Don't vote Tory

[Spindles]

10 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Can anyone remember what year the exit polls said Labour, but the Tories won? 92? Later?

92.  It was seen almost as a certainty and I went to bed about 2am, at that point from the results declared Labour were well ahead and seemed on course to meet all predictions.  I got up for work 5 hours later and everything had flipped on it's head.  I've not gone to bed before the result is called ever since.

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, Little Andy said:

I posted this link earlier but I'm gonna try again in response to your above comment.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/shouldnt-vote-jeremy-corbyn/

I'm still deciding who to vote for, do you have any counter arguments to the above article? Can it be taken at face value? Or is it more a matter of you agree with the statements, but still believe that Labour should be in power despite these points?

As I'd say to anyone, your vote is your vote and how you choose to use it is up to you.

Having said that, I agree with this thread title, and hope you do too.

The bits at the top - the IRA, Iranian TV, etc, They're one view. Other views are available. I'd hope you'd explore them all and make up your own mind (along with other factors), tho I won't be condemning anyone who find's Corbyn's past IRA associations unacceptable even tho I don't myself. I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold different views on it to mine.

Some of the leadership bits I could take to task for one reason or another, but nothing that would clear Corbyn of having made errors - tho who wouldn't make some errors? I do think, tho, that up until a few weeks ago his leadership was shambolic, but now it's much improved. I only wish he'd not chosen to be shit for 99% of the time. But it's much better now, so I'd be reasonably happy to give him a 2nd chance on the leadership aspect.

I can't deny that I think some of his noisiest supporters are not the nicest &/or sharpest people, and they've damaged him. Whether or not he should take flack for them, tho, is something else. 

Fact is, you don't get to choose a perfect anyone. It's May or Corbyn. It's make your mind up time.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[babyblade41]

8 minutes ago, OBface said:

Out of interest, what are you so scared of?

I'm scared that if he can poo poo all his past relationships and not think it's of any importance .what would happen if he is voted in and all those things he has been comfortable about years ago come out and all his ideologies are bought into our future ?

It doesn't sit well and a few of my age will feel the same... you can bring up all the wrongs for all of them but Mr Corbyns are just too to much for some 

I'm sure the more intelligent on here will bring in facts. about not just the Tory party but others too but Mr Corbyns are far harder to swallow ...for me anyway and that won't change. I may not be as intelligent as a lot of you all but my opinion is still important and my vote still counts 

 

I think he says one thing and believes another and I can see how he is attractive to a lot of the younger generation..more so than any other but his giveaways are just too good to be true...and yes it would be nice to have all those fortunate enough to be top earners and distribute it to those less fortunate in an ideal world but this is reality and it's no good promising it all and delivering hardly any of it ...what good will that do? and in my view it will be those who he said he will help the most who will also suffer the most.   I can't see all those corporate bosses going without, they will just find another way 

Why isn't he standing by Diane Abbott ?  he's sidelined her until after the campaign as she was embarrassing to him ... in my view it's all about him and his ego...no good campaigning to the converted he would do better trying to convert those who haven't decided and that's why his appeal would get him so far....... I could be mistaken and he may just walk into Number 10 on Friday but my view on him wont change 

[Little Andy]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As I'd say to anyone, your vote is your vote and how you choose to use it is up to you.

Having said that, I agree with this thread title, and hope you don't.

The bits at the top - the IRA, Iranian TV, etc, They're one view. Other views are available. I'd hope you'd explore them all and make up your own mind (along with other factors), tho I won't be condemning anyone who find's Corbyn's past IRA associations unacceptable even tho I don't myself. I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold different views on it to mine.

Some of the leadership bits I could take to task for one reason or another, but nothing that would clear Corbyn of having made errors - tho who wouldn't make some errors? I do think, tho, that up until a few weeks ago his leadership was shambolic, but now it's much improved. I only wish he'd not chosen to be shit for 99% of the time. But it's much better now, so I'd be reasonably happy to give him a 2nd chance on the leadership aspect.

I can't deny that I think some of his noisiest supporters are not the nicest &/or sharpest people, and they've damaged him. Whether or not he should take flack for them, tho, is something else. 

Fact is, you don't get to choose a perfect anyone. It's May or Corbyn. It's make your mind up time.

 

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but assuming you believe that the articles bullet points are fair, how can you vote for someone who has seemingly sided clearly horrendous groups in the past? Has he changed now? Had he failed to research properly who he was befriending? 

[FuzzyDunlop]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

they've all got baggage, but few have got the same baggage as Jezza, of so many things on the opposite side of mainstream public opinion, and where those things evoke strong reactions to them.

For example: there's at least one person posting in this thread who is saying they're a Labour voter, but can't vote for IRA supporting Corbyn.

You might hold the opposite view to that (I do), but surely you can recognise that someone holding that opinion isn't extreme or wacky or unreasonable or inherently tory, and that there'll be plenty who react in a similar way?

And Corbyn has a long list of things - almost-always on the marginal side of public opinion - which repel people in the same way, and not for unreasonable reasons, just different reasoning.

Others - Cooper, or Burnham, say, as they've been mentioned a lot - might have baggage, but they're unlikely to be about the sorts of subjects people have that strong reaction to, and certainly not so many on the marginal side.

Corbyn managed to get people to vote for him, but he's not really tackled the reasons why people won't vote for him.

Yeah, I have a labour supporting FB friend who wont vote for him over the fact he wont sing the national anthem..... He has abstained.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Little Andy said:

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but assuming you believe that the articles bullet points are fair, how can you vote for someone who has seemingly sided clearly horrendous groups in the past? Has he changed now? Had he failed to research properly who he was befriending? 

His IRA associations sit fairly easily with me because my views at the time were much the same as his. It was a fight for equality in law and in reality, and it's the methods used that make it a controversial thing to be associated with.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

Yeah, I have a labour supporting FB friend who wont vote for him over the fact he wont sing the national anthem..... He has abstained.

Yep. Stuff like that is a minor oddity, but it does display a particular attitude towards the state he's wanting to lead - and I can understand why some people would find that attitude unsupportable in a potential leader even if it wouldn't bother them for anyone else.

(I don't think they're right to get that pissed off about it, but different people have different ideas. There's going to some turned off by it).

Edited June 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[Little Andy]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

His IRA associations sit fairly easily with me because my views at the time were much the same as his. It was a fight for equality in law and in reality, and it's the methods used that make it a controversial thing to be associated with.

And Iran? And Hamas / Hizbollah? And Putin?

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, Little Andy said:

And Iran? And Hamas / Hizbollah? And Putin?

The Iran thing I take as him collecting some easy cash, on the basis that if he didn't someone else would. At the time he did it he'd have never expected it to ever matter.

The Hamas and Hizbollah thing is over-played, even tho I've used it myself. It's really just an welcoming speech at a conference/debate.

I'm not sure what Putin thing you're referring to.

But having cleared him on those individually, I'm not pretending that he doesn't hold a particular attitude, which (in simple terms) comes out as being against the West. I like some of those attitudes myself, but while also having big concerns about the attached isolationism.

A couple of days ago I would have said it probably didn't matter too much. I feel much less like that because of the Qatar thing, plus the 'ISIS' attack on the Iranian Parliament. It looks like down there is heading for major war, and I suspect it'll make Syria look like a picnic.

[Little Andy]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not pretending that he doesn't hold a particular attitude, which (in simple terms) comes out as being against the West.

For me the main issue is he is attaching himself to groups which use violence. I understand how there can be sympathy for their cause, but once their methods become violent it can not be something to be associated with.

Everything I have asked comes down to the fact that I want to vote labour, and I almost certainly will in fairness, I just want to weigh everything up. The general labour position sounds much more moral to me than than the Tory standpoint ... and I've actually really liked Corbyn every single time I've heard him speak ... its just the stuff in the article I posted earlier in this thread (which no-one seems to be denying is full of facts) makes me feel like I would be voting for someone with a deeper more disturbing past than the current image I have of him lets me believe.

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

I'm scared that if he can poo poo all his past relationships and not think it's of any importance .what would happen if he is voted in and all those things he has been comfortable about years ago come out and all his ideologies are bought into our future ?

What would happen? A united Ireland? Would that be the end of the world?

Or maybe he'd use terrorism against ISIS you mean? 

I'm just not sure what he'd do that's relevant. And would pass through parliament.

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, Little Andy said:

For me the main issue is he is attaching himself to groups which use violence. I understand how there can be sympathy for their cause, but once their methods become violent it can not be something to be associated with.

But translate that to being PM - who is more likely to be using violence as a solution to anything? Him or Theresa May?

[babyblade41]

just one other snippet regarding my reasons.. in 2001 my Mum had to go to her GP for a niggly pain... Gp wanted a scan which under the NHS was for 3 months later and couldn't get one any sooner... this was not an option for me as I'd lost my Dad, brother and sister by then , the last thing I wanted was to lose her as well especially as she had cancer in the past.

 

I paid for a scan privately a week later and she was diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer , if it had been left to the first appt it would have been too late... op was performed 3 weeks later and she lived for another 14 or so years.

2 years ago she had a routine check up and after a week under the NHS she was taken in to a NHS hospital immediately for tests and after 2 weeks diagnosed with Mesothelioma (asbestos cancer) the difference in treatment and times for diagnosis and treatment was totally different 

First lot of diagnosis under labour and second not... it may not be down to the amount of money needed it may be down to how best to manage the finances 

The outcome was still the same but at least she had a fighting chance .the first time  and we had 14 years longer with her 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Little Andy said:

For me the main issue is he is attaching himself to groups which use violence. I understand how there can be sympathy for their cause, but once their methods become violent it can not be something to be associated with.

For Ireland (or within Iran, Gaza or Lebanon), if it were that and just that it would be always unacceptable.

But you need to remember that the violence is not only in one direction, and at some point some people will feel it's right to fight back.

It would be great if everyone could turn the other cheek and get a victory via that, but it's not how it happens in real life.

I don't have any concerns about his want to talk and listen, no matter who it's with. There's not enough of that, but I do have concerns about whether he'd ever decide that more than talking needed to be done.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But translate that to being PM - who is more likely to be using violence as a solution to anything? Him or Theresa May?

thing is, sometimes violence is the only solution.

(before anyone starts, that's got to be a Jezza-approved answer as he said he'd have backed ww2  )

I've got as much concern over May dropping bombs inappropriately as I have of Corbyn failing to drop bombs appropriately - tho of the two, the one for May is more likely to happen.

[Little Andy]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't have any concerns about his want to talk and listen, no matter who it's with. There's not enough of that

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. Would it be fair to say that he wants to aid those in need, even if it has unfortunately driven them to violence? While I personally think thats sometimes naive (I do not believe that Hamas are driving for peace, for example), but I can understand Corbyn's intentions, if this is the case.

[Teddington]

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that Corbyn has been told to "tone himself down" for the election. 

In fairness he has done exactly that.  It still doesn't alter the fact that he is fundamentally the same person, and as such is not fit to run a bath.

Fortunately I suspect he will never get near no 10.  If he does then I really do think the "last one out of the country turn the lights out" headline may well be the best advice.

[babyblade41]

1 minute ago, Teddington said:

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that Corbyn has been told to "tone himself down" for the election. 

In fairness he has done exactly that.  It still doesn't alter the fact that he is fundamentally the same person, and as such is not fit to run a bath.

Fortunately I suspect he will never get near no 10.  If he does then I really do think the "last one out of the country turn the lights out" headline may well be the best advice.

...but if he does walk into number 10 that's exactly what I fear will happen ..his true colours will come out 

the waiting will soon be over and as much as most of you totally disagree with me and Mr Corbyn does gain the keys I hope you will be still be behind him in 18 months time and all his promises come to fruition

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Little Andy said:

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. Would it be fair to say that he wants to aid those in need, even if it has unfortunately driven them to violence? While I personally think thats sometimes naive (I do not believe that Hamas are driving for peace, for example), but I can understand Corbyn's intentions, if this is the case.

I don't doubt his intentions are ultimately peaceful. I do think he's often too quick to take the view 'the west' is always wrong.

I think he's flawed there, but hey, who's perfect? From the other side, we're often too quick to go along with something only because it comes from 'our' side.

 

[DeanoL]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

thing is, sometimes violence is the only solution.

(before anyone starts, that's got to be a Jezza-approved answer as he said he'd have backed ww2  )

I've got as much concern over May dropping bombs inappropriately as I have of Corbyn failing to drop bombs appropriately - tho of the two, the one for May is more likely to happen.

Right, but there's no concern Corbyn is more likely to drop bombs because he liked the IRA and they were fans of bombs. As you say, if anything it's the opposite.

3 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

...but if he does walk into number 10 that's exactly what I fear will happen ..his true colours will come out 

the waiting will soon be over and as much as most of you totally disagree with me and Mr Corbyn does gain the keys I hope you will be still be behind him in 18 months time and all his promises come to fruition

We're not electing a dictator though. We're electing (indirectly) a prime minister who works with the help of a cabinet and can't pass a single thing without the support of his own party (or at least, a majority in the commons).

There's a lot of checks and balances in the system already. Those checks and balances are important and the real reason why Theresa May had so many issues sorting Brexit. She was attempting to ignore them. She got slapped down and told to do it properly.

[babyblade41]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't doubt his intentions are ultimately peaceful. I do think he's often too quick to take the view 'the west' is always wrong.

I think he's flawed there, but hey, who's perfect? From the other side, we're often too quick to go along with something only because it comes from 'our' side.

 

I think the last word has to be witheFestivals.. whatever your persuasion . Devils advocate at it's finest 

Very impressed with all the opinions here but it's time to pour a glass and watch the evenings events unfold .. good luck to you all and vote with the best intentions and not rely on the press to sway you ... thankfully haven't bought a paper for many a year 

[babyblade41]

Just now, DeanoL said:

Right, but there's no concern Corbyn is more likely to drop bombs because he liked the IRA and they were fans of bombs. As you say, if anything it's the opposite.

We're not electing a dictator though. We're electing (indirectly) a prime minister who works with the help of a cabinet and can't pass a single thing without the support of his own party (or at least, a majority in the commons).

There's a lot of checks and balances in the system already. Those checks and balances are important and the real reason why Theresa May had so many issues sorting Brexit. She was attempting to ignore them. She got slapped down and told to do it properly.

just one last word... whilst he has Mcdonnel next to him and Mcluskey at the rear I'm still fearful 

[DeanoL]

Just now, babyblade41 said:

just one last word... whilst he has Mcdonnel next to him and Mcluskey at the rear I'm still fearful 

But again, he needs the entire party to vote with him in the Commons.

If he does get in, I think he'll struggle to do some of the more positive but radical things he's proposing as backbenchers won't support him. If he decides to unilaterally invade Poland I have confidence he won't get a vote through!

[babyblade41]

Just now, DeanoL said:

But again, he needs the entire party to vote with him in the Commons.

If he does get in, I think he'll struggle to do some of the more positive but radical things he's proposing as backbenchers won't support him. If he decides to unilaterally invade Poland I have confidence he won't get a vote through!

but if he can't get the things he has promised past his own cabinet then what is the point ? 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Right, but there's no concern Corbyn is more likely to drop bombs because he liked the IRA and they were fans of bombs. As you say, if anything it's the opposite.

Yup, but the IRA thing stands by itself. He stood in support of people who were fighting the state he now wants to lead. It's no surprise some people find that unacceptable. It would be a big surprise if no one did.

As for his likelihood to drop bombs, being too slow to drop them can be a much worse thing than being too quick to drop them. Both come down to good judgement, and i'm not sure his judgement is good (or May's come to that).

14 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If he does get in, I think he'll struggle to do some of the more positive but radical things he's proposing as backbenche

I don't. They'll wave thru what's in the manifesto easily enough, just as tory MPs would. It's if he tries to move away from those to other things he'll hit problems.

He'll definitely hit some problems around his proposed defence review, that's clearly a row waiting to happen, where he'll do his best to force thru a no trident renewal thing, again.