How will you vote?

[k979aaa]

Never herd of it till you told us here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but it is class!

[k979aaa]

Theresa May opens up on camera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0JYIbRSCI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tman]

Well now someone had a rant and a half there but after nigh on 45 years of capitalism are we the working people any better off? For not let us forget New Labour was a party of the right even the sun backed Blair. But we can make our county great again by voting for a proper labour party and a decent future for all not just the few!

I suppose if you habitually post two sentence posts then anything more will seem hard to read or as you term it, a "rant" but there you go.
Forty five years of capitalism? The UK has been a capitalist country continuously since long before the charlatan Marx was sitting in his wealthy middle-class household and passing the time by writing his nonsense.
As for a "Proper Labour Party and a decent future etc etc" you're destined to be disappointed either way.
Tory win = you won't be happy.
Corbyn win = he doesn't have the knowledge power or ability to achieve even a fraction of the things he's promised, and so you still won't be happy.
There is no magic wand and there are no easy solutions...time you faced that unpalatable fact, and yet all Corbyn can offer is vague promises, as in to renationalise RM?
The fool can't even see that no-one cares who owns RM..

[Interested-seeker]

Sent my postal vote. I voted Labour because of their manifesto.

[k979aaa]

Well I for one am not on here just to espouse political views of said parties without backing it up with validation yet your hate campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party is unfounded you keep coming on here with this that and the other from the past! Lets talk about the future of this great nation we have and how to make it better for all of us in the future the past we cannot change and would it make any difference? We as a society are shocked by the events of yesterday in London big changes need to happen and fast for the security of the nation the events in Manchester not 13 days ago show we are not prepared enough for the onslaught of terrorism in all it's forms. But I don't condemn Theresa May for this who would do but we do need a reason for change at the top of our government and terrorism is not one of them as I have said many times on here we need a government for the people by the people policy by every government since 1955 has been for the very few at the top and dog eat dog at the bottom but you all now have the chance of changing this by voting on June the 8th!

[Cedar_Room]

Exactly,anyone who thinks terrorising a defenceless animal and then watching it torn to shreds is something we should accept,is beneath contempt and tother one supports the IRA,oh well

Give me a single sentence or link showing where or when Corbyn supported the IRA, because it never happened. Try thinking for yourself instead of repeating what the papers tell you.

He spoke with Sinn Fein about peace. He never met or spoke with members of the IRA. Is it really so deplorable that a prime minister should want to end the suffering of innocent civilians and find a peaceful solution? People on Question Time the other night got furious that he wouldn't commit to a first strike with Trident, as if vaporising millions of civilians and then resigning millions of your own to the same fate is something to be proud of. Nobody should ever commit to a first strike, that's not what they're for, yet that's exactly what May has done. May also openly supports Saudi Arabia, the number one contributor to Islamist extremist, the rise of ISIS and arguably as a result the Manchester attack, and yet it's Corbyn who's the threat?

Margaret Thatcher also spoke with the IRA. Everyone seems to think we should be cheering on the British Army like it was all just a game, forgetting that for almost 100 years, we murdered hundreds of civilians, including firing on crowds at a football match with machine guns. People were thrown out of their homes and shot in the street while houses were burnt by the hundreds. British soldiers burned Cork to the ground and stopped firefighters getting in to help. We are allowed to admit that maybe Britain is sometimes in the wrong, especially when we policed Ireland like the Gestapo.

None of that excuses what the IRA did, but it wasn't 'good guys vs bad guys', and Corbyn wanted peace, nothing more. To say a devoted pacifist supported a terrorist organisation is insane, and it makes anyone who believes and repeats these lies look equally stupid.

Brilliant post. Bravo

[aiden01]

Exactly,anyone who thinks terrorising a defenceless animal and then watching it torn to shreds is something we should accept,is beneath contempt and tother one supports the IRA,oh well

Give me a single sentence or link showing where or when Corbyn supported the IRA, because it never happened. Try thinking for yourself instead of repeating what the papers tell you.

He spoke with Sinn Fein about peace. He never met or spoke with members of the IRA. Is it really so deplorable that a prime minister should want to end the suffering of innocent civilians and find a peaceful solution? People on Question Time the other night got furious that he wouldn't commit to a first strike with Trident, as if vaporising millions of civilians and then resigning millions of your own to the same fate is something to be proud of. Nobody should ever commit to a first strike, that's not what they're for, yet that's exactly what May has done. May also openly supports Saudi Arabia, the number one contributor to Islamist extremist, the rise of ISIS and arguably as a result the Manchester attack, and yet it's Corbyn who's the threat?

Margaret Thatcher also spoke with the IRA. Everyone seems to think we should be cheering on the British Army like it was all just a game, forgetting that for almost 100 years, we murdered hundreds of civilians, including firing on crowds at a football match with machine guns. People were thrown out of their homes and shot in the street while houses were burnt by the hundreds. British soldiers burned Cork to the ground and stopped firefighters getting in to help. We are allowed to admit that maybe Britain is sometimes in the wrong, especially when we policed Ireland like the Gestapo.

None of that excuses what the IRA did, but it wasn't 'good guys vs bad guys', and Corbyn wanted peace, nothing more. To say a devoted pacifist supported a terrorist organisation is insane, and it makes anyone who believes and repeats these lies look equally stupid.

Brilliant post. Bravo

[jetblack]

Exactly,anyone who thinks terrorising a defenceless animal and then watching it torn to shreds is something we should accept,is beneath contempt and tother one supports the IRA,oh well

Give me a single sentence or link showing where or when Corbyn supported the IRA, because it never happened. Try thinking for yourself instead of repeating what the papers tell you.

He spoke with Sinn Fein about peace. He never met or spoke with members of the IRA. Is it really so deplorable that a prime minister should want to end the suffering of innocent civilians and find a peaceful solution? People on Question Time the other night got furious that he wouldn't commit to a first strike with Trident, as if vaporising millions of civilians and then resigning millions of your own to the same fate is something to be proud of. Nobody should ever commit to a first strike, that's not what they're for, yet that's exactly what May has done. May also openly supports Saudi Arabia, the number one contributor to Islamist extremist, the rise of ISIS and arguably as a result the Manchester attack, and yet it's Corbyn who's the threat?

Margaret Thatcher also spoke with the IRA. Everyone seems to think we should be cheering on the British Army like it was all just a game, forgetting that for almost 100 years, we murdered hundreds of civilians, including firing on crowds at a football match with machine guns. People were thrown out of their homes and shot in the street while houses were burnt by the hundreds. British soldiers burned Cork to the ground and stopped firefighters getting in to help. We are allowed to admit that maybe Britain is sometimes in the wrong, especially when we policed Ireland like the Gestapo.

None of that excuses what the IRA did, but it wasn't 'good guys vs bad guys', and Corbyn wanted peace, nothing more. To say a devoted pacifist supported a terrorist organisation is insane, and it makes anyone who believes and repeats these lies look equally stupid.

Brilliant post. Bravo

Yes - I thought that was a good post also.

I went through London Victoria hours before an IRA bomb in '91. The IRA had stated earlier that "While the British government persists in its continued occupation of the north of Ireland the IRA will persist..." -

Reason I mention it is that there is a marked lack of the aims of these terrorists today being put across in the media. ie. why is this happening ?
I personally do not believe that it is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Extreme Muslims might not approve of our way of life, I don't approve of some of it myself, but that to me doesn't seem anywhere near sufficient cause to kill and be killed.

So why ?

It seems a little bit like I'm taking my car with a persistent problem to the Government garage - they are saying all the right things (and giving me a big bill) but a couple of weeks later I'm going back with the same problem.

I remember a time when Sinn Fein were not allowed any airtime on British Television.

What is it that they don't (didn't) want us to know ? Could they, like the garage, benefit from us not knowing ? Seems to me that as soon as the real motives are known the onus of responsibility shifts - and the Government don't want that.
I realise that in the direct aftermath of a terrorist atrocity it might not be the correct time to address the real issues. But surely there is a time ?

Or is this it now ? Is this our future ? Random killings with motives unknown, that we are meant to accept as the way of things - and we carry on regardless, unquestioningly, because "we can't let them threaten our way of life" etc etc ?

[jetblack]

Is the BBC impartial ?

I dunno

Laura Kuenessberg isn't, at least according to the industry watchdog/regulator - and she's their chief political correspondent

[Tman]

So moving on from dear old Jet's Conpiracy theorising...

[the past we cannot change and would it make any difference?

Not to you maybe, because you've made it clear that you believe his way is the future and nothing he can do or say would ever change that.
However, as the electorate have to assess which party to vote for in a few days any information is welcome; as Jezza's never been entrusted to hold any worthwhile post in any government there's only his past actions and his present spoutings to go on, and as the UK seems destined to go through yet another period of violent terrorist acts some sort of judgement needs to be made as to how he would react.
Sadly his past actions indicate a future of weak appeasement to terrorists.

[Postie45]

Reason I mention it is that there is a marked lack of the aims of these terrorists today being put across in the media. ie. why is this happening ?
I personally do not believe that it is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Extreme Muslims might not approve of our way of life, I don't approve of some of it myself, but that to me doesn't seem anywhere near sufficient cause to kill and be killed.

it doesnt matter to you why they do it, you refuse to accept it. I dont know why youre so willingly blind to it even when they tell you why its happening, just bizarre. I think its just a fundamental inability to believe that someone else can believe in this idealogy so inherently. I can understand why its hard to accept that, but until you do youll carry on not understanding the problem.

[bustedflush]

Hey peeps - who needs a car anyway! When Jezza your new bezzie nationalizes the railways we'll all have cheap reliable travel! Instead of going on holiday in your car, parking up at the hotel and walking your bags in, you can lug them out of the station, stand by them in the slashing rain in the taxi/bus queue and then lug them out again at the hotel. Then when there you can use taxis and buses to get to nearby attractions! You won't need to drive to local superstore for a big shop, get the train and lug it all back on that.

Nevermind, he'll be taxing the higher-earners to pay for it. Only simpleton Abbott must've done his figures as the total raised by this rise wouldn't cover 5% of the cost. And guess WHO will benefit - yes! the higher rate taxpayers and big earners that commute and are the main users of the railways (aside from freight). So we tax the higher earners more to provide the higher earners with cheaper season tickets. What a bloody genius he is - to you and me it means absolutely naff-all.

Anyway good luck with 5 years of free pre-school nurseries, free student fees, nationalized railways etc. If you think austerity is bad now, wait until he gets booted in 5 years (or earlier with the likely economic turmoil) and it somehow has to be paid back by our kids under the inevitable follow-on Tory administration.

[thecoffeehouse204]

Sorry if this has already been covered, did have a quick skim through but didn't spot anything.
How does everyone else on here feel about labours promise of a £10 per hour minimum wage within the the next three years? That was the only manifesto promise that worried me, obviously Royal Mail staff are on a higher than minimum wage rate which is the only reason my husband stays in the job. Can't see Royal Mail increasing pay rates at a similar rate so where does that leave the average postie? Better off working at a supermarket from the way we see it at the moment, not sure if that's a good or bad thing

[Postie45]

It depends, if youre a true traditional labour socialist then you should be delighted about it, however if you are looking out for yourselves as most are then yes youll be earning less with the inflation that will come with a rise of min wage. But on the bright side, youd be able to work in the supermarket and not RM which isnt look such a bad option if pay was equal.

[jetblack]

I can understand why its hard to accept that, but until you do youll carry on not understanding the problem.

I think its yourself that doesn't understand the nature of the problem. You have an easy answer, the answer that is fleetingly touted by the media, and that is good enough for you.

Irish republicans are evil - look, if you don't believe me, look at what they do.
Well yes - but there is no understanding of the nature of the dispute in hand.

Power is centralised in the hands of the few (our political leaders in this case) - and it seems to me that they have a vested interest in witholding certain key and crucial facts about the motivations of our assailants. Because if they release that information to us it will become apparent to even the most gullible and blind the extent to which our leaders are letting us down. And they are - badly. I'd have thought that that is self evident.

This might help you understand the situation a little better. I don't suppose you'll put in the time to actually click on the link so I'll copy and paste some of it here :-

" To understand why ISIS has been able to accomplish what it has, many factors must be taken into consideration:

1. The partition of the Middle East along ethnic and religious lines by colonial powers in the early years of the 20th century.

2. The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, which gave rise to the still-unresolved Palestine problem, and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, which many believe may lead to an apartheid state. I believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root cause of all the problems in that region.

3. Western powers’ support for corrupt, dictatorial secular regimes, paving the way for Islamist groups as the only alternative available to the people.

4. The creation of the Afghan mujahedeen by the United States and its regional allies, namely Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which, after the Cold War, gave rise to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The creators are now harvesting the fruits of their efforts.

5. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States, the intervention of the U.S. and NATO in Libya, and Western powers’ financial and military backing of the Syrian opposition, which transformed a struggle between democratic groups and the secular dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad into a sectarian war against democracy and development.

6. The existence of different interpretations of Islamic teachings. Some consider the Quran to be a manifesto for peace, while others interpret it as an order for war, making God the eternally bloodthirsty commander-in-chief of an eternal war.

7. The transformation of the Arab Spring into a sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis by dictatorial regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in order to escape the establishment of democratic regimes and respect for human rights in those nations.

8. The struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The ISIS war in Iraq is essentially a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia for influence in the region, as the latter is opposed to empowering the Shiites.... The ridiculous aspect of this is that Saudi Arabia, a reactionary, dictatorial regime, is calling for new elections in Iraq, and this is while, as Robert Fisk of the Independent argued, the sectarian war in the Middle East and the extremist Sunni groups are all funded by Saudi Arabia.

There is no doubt that the most important factor in the creation of the present bloody chaos in Iraq is that country’s invasion by the U.S. and Britain in 2003. "



Now I know that that isn't quite as straightforward to get your head around as the idea that this is good vs evil - but I reckon its better to try to see things in the cold light of day, rather than through the veil of misinformation that is handed down to us by those that think they are more capable at making our decisions for us than we are.