UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[Deleted]

Probably because people are used to the tories fucking over young people (the Milk Snatcher is probably looking up with pride) but them fucking over old people is new.

I love when people defend that with 'The milk was just farm aid!' - I agree, and the state shouldn't do farm aid.
Of course, the government still engages in real actual farm aid - So why it is seen as necessary and good to get rid of the covert kind but keep the overt kind i do not know.

[Mayhem]

Latest TNS poll shows CON lead down to 8 compared to 18 last week.

[rogueMatthias]

The latest Yougov Poll put the Tory lead down to five points.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7756421.html

Chairman May regretting going to the ballot box?

Aannnnddd Corbyns affectively blaming the UK for the Manchester attack already. His occidentalism's showing again, there's a surprise. Even if our foreign policy was simply "peace to all mankind", there'd still be religious nutjobs trying to kill other people.

[Deleted]

Aannnnddd Corbyns affectively blaming the UK for the Manchester attack already.

Well.

"[The assessment] in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children."

And also,

“Those terrorists will forever be reviled and held to account for their actions,”

He also said the security services should get more funding, if they need it. The ex-head of MI5, wearing the Bond Villain name of Baroness Manningham-Buller, also said that there is correlation between the invasion and the terrorist attacks. If you claim the head of MI5 is anti-British or hates the UK, then you start sounding a bit more of an Across-the-ponder.

[NED funded]

It's off to the gulags with the lot of you at this rate.

[rogueMatthias]

Well.

And also,

Just by saying that it "in no way reduces the guilt" doesn't mean it doesn't actually reduce the guilt. By stating its our foreign policy that's at the route cause of it, he's saying, to some degree, we've given the terrorists a legitimate reason to be carrying out these actions (albeit reprehensible actions). This idea that this is some kind of payback is entirely counter to the idea that these are "radicalised islamists".

Besides, the fact it was an event for young girls targetted specifically should just highlight that it was an attack because of how we live our lives and because of an idealogical clash, rather than it being tit-for-tat reaction for some specific foreign policy decision.

[Deleted]

Just by saying that it "in no way reduces the guilt" doesn't mean it doesn't actually reduce the guilt. By stating its our foreign policy that's at the route cause of it, he's saying, to some degree, we've given the terrorists a legitimate reason to be carrying out these actions (albeit reprehensible actions). This idea that this is some kind of payback is entirely counter to the idea that these are "radicalised islamists".

Besides, the fact it was an event for young girls targetted specifically should just highlight that it was an attack because of how we live our lives and because of an idealogical clash, rather than it being tit-for-tat reaction for some specific foreign policy decision.

Well, that's one way to view what he said, and it's a legitimate view. However, I'm not certain on whether that would give them a reason deemed as legitimate - Bombing civilians is never a legitimate response to anything. However, what he seems to be saying (or will be saying, he hasn't made the speech yet - this is just the script), is that the foreign policy is a reason for Lybian people to be critisice the UK, and the Western world in general. Bombing and terror acts are a way to respond.

It's possible to have the attack going on in the concert, simply because it was there, and that was deemed to be the first attack, as there were other bombs discovered later in different locations. I can't deny that the people behind this are against the Western way of life, and I can't deny the incredibly different ideologies of terrorist organisations. (duh)

Though I think nobody would deny that Middle East wars didn't do any good for the terrorist situation. Wars make people desperate, desperate people are easy to radicalise. Whether the wars were justified, and whether the radicalists wouldn't have attempted to attack people different than them regardless, that's a different story. That's what people mean by 'bombings are pushing people into ISIS hands', etc.

[draykorinee]

Corbyn is not blaming the uk, what a load of rubbish.

He is blaming the wars for increasing terrorism, which any idiot knows it's true and so he's saying his policy will be less interventionism. He's not saying it's a legitimate reason either,, being poor is not a legitimate reason to become an alcoholic but it is a legitimate cause of alcoholism.

Some people really are desperate. He literally says the attackers take the blame for Manchester.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Corbyn is not blaming the uk, what a load of rubbish.

He is blaming the wars for increasing terrorism, which any idiot knows it's true and so he's saying his policy will be less interventionism. He's not saying it's a legitimate reason either,, being poor is not a legitimate reason to become an alcoholic but it is a legitimate cause of alcoholism.

Some people really are desperate. He literally says the attackers take the blame for Manchester.

Expect a lot more of this sort of thing from the Tories. Because they literally don't have anything else they can fight with. Not if they want to win.

And even on this front Labour can still beat them up; would the attack have been less likely to happen if May hadn't been personally responsible for cutting 20,000 policy jobs? Would they even need to put the army on the streets if they still had that manpower available to the police?

And how does this impact the ability of the army to respond to world events, given that cuts in their numbers mean that the conventional army is the smallest it has been in living memory?

If the Tories want to keep things on security for the next two weeks, there is no guarantee that even that will work. It really depends on how strongly the MSM push the whole "you can't trust Labour with security" and how willing people are to ignore the facts and believe them.

[draykorinee]

So, been in a meeting about our overseas nurses. We're under staffed and we need them, don't kid yourselves about immigration, the NHS survives ONLY because of immigration.
The government are increasing our sponsorship fees from £300 to £3300, making our ability to sponsor overseas nurses almost untenable when you throw in the fact because of changes made by the government (although not necessarily bad changes), nurses from overseas have to pay for IELTS, CBT and OSCE training, for which most trusts foot the bill. It costs our trust upwards of £10000 just to get a nurse in to post with us, so throw in another £3000 and thank you Teresa May.

They're literally taking money from a tax payer based system to put back in to the tax payers coffers. Logic.

[Deleted]

Stil think its crazy there are 10000 odd soldiers being deployed to the street to cover the police cuts.

Not to mention there were already 5000 odd soldiers deployed on our streets before this incident.

[Ryme]

God, only the conservatives could dwindle their lead so badly. Only they could try and use their monumental lead to usher in their awful policies. Just shut the fuck up and get us through the Brexit mess, wait for Labour to be reformed so we can kick you out pretty please?

He is blaming the wars for increasing terrorism, which any idiot knows it's true

What about the countries that aren't intervening and, in fact, trying their best to help such as Sweden that are getting increasing attacks?

[draykorinee]

Expect a lot more of this sort of thing from the Tories. Because they literally don't have anything else they can fight with. Not if they want to win.

And even on this front Labour can still beat them up; would the attack have been less likely to happen if May hadn't been personally responsible for cutting 20,000 policy jobs? Would they even need to put the army on the streets if they still had that manpower available to the police?

And how does this impact the ability of the army to respond to world events, given that cuts in their numbers mean that the conventional army is the smallest it has been in living memory?

If the Tories want to keep things on security for the next two weeks, there is no guarantee that even that will work. It really depends on how strongly the MSM push the whole "you can't trust Labour with security" and how willing people are to ignore the facts and believe them.

I don't understand how people can see this as just an attack on our way of living. His parents were from Libya, we bombed Libya killed children all over the place and now he's done just that as well. Our intervention in Libya was an utter failure and caused the deaths of countless thousands of people including children. Quite frankly IF the UK was bombed and our children killed some might say that would be a cause to fight for. Its not a reason to bomb other kids though, thats where the deluded nature of extremism comes in.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the countries that aren't intervening and, in fact, trying their best to help such as Sweden that are getting increasing attacks?

We're talking about the UK, I have no idea what is going on in Sweden, extremists hate the West. Some of that will be theological and against our lifestyle, and this chap who bombed kids might be a purely theological extremism loon, he may have no interest in the hundreds of thousands of dead muslims by Western hands, i'll concede that, but it s highly unlikely that a guy who grew up in the UK and by all accounts was well westernised, would go to Libya and come back to bomb kids on the basis of our lifestyle in my opinion, it lacks logic.

[Deleted]

They're literally taking money from a tax payer based system to put back in to the tax payers coffers. Logic.

its a clever accounting trick - Move money from where you said it was going to go, to where you want it.
"we are spending 10 billion pounds on the NHS!" (that we then make them return to us in 'hospital' rent)

- - - Updated - - -

We're talking about the UK, I have no idea what is going on in Sweden, extremists hate the West. Some of that will be theological and against our lifestyle, and this chap who bombed kids might be a purely theological extremism loon, he may have no interest in the hundreds of thousands of dead muslims by Western hands, i'll concede that, but it s highly unlikely that a guy who grew up in the UK and by all accounts was well westernised, would go to Libya and come back to bomb kids on the basis of our lifestyle in my opinion, it lacks logic.

It is likely that the time he spent with an Islamic militia, dulled his reticence to use violence (because that's what exposure to it does) and while being in a harsh life and death situation, your sense of self gets, malleable, and you get reprogram able.
Even if said Islamic militia was 100% "nice" the lack of inhibition to violence, and the religious 'awakening' from just being in a life and death situation constantly is very likely to produce very dangerous individuals.

[rogueMatthias]

He is blaming the wars for increasing terrorism, which any idiot knows it's true and so he's saying his policy will be less interventionism. He's not saying it's a legitimate reason either,, being poor is not a legitimate reason to become an alcoholic but it is a legitimate cause of alcoholism..

But being poor ISN'T a cause of alcoholism, and there are plenty of rich alcoholics too. There are a whole range of reasons for alcoholism. though being poor could potentially exacerbate them, it isn't a "cause". Likewise, its just conjecture to say that if they did have money, they wouldn't be an alcoholic.

Blaming foreign for terrorism is simplifying the issue akin to blaming fast-food restaurants for people being obese. Do some people get obese from fast-food restaurants? Yes. Should these restaurants stop selling so much crap? debatable. Would these people be thin if there weren't fast-food restaurants? Well.. no. Because fundamentally it's not the reason these people are obese.

It's the same with foreign policy and terrorism. Does foreign policy aid in radicalisation of people? Yes, undoubtably. If we changed our foreign policy would it stop this? Well.. no. It doesn't necessarily matter what the policy is, just that we have it. People would just use the fact we're turning a blind eye to the death of Muslims to radicalise instead, or any number of other possible reasons. Because fundamentally it's not the reason people are radicalised.

Don't get me wrong - I'm completely against intervention in most countries and think the wars we've been involved in and weapons deals have been horrendous and should never have happened. We need to stop all this shit.. BUT the ideas that motivate the terrorism won't change. It's bigger than us. You can look to the shit-show that is Syria to see there isn't one answer; there isnt a "right" and "wrong".

Its the typical hidden racism of the far left that, despite being so proud of how open their views are, they still see white people as the "universal race", who are the root of all suffering in the world. All other races and their actions are just because they're victims of consequence of the West.

Despite us helping too often and supplying half the weapons, the wars in the ME are based around much larger conflicts, history and idealogical differences between the counties there. We've just played a pawn in a bigger game. The radicalisation is based on different interpretations of Islam and is aided in the West by a culture of tribalism that can make people identify with those in a different country more than they do their neighbours.

[draykorinee]

But being poor ISN'T a cause of alcoholism, and there are plenty of rich alcoholics too.

It is the leading factor (see cause) involved with why people abuse alcohol, the second part is irrelevant, my point wasn't that its the only cause. If you're being technical the cause of alcoholism is a physiological thing and not socio-economic but thats not what we're talking about, you could just as argue Extremism is a physiological response to outside stresses and not a socio-economic cause as well.

You're completely misconstruing what Corbyn is saying as him saying its the ONLY reason, its not. Blaming foreign intervention as one of the causes is akin to blaming people who eat mostly in fast food restaurants as one of the reasons for a rise in obesity, because...well it is.

The fact you think reduced interventionism won't help and that the only reason we attribute some of the blame to ourselves as just white guilt really just underlines my lack of concern with what you have to say from now on.

[Deleted]

Listening to LBC on and off today - with most of the presenters being right wing, there's a fondness growing for Corbyn. Many Callers that are Tribal conservative voters even saying their vote is up for grabs.

Whatever your thoughts of Corbyn, his message is resonating with the population. On the other hand, Theresa is quickly falling out of favour.

[draykorinee]

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, Miliband was supposed to be tied with Cameron and he got mashed when it came to votes.

[Deleted]

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, Miliband was supposed to be tied with Cameron and he got mashed when it came to votes.

Of course. It's just that normally LBC is rife with strong tory voices, die hard blues. But this week especially, there's been a shift with their callers. A small source.

[Shadowmelded]

Thought this was pretty amusing given the whole "Corbyn is apologizing for terrorists" angle being pushed lately.
https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/stat...82862415228929