Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
ffs Sunny.Anyone who watched the leadership race knows that it wasn't just Kendal politics that got her so little votes, she was just incredibly shite through the whole race. Same goes for the Burnham and Cooper, Yvette Cooper literally said on the economy''we shouldn't just talk about the trains, planes and the boys toys''. Now that's not to say Corbyn has all the answers(It's a wild shot in the dark for him to be PM)but people who complain about him getting elected have forgotten just how shite the others were.
true - 25% of people entitled to vote in the labour election didnt even vote and one wonders how different the outcome may have been with a straight choice between a more charismatic centrist option vs corbyn in a one vs one election...
Anyone who watched the leadership race knows that it wasn't just Kendal politics that got her so little votes, she was just incredibly shite through the whole race. Same goes for the Burnham and Cooper, Yvette Cooper literally said on the economy''we shouldn't just talk about the trains, planes and the boys toys''. Now that's not to say Corbyn has all the answers(It's a wild shot in the dark for him to be PM)but people who complain about him getting elected have forgotten just how shite the others were.
I guess we will probably find out in the next couple of years...
Honest and correct. The best that a far left party could hope for is being in coalition and getting an element of their policies through that way, by agreement. Anyone for P.R.?
I think most people are for PR - just never the government who has won in a fptp... even the conservative& lib coalition only allowed a vote on the AV system rather than true PR (which I think would be much more popular)
Yeah, that's the joke of FPTP. It results in majorities who end up getting in because of a system they advocate for the sole reason that it gets them power, and the fact that they're in power means it can't really be changed unless they suddenly grow a conscience. The coalition was probably the best chance in recent times.
Nah, most people are morons. And believe whatever the daily mail tells them to believe.
We had half a chance with AV (which whilst I thought it was a pretty poor system, I hoped would lead naturally into something better) but the divide and conquer tactics of those that opposed it ('Yes to PR, No to AV' anyone). Has killed the debated for at least another decade.
indeed - I think the best chance now is that the lords becomes an elected 2nd chamber and they use Pr for that chamber - perhaps after a couple of elections people will decide they prefer it and push parties to introduce it - Im not confident but I am hopeful...
We discussed electoral reform during the general election in some detail, and as i recall there was little support for simple PR (the loss of the MP-constituency link being a particular concern for many posters). Either AV or AV+ probably strikes the best balance for the UK in that regard, which is a tad ironic considering the referendum result.
Last edited:
STV can still allow for a direct constituency link.
The Labour leadership election uses AV which simulates runoff voting. Whether it was a straight choice/one on one makes no difference. It was entirely down to the weakness of the other candidates (and Corbyn's appeal, I think the other candidates were better than Miliband so let's not underplay Corbyn's acheivement)
What did you like about the other candidates then Untied?
Not much
I'm just wary of completely dismissing the other candidates as useless because it's a way of whitewashing Corbyn's victory: "You only voted for Corbyn because we didn't offer a good alternative". That's true to some extent, but he also captured the imagination of party members with the vision he was presenting. But anyway…Cooper wouldn't have become a figure of fun for the media in the same way Miliband did, even if she'd offered similar policies. And Kendall, well I'm not a fan, but a Kendall led Labour party would probably have had a more coherent message than Miliband's. There was always an underlying the sense that Ed wanted to go left (perhaps not as far as Corbyn, but certainly further than he did) but that advisers told him not to. Burnham was trounced by Miliband in 2010 so perhaps I'm being a little hard on Ed.
I was being cheeky, thanks for the honest response. I actually voted Kendall, because to me she seemed the most likely to be economically competent, but with heavy heart, I didn't really consider her quick-thinking enough for the job. I started off fancying Cooper, but she just couldn't stop coming out with sexist comments, and I didn't even see the sexist and loopy one Sweet Square posted above: Yvette Cooper literally said on the economy ''we shouldn't just talk about the trains, planes and the boys toys".
Yet another terrorist attack in Europe. The PM pledges to keep security and intelligence a priority in the UK yet Teresa May will continue to slash Police budgets in another round of George Osborne cuts this month.
It amazes me that the public are not bothered by this. It amazes me no one is worried by this.
When you have a number of Chief Constables explaining how severe these continued cuts are going to be in the way the Police service can operate you really have to question what the government is doing at a time when security should be paramount.
It amazes me that the public are not bothered by this. It amazes me no one is worried by this.
When you have a number of Chief Constables explaining how severe these continued cuts are going to be in the way the Police service can operate you really have to question what the government is doing at a time when security should be paramount.
The events in Paris last night will surely embolden May to push back against some of the cuts. I posted the following article earlier this week, and it only seems more relevant now.
The very idea that we'd contemplate cutting our specialist firearms units at a time like this, it's too ridiculous.
It's all about money. You can see they don't want constables as they can't make them redundant and they have to pay them a pension. It's nothing to do with people having specialist skills and coming in short term.
We already share resources such as police dogs and air support as forces have lost their own. This results in frequently not having a dog or helicopter available full stop.
There's simply nothing else to save. The public need to open their eyes to whats going on.
What really annoys me is how the tories have managed to label themselves as 'the party of law and order', a phrase I've even seen used on here. They've consistently done bugger-all about crime for decades. It was the much-derided Blair who brought community police back. Four in my area, two pcs and two assistants. The tories have reduced them to one and a bit, and they're often taken away at that. Everyone laughs at asbos, but the police use them frequently, and at least they are something we didn't have before. I'm convinced high crime rates in poorer towns and inner-cities are a low priority for the tories because they're generally not tory-voting areas. All in it together my arse.
Will Cameron push for a syria vote in light of recent events?
I imagine that right now he would probably stand as good a chance as ever of pushing it through - standing up and fighting with our French allies etc - I imagine it could get messy on both sides of the house trying to ensure people turn up and vote rather than find excuses or abstain.
Not sure where public opinion is on the issue but at a guess its about as favourable in terms of joining the bombing as it has ever been so it may be a slightly more position for corbyn to maintain than for cameron at the moment?
I imagine that right now he would probably stand as good a chance as ever of pushing it through - standing up and fighting with our French allies etc - I imagine it could get messy on both sides of the house trying to ensure people turn up and vote rather than find excuses or abstain.
Not sure where public opinion is on the issue but at a guess its about as favourable in terms of joining the bombing as it has ever been so it may be a slightly more position for corbyn to maintain than for cameron at the moment?
Corbyn has said no free vote for Labour MP's, and we all know he won't back action, so it'll require his members to revolt.
Or not turn up
Let's be honest the amount of times he voted against his own leadership out of principal makes it unlikely people in the PLP won't feel justified in doing the same
Nobody else think Corbyn might have a chance at turning it around a bit?
At first i figured he'd get nowhere and prove to be unelectable, despite having a lot of policies that make sense to the majority.
But since he's taken over pretty much everybody has gone far and above normal smear and at times been simply disgusting trying to end his time as labour leader quickly, not least the Jihadi Jez headlines i saw a few days ago.
As it stands i think they've failed to out him quickly and are now hurting themselves more than him. With the next election still being 4 years away i think they could actually just look idiotic by then.
Every new smear against Corbyn just makes me think the Conservatives are getting more and more scared of the potential millions he might be able to entice to vote.
At first i figured he'd get nowhere and prove to be unelectable, despite having a lot of policies that make sense to the majority.
But since he's taken over pretty much everybody has gone far and above normal smear and at times been simply disgusting trying to end his time as labour leader quickly, not least the Jihadi Jez headlines i saw a few days ago.
As it stands i think they've failed to out him quickly and are now hurting themselves more than him. With the next election still being 4 years away i think they could actually just look idiotic by then.
Every new smear against Corbyn just makes me think the Conservatives are getting more and more scared of the potential millions he might be able to entice to vote.
No... Not a chance and his comments today just show that he is going to trip himself up time and again
PLP hate him let alone the middle ground voters he needs to win to have a chance in England and as for the polls in Scotland coming third to the Conservatives is more likely than winning back the vote from the snp
Which comments?
The comments where he didn't say 'ERMAHGOD TERRORISTS BAD BOMB EVERYTHING'.
It's apparently really offensive to some on here that he has some belief in due process and not killing innocents in the name of 'the greater good'.
Cameron needs to outline a clear plan of action. Everyone should be opposed to it until we can see the detail of what he is suggesting.
I think the public is very in favour of air strikes and much less in favour of committing troops. But I think a solution will require an international deployment of troops.
The one where he would not say he would authorise the police or military to shoot to kill even if a terrorist attack like Paris was in progress
I saw that he said a shoot to kill policy was not a good thing generally and should be avoided if possible.
Anyone criticising him for that could probably do with remembering Jean Charles de Menezes
But the question was very very specific
Would he authorise a shoot to kill policy if the events of Paris were repeated in London.
I've only seen the clip on the BBC article which, usefully, doesn't contain the question. I think regardless of the question he was avoiding it and answering "generally".
If I really wanted to defend him I'd say it is 1. A rather silly question because armed police have the power of self defence anyway so if they are trying to subdue a terrorist who is firing back, they are authorised to kill and 2. He rather wishy washily talked about how these things go in degrees which means you perhaps authorise the police to kill the people in this specific building or something without given a general shoot to kill order.
Basically I don't think Corbyn would not order the police to use whatever force necessary to subdue active terrorist shooters but he is rightly cautious of endorsing shoot to kill. I think his 'Stop the War' roots come through and he doesn't want to say "Yeah I'd order them killed" even though he would.
If anyone genuinely believes Corbyn would just let active terrorist shooters continue unopposed I think they are mad
True... But if Corbyn and his supporters think he can change the political narrative with such poor answers then they are equally as mad... You yourself gave several plausible points he could have given
Which is (along with his own mps not liking him) is a key reason I think he remains unelectable and is becoming more so with the passing of time
I agree. I think a lot of posters have been taken in here. And I'm no Corbyn fan.
So in other words Corbyn's and Cameron's views on this are similar.
Disgusting that the anti-Corbyn brigade on here and in the media are using a fecking terrorist attack for point scoring.
No its stupid that we have such a politically inept person in charge of a political party who stumbled blindly into the most glaringly obvious gotcha question that was bound to be thrown at him... God knows how he is going to negotiate with Putin and isis if he can't even bat away the easy stuff
Just to clarify, Corbyn's response to this situation and national security is the same as David Cameron's?
Well no Cameron basically said there is a policy in place (where the police can choose when to shoot people) and corbyn said he is not happy with that.