UK general election 2017

[Huehuecoyotl]

Friends with Hamas, i.e. the organisation, not necessarily with individual members. It is expressing solidarity with the group, which is probably worse than having a couple of dodgy mates, as most people do not agree with everything all their mates think.

Not it isn't "expressing solidarity with the group". And you know it isn't. You are just trying to twist words to suit the point you are trying to make. He was talking about them in the way that you would if you were positioning yourself between two opposing parties, with an aim to get them to talk to you, and hopefully eventually each other. "My friends in Hamas and my friends in Israel need to come together to find a peaceful solution to the issues that they face" he might say. It doesn't imply support, solidarity or anything else for either side. It's just the language of conciliation as a tool to broker peace in an angry situation.

But you know that of course. It just suits you to use a word to try and discredit a man that has stood for peaceful solutions to problems his entire life. While you stand in support of a government that sells weapons to nations supporting terrorism because it's profitable. He has nothing to apologise for. But you do.

[Zarc]

I'd actually be very surprised if DUP gets much out this deal. Everyone's making it clear it's not a coalition, just "support". Pretty sure they're just signing the guild charter to get enough names, and then won't do anything else.

May really didn't need to give them anything. They hate Corbyn so much that their manifesto might as well say "We hate Jeremy Corbyn and would see him dead before we saw him in Power" (and that would likely have been their plan B.). They'd be ecstatic just knowing they're stopping him from being PM.

Not a chance man.

The DUP is desperate not to have a hard border between the Republic and the North, as they see it as an existential threat to Northern Ireland remaining a part of the UK. They will not demand much, but they will demand this. As May has lost her mandate to pursue a Brexit at all cost, or a "hard Brexit", by losing the Conservatives' majority, the DUP will use their kingmaker position to demand this one thing which they place above all else at this moment. Due to this I am fairly confident that the most likely outcome of the Brexit negotiations will be as follows:

The UK exits the European Union (including the European Single Market), paying their bills on their way out, but they remain part of the European Customs Union. Existing the EU will fulfill the promise of the referendum, exiting the Single Market will fulfill the promise of ending freedom of movement, while remaining in the European Customs Union (with a customs union being a type of free trade area for goods, but not services) + retaining the existing Common Travel Area of Ireland and the UK will result in there being no border between the Republic and the North.

This is the ideal scenario for the DUP, but it is also in my opinion the ideal scenario (within the confines of a Brexit) for the EU:

- The Conservatives will be under pressure to cut a deal to remain in the Customs Union, so the EU will get their bills payed to reach that deal

- The UK remaining in the Customs Union will mean that the EU will be able to continue free trade of goods to the UK, which is great because the UK is the biggest (17%, same as the US) export market for goods (+services) for the EU and the EU sell more to the UK than vice versa (though UK's exports to the EU are a larger part of their economy than vice versa, so it's even more important for them). This means that the UK will not be able to negotiate free trade agreements with third-countries

- The UK exiting the Single Market will mean that they will lose their free trade in services (of which the UK sells more of to the EU than vice versa because of their massive financial sector) and the City will lose their passporting rights meaning that financial services will have to relocate jobs to the EU (this is the price they pay for ending freedom of movement) - reducing the concentration of financial services to London and relocating jobs and tax revenues to the EU

And it's not a bad deal for the UK, it's an OK deal, which is the best the Conservatives can hope for as there are no great deals in Brexit. Of course had I been the UK I would've wanted to remain part of the Single Market, or rather I would've wanted to remain part of the EU but if I had to pursue some form of Brexit I would've chosen the Single Market approach. Because I would consider that a better deal. But that means freedom of movement, and some form of Brexit + ending freedom of movement seem to be the uncompromising parts of the Conservatives approach to delivering the outcome of the referendum.

[Zelk]

Basically this.

Plus all the trident bullshit. "Are you going to press the button when we get nuked?" Who fucking cares, the world is over when it happens.

Best thing about seats though:

Average Votes per seat
Cons:42.9k
Lab:49.1k
Lib:197k (lol, those votes counted didnt they)
SNP:27.9k
DUP:29.2k

Need the Greens and Ukip. Greens are at about 500k for one seat and ukip the same for 0.

[AeneasBK]

Not it isn't "expressing solidarity with the group". And you know it isn't. You are just trying to twist words to suit the point you are trying to make. He was talking about them in the way that you would if you were positioning yourself between two opposing parties, with an aim to get them to talk to you, and hopefully eventually each other. "My friends in Hamas and my friends in Israel need to come together to find a peaceful solution to the issues that they face" he might say. It doesn't imply support, solidarity or anything else for either side. It's just the language of conciliation as a tool to broker peace in an angry situation.

I mean, the above is pretty much verbatim the words the papers were using to demonise him at the time. It's like "How the fuck do you try to broker a compromise between 2 people, start off by calling one of them a fuckwad??". I dunno, like I say, until someone can provide evidence he was friends with Hamas, which nobody has yet, then its just bum-air. It was around the time of the "omg look he didn't wear a tie!" and other vacuous crap. Like, scrape that barrel harder, pls.

[Kalis]

Not it isn't "expressing solidarity with the group". And you know it isn't.

Yes it was.

You are just trying to twist words to suit the point you are trying to make. He was talking about them in the way that you would if you were positioning yourself between two opposing parties, with an aim to get them to talk to you, and hopefully eventually each other. "My friends in Hamas and my friends in Israel need to come together to find a peaceful solution to the issues that they face" he might say. It doesn't imply support, solidarity or anything else for either side. It's just the language of conciliation as a tool to broker peace in an angry situation.

He never put himself between Hamas and Israel, that is kind of the point. There was no Israel involved, it was purely one sided and done to express solidarity with Hamas and Hezbollah.

He even whined about one of them being labelled as a terrorist group (Hezbollah iirc), as if it was somehow unfair to those poor AK-47 wielding blokes in balaclavas.

But you know that of course. It just suits you to use a word to try and discredit a man that has stood for peaceful solutions to problems his entire life. While you stand in support of a government that sells weapons to nations supporting terrorism because it's profitable. He has nothing to apologise for. But you do.

Peaceful solutions my arse.

The country has to make money, I realise that is a revelation for the left, but we have to pay for all the stuff and sometimes that means you hold your nose. It is political pragmatism, which is not the same as coming out in support of the terrorists, as that is due to ideological alignment.

It is the difference between trading with Cuba, due to it being in our national interest and praising Castro, who was a murderous dictator - the former is not nice, but it is understandable, the latter is not acceptable as there is no need to brown nose that cunt.

[Deleted]

Cameron's decision of the Brexit referendum really opened the (Dis)United Kingdom's Pandora Box. One year later and we keep seeing new fractures opening.

[Zelk]

Here it is finally from the Tories. IRA bad UDA & Friends good. Terrorism is fine as long as you kill Irish Catholics and not British protestants. What a disgraceful party the conservatives are. Fuck me.

[sheggaro]

So she gambled and lost? Seems to be quite a thing among British politicians.

[Floopa]

personally this is the best moment for me:

https://twitter.com/PolComForum/stat...86390539988993

Dear Theresa, it's not the number of MPs that counts it's how you use them. You have to do more with less that's all

and in this, there's another gem

"We could get the burn ward for her, but she she sold it to Virgin Care"

lmao

[Kalis]

I mean, the above is pretty much verbatim the words the papers were using to demonise him at the time. It's like "How the fuck do you try to broker a compromise between 2 people, start off by calling one of them a fuckwad??". I dunno, like I say, until someone can provide evidence he was friends with Hamas, which nobody has yet, then its just bum-air. It was around the time of the "omg look he didn't wear a tie!" and other vacuous crap. Like, scrape that barrel harder, pls.

The only time he mentioned Israel was when he said that one of the groups had been banned from travelling, he did not mention inviting Israeli representatives, there is no indication that they were invited.

I highly doubt that the Israelis would have recognised him as being in a position to moderate - they sit at the big table with the Yanks, they are not going to settle for Corbyn.

He praised the terror groups with a string of platitudes that you might expect about Desmond Tutu, if the Israelis had been there they would have walked out at that point, just as if he had said the same things about Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah would have put his name down on a list.

- - - Updated - - -

Here it is finally from the Tories. IRA bad UDA & Friends good. Terrorism is fine as long as you kill Irish Catholics and not British protestants. What a disgraceful party the conservatives are. Fuck me.

Who in the party has said the UDA were good, or that it is fine to kill Irish Catholics?

[Pua]

They were meeting to negotiate, not to express support for the IRA.

Quote where he expressed support for the IRA.

In what sense are you using the term liberal?

The conventional "liberal/conservative" sense.

He is a die hard socialist, openly friendly with groups that want to eradicate Jews, not to establish peace but due to their aligned ideals. He has praised murderous dictators, not out of political pragmatism, but out of admiration.

Proof, please.

I'm genuinely interested in where you're getting all this from, because it's got Daily Mail/Daily Express/Sun written all over it; and I typically expect better than that from you. At the moment, the only conclusion I can really draw from your diatribe is that you're riddled with partisan dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, based on a pretty shaky understanding of history.

[Zelk]

Allison Morris: DUP happy to play footsie with the UDA

DUP chief Arlene Foster met UDA boss days after loyalist murder in Bangor

The Tories are forming a coalition with a party backed by terrorists

UDA endorses DUP's Pengelly in South Belfast - Foster feeling the heat



UDA begs voters to back DUP in Northern Ireland Assembly vote

[Kalis]

Quote where he expressed support for the IRA.

They have all been linked in the Telegraph and other media numerous times.

The conventional "liberal/conservative" sense.

I am not sure he qualifies as a liberal in any sense other than the US-terminology, which is just a euphemism for left wing.

Proof, please.

I'm genuinely interested in where you're getting all this from, because it's got Daily Mail/Daily Express/Sun written all over it; and I typically expect better than that from you. At the moment, the only conclusion I can really draw from your diatribe is that you're riddled with partisan dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, based on a pretty shaky understanding of history.

Proof that he is a die hard socialist? You mean like his entire political history which shows that? Perhaps you should educate yourself on him before defending him, as you clearly do not know about his support of things like Castro or Venezuela, which are all recent.

I do not read the Daily Mail/Daily Express/Sun, I do not accuse you of reading the Morning Star or Canary, as they are pointlessly immature jibes.

[Pua]

They have all been linked in the Telegraph and other media numerous times.

The Telegraph? That's your source? Seriously?

You know its nickname in Britain, yeah?

Even its Wikipedia page references it as a Conservative newspaper. You, quite literally, couldn't have cited a less credible source.

Proof that he is a die hard socialist? You mean like his entire political history which shows that? Perhaps you should educate yourself on him before defending him, as you clearly do not know about his support of things like Castro or Venezuela, which are all recent.

Don't be mindless and dodge the question. I know he's a socialist, and evidently understand his history a bit more thoroughly than you do. I'm asking for proof of the other claims in your sentence; hopefully you can come up with something a bit less laughably partisan than the Torygraph.

[Kalis]

The Telegraph? That's your source? Seriously?

You know its nickname in Britain, yeah?

Even its Wikipedia page references it as a Conservative newspaper. You, quite literally, couldn't have cited a less credible source.

The Telegraph, whilst biased, is a credible source. I do not need to cite any other publication.

Don't be mindless and dodge the question. I know he's a socialist, and evidently understand his history a bit more thoroughly than you do. I'm asking for proof of the other claims in your sentence; hopefully you can come up with something a bit less laughably partisan than the Torygraph.

Partisan does not mean false.

Corbyn has praised a murderous dictator on Twitter, so it is not like you can claim that was in the dark and distant past, it was fairly recent. Though of course Corbyn is partisan on the subject of Corbyn and Twitter has various derogatory nicknames, so you will probably not accept those either.

[Pua]

I do not need to cite any other publication.

So, in other words, you've no evidence for your partisan claptrap. Glad to get that sorted out.

I'm off to another debate where I intend to cite an Owen Jones column in The Guardian as evidence.

Deary me, Kalis, you've lost the plot.

[Dhrizzle]

Okay. But people keep claiming he had friends in Hamas. Were there actually or was he just using rhetoric once-upon-a-time?

"“The language I used at that meeting was actually here in parliament and it was about encouraging the meeting to go ahead, encouraging there to be a discussion about the peace process,” he said.
Inside Momentum: ‘The idea that we’re all rulebook-thumping Trotskyites is silly’
Read more

Asked whether he still regarded Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”, the Labour leader said: “No. It was inclusive language I used which with hindsight I would rather not have used. I regret using those words, of course.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...bollah-friends

[rogueMatthias]

So, in other words, you've no evidence for your partisan claptrap. Glad to get that sorted out.

I'm off to another debate where I intend to cite an Owen Jones column in The Guardian as evidence.

Deary me, Kalis, you've lost the plot.

LOL I mean.. it's SO obvious from all his actions and comments that he was on the side of the republican movement. You've got to be willfully ignorant not to be able to connect the dots. If there aren't enough dots for you then Abbots comments on the matter (who's been his steadfast Disciple and on/off lover this whole time) clinch the deal.

It was a long time ago now, he clearly wasn't supporting the violent methods, and to be fair even the US was supporting the IRA and we've moved past that. I can see why a lot of people (especially those that don't remember how much of a shit show it was at the time) wouldn't see it as a huge issue, but this whole retcon if him being an intermediary that helped bring the whole peace deal is flat out bullshit.

[Eliandal]

So she gambled and lost? Seems to be quite a thing among British politicians.

Should she have called this election? Probably not. The election in itself is an anomaly though. For all the posturing you'll read in this thread, the Tories actually did not perform that badly - since their actual vote count was up nearly 6%. The problem, Labours vote count was up nearly 10%. Both of them, at the expense of smaller parties (UKIP, for instance, last time I checked, had about 12% of the votes they had in 2015

[Floopa]

Should she have called this election? Probably not. The election in itself is an anomaly though. For all the posturing you'll read in this thread, the Tories actually did not perform that badly - since their actual vote count was up nearly 6%. The problem, Labours vote count was up nearly 10%. Both of them, at the expense of smaller parties (UKIP, for instance, last time I checked, had about 12% of the votes they had in 2015

there was some math which said if Lib Dems didn't exist, and all their votes went labour (hypothetical), labour and conservatives would've had the exact same # of seats, with SNP basically being the deciding voice.

as much as i hate 2 party politics, the left vote is split 3 ways right now which just benefits the right

we need voting reform badly