (or as much of a factor) why the hell would you say something that could potentially open up old wounds just to get a snipe at them?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52156966]you're not getting it why do you think he would be happier to make comments and condemn the actions of a state military, over an independent group of terrorists that aren't accountable to a government if he condemns the british army, the worst thing that happens is the british army possibly loses some face, and maybe an army spokesman has to make a statement if he condemns the IRA, as someone who has been in communication with them (someone who they were comfortable talking to), they possibly decide that talking isn't working as well as they'd like and go back to bombing civilians it is [I]incredibly[/I] obvious why he would avoid making directed comments condemning them when he was trying to talk to them, even when that tension is no longer a factor why the hell would you say something that could potentially open up old wounds[/QUOTE] And yet the IRA still exists and is still a threat. Have you been living under a rock?