UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[EnglishPete]

Great Tory attack ad that sums up much that is wrong with Jeremy Corbyn and renders him unfit to be PM

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/868217762027536384

So why did they call the election at all when they had another three years of the term left? It has to remind one of Cameron's insistence that Brexit would be a disaster, to which a similar question was often posed.

Well they had to have an election at some point and they had absolutely no control over who the leader of the opposition was. At some point they'd have to run an election against Corbyn and now seemed like the best time. As for people agreeing with Corbyn arguing for peace in the middle east I can understand people agreeing with the way Corbyn dresses up his views. However over the decades his prescription for ' peace' is always the same. He gives words of comfort and defence to anti western and specifically anti British terrorists and dictators. At the same time he always urges the UK to diusarm, take down any defences and give in to terrorist demands. And this working for victory for Britain's enemies is always dressed up in the language of peace.

I would some up my view on why Corbyn is unfit to be PM. Corbyn has spent his entire career defending and excusing left wing dictators and terrorists. His professions of support for democracy and the peaceful transfer of power are as fake and dishonest as many of his other statements.

Corbyn has for decades supported the specific tactic of using of violent street mobs against the 'far right'. If he was Prime Minister such mobs would not only get tacit encouragement and support from government but they would extend their activity to more frequently target Tories and then later LibDems and the Labour right. That and Corbyn and McDonnell's economic policies would see the UK on the road to becoming the new Venezuela. Those who look at the hunger and mob intimidation of Venezuela and think it can't possibly happen in the UK are being complacent. If Corbyn wins then Venezuela can happen here.

It is vitally important that the UK doesn't make the same mistake the Labour right made in the 2015 leadership election of underestimating the danger of the far left. The Tories, in my view, have been far too mild in their criticisms of this dangerous extremist.

Theresa May might seem as useful as a chocolate teapot sometimes. However the choice between her and Corbyn is like the choice between having a chocolate teapot and having smallpox.

[EnglishPete]

I'm very much hoping that this Labour poll surge is going to scare many Tory voters to the polls. It is absolutely vital for the cause of freedom and democracy in the UK that Corbyn's Labour Party not only lose but lose badly. I see the violence, chaos, tyranny and hunger in Venezuela and I really don't want it to happen in my own country.

[EnglishPete]

Diane Abbott compares changing views on the IRA to changing hairstyle

Also, here's what might be deemed a Freudian slip...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great attack ad from the Tories around that clip

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/868884091759886337

Very much in the style of the Conservatives brilliant election guru, the lizard of Oz himself, Sir Lynton Crosby (I expect Australian forum members here will recognise Sir Lynton's style)

[EnglishPete]

Those things are basically made for activists more than anything else; I doubt that the sort of people who follow the Tory party on twitter are likely to be floating voters.

Well the Tories have spent a lot of money on finding swing voters to target on social media - see the recent uproar over the dark ads and dubious legality of the Tories' funding and expenditure on data analytics.

Yes, plus the fact that Tories have a huge election war chest of money to spend on such things, unlike the other parties who were still financially recovering from the last election.

Also despite the decline of newspapers across the board the Tory press, and Sun and the Mail in particular, have millions of readers between them and can be expected to continue to print stories with lurid headlines about Corbyn's (and McDonnell's and Abbot's) long history of defending and excusing other terrorists.

Then there is the spread of these stories. People see these ads or see these stories, discuss them with friends and family over the following few days and the message spreads.

[EnglishPete]

Love these ads. And Labour just keep creating useful material for them.

to be totally fair...isn't corbyn at the point at which nothing his voters hear is going to change their opinion anymore?

it's a pinata like trump and his unfavorable-rates are maxed out. xD

Its more about turnout. Its about discouraging Labour voters from turning out by making Corbyn less attractive to them whilst at the same time scaring the crap out of Tory and floating voters and getting them to turn up at the polls for the Tories.

[EnglishPete]

As recently as 2014 Corbyn wrote in a communist newspaper that he attended a wreath laying for one of the Munich terrorists

Quote "The Sunday Times has a story that Jeremy Corbyn attended a wreath-laying at the grave of a Palestinian terrorist involved in the Munich massacre. Guido can give a little more detail…

In October 2014 Corbyn wrote an article for the communist Morning Star newspaper in which he recounts attending a wreath-laying ceremony. He writes:

“After wreaths were laid at the graves of those who died on that day [at Sabra and Shatila] and on the graves of others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991, we moved to the poignant statue in the main avenue of the coastal town of Ben Arous, which was festooned with Palestinian and Tunisian flags.”
There is no record of any Mossad operation which killed anyone in Paris in 1991. However, Mossad is believed to have carried out an assassination in Paris on June 8, 1992. Atef Bseiso was the PLO head of intelligence and was one of the Palestinian terrorists who carried out the Munich massacre. " End Quote

https://order-order.com/2017/05/28/corbyn-honoured-munich-massacre-terrorist/

[EnglishPete]

Lol, Guido fauxes "blog" is full of conspiracy, and even goes as far to call other labour members "co-conspirators"

The Guiido article is quoting the Sunday Times (which I didn't quote directly as its behind a paywall) which is in turn quoting Corbyn's own words in the communist Morning Star newspaper.

Note: Although the Morning Star is owned by the Communist Party of Britain it is not run as a CPB newspaper (the CPG has a separate official publication for party members). It is rather aimed at the far left in general and is effectively the trade paper of far left activists, organisers and union officials of various factions in Britain.

[EnglishPete]

Omg Pete, you excpect us to take THAT sh*t seriously?

Up to you what you take seriously isn't it.

Jeremy Corbyn has spent a lifetime concern trolling Britain, the US, Israel and the West in general. Whenever Britain and the West are facing a violent enemy his prescription is always the same. He will always give words of comfort and apology to the enemy whilst at the same to e telling Brits that he only wants peace but that the best way to get it is to disarm, take away any of our defences and accept the enemy's demand because they're not really an enemy. This prescription, of course, always goes double for Israel.

Its concern trolling as a form of treachery and any British voter thinking of voting for this scumbag of his party needs to take a good hard look in the mirror if they are capable of any sense of shame.

[EnglishPete]

I mean you care about Israel & think the anti-semitic Breitbart is great?

This idea that Breitbart is antisemitic seem to be based on a headline quoted out of context referring to Bill Kristol as a 'Renegade Jew'. If you actually look at the article below the, admittedly provocative, headline you will see that its written by an Orthodox Jewish journalist who is criticising Kristol not for being (as actual antisemites would claim) a 'renegade for the Jews' but rather a 'renegade' against them. A betrayer of Jewish interests by not supporting the pro Israel candidate. Brietbart is far more philosemitic and pro Israel than most major publications.

As for Infowars they publish some great articles but I no more take them as gospel than any other source. I certainly wouldn't go for some of the David Like type stuff they used to go into.

[EnglishPete]

Guys, if you want to carry on this argument somewhere else, I've got a trash can you can used

I've started a new thread in the International general discussion section of the board.

[EnglishPete]

Corbyn has spent his entire career in public service, often ridiculed for positions that were subsequently vindicated in the court of public opinion (opposing apartheid and the Iraq War, advocating renationalization of major industries, being skeptical of the EU, just to name a few). His view of the world, what constitutes his country's interests, and who ought to be treated as its enemies may be different than yours, but they are legitimate and mainstream - increasingly so, if the polls are to be believed.

Like it or not, Corbyn is a patriot. Deal with it.

On a semi-related note, it seems there is a reason why the Tories are getting so nervous and desperate with their anti-Corbyn hysteria ... Theresa May to relaunch Conservative election campaign amid fears Labour could take lead in opinion polls.

I've replied to this post in the other thread.

[EnglishPete]

Breitbart is not antisemitic.

Corbyn, in many respects, is an unpleasant man and he's clearly a bumbling fool but it's pretty hard to argue that he doesn't have the right intentions or that he doesn't care for the welfare of people. He's clearly not someone who approves of violence and the right's insistence that this is the case comes across as hysterical and deranged.

He doubtlessly cares about the welfare of his people, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hugo Chavez probably cared about his people too. As for Corbyn not being someone who approves of violence, surely you could see why some think that him speaking of his "friends of Hamas and Hezbollah" suggests otherwise?

My argument is that the right's anti-Corbyn isn't persuasive, not that Corbyn is Good (he is not) or that he's anywhere near my first choice. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that he approves of Hamas or Hezbollah and their atrocities. A much more credible criticism is that he's a dunce who doesn't understand basic facts about the organizations and, thus, should not be PM.

There is no misunderstanding, I get your argument. Of course we're both deeply biased here (even if I know Corbyn is far from being your first choice), and I may be wrong, but I really don't think Tories will have a hard time convincing people that he approves of Hamas or Hezbollah at all. This, indeed, does not necessarily mean he approves of everything they do, but I feel I may already be pretty generous to him here. Corbyn is not naive or stupid, he's just deeply ideological.

And this is the heart of the reason for bringing up his long standing ties with and support for Sinn Fein/IRA in the 1980s at the hight of their bombing campaigns. Its not just the IRA issue itself, although plenty of people in the UK still feel very strongly about that. Its to help establish the point that he has given comfort to anti-British terrorists for decades. He's also consistently opposed every single measure, whether its funding or weapons for the armed forces, anti-terror legislation, all western military action without exception.

He also has extremely close ties to the communist led, anti Western anti Israel street protest group, the 'Stop the War Coalition'. The leader of that group, Andrew Murray was recently appointed as a campaign strategist by Corbyn. Murray only joined the Labour Party last November having been for 40 years a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and then the Communist Party of Britain. As recently as last year Corbyn attended and spoke at a Cuba Solidarity (i.e. Pro Castro) group meeting. He's consistently defended and embraced anti-Israel terrorist groups whilst condemning any Isreali effort at self defense. In the 1980s he was, and indeed continues to be, an active supporter of the Soviet backed Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (lots of people noted at the time that CND never seemed to have a problem with Soviet nukes, just western ones).

Now any one of these facts taken is isolation could be taken as a sign of being misguided or naive. However taken all together they make a very clear picture of what kind of man Corbyn is and that is why its so important for the Tories and their supporters in the media and elsewhere to keep bringing these points up ad nauseam

[EnglishPete]

Last time I checked, Teresa May said she's not debating.

What changed her mind ?

Its not a debate tonight, its what the Americans would call a Townhall with may and Corbyn being interviewed separately and in turn

[EnglishPete]

Those things are basically made for activists more than anything else; I doubt that the sort of people who follow the Tory party on twitter are likely to be floating voters.

Well the Tories have spent a lot of money on finding swing voters to target on social media - see the recent uproar over the dark ads and dubious legality of the Tories' funding and expenditure on data analytics.

A look at the viewing figures for the two attack ads

first the Corbyn one.

https://www.facebook.com/conservatives/videos/10155027173824279/

On Facebook

3.1M views
13k Likes 9.4k Comments 42k Shares

On Youtube

707,683 views

and Twitter no viewing figures but 5.3K  retweets and 3.8K Likes

The Diane Abbott  not on the Conservatives Youtube yet but

On facebook

569k Views

5.1k Likes 2.5k Comments 8.2k Shares

On twitter again of course no viewing figures but Retweets  719   Likes 653



I think these ads are getting seen and will have an effect.

[EnglishPete]

Jeremy Corbyn signed a motion that condemned IRA violence in 1994

Jeremy Corbyn signed a motion in the House of Commons that condemned IRA violence and "extended its sympathy to the relatives of those murdered". The Leader of the Labour Party supported an early day motion put forward by Labour MP David Winnick to commemorate the victims of the IRA bombing in Birmingham in 1974.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-ira-violence-1994-general-election-a7761801.html

Nice try. Let's have a look at the actual wording of the motion signed by Corbyn shall we.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?edmnumber=28&session=1994-95

It says that on the 20th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombing it " deplores that such an atrocity occurred " and extends its sympathy to the victims. That's rather passive language 'deplores that an atrocity occured'. No clue from the language in the motion who might be to blame for this. Maybe it was the fault of the British state for driving the IRA to such measures, maybe it wasn't the IRA at all. As for the offer of 'sympathy' its meaningless coming from an IRA apologist.

[EnglishPete]

Aren't Jews also overwhelmingly anti-Brexit?

Well considering Corbyn associations like this

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corbyn-repeatedly-shared-platforms-with-plane-hijacker/

Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly shared a platform with PFLP terrorist and hijacker Leila Khaled. During these "anti Zionist" conferences Corbyn called for a complete trade embargo of Israel.

Its not just defending the IRA 30 years ago, its not just taking part in an inappropriate wreath laying. Its not just calls he made years ago for Britain's security forces MI5 and Special Branch to be shut down. These are not isolated incidents. Corbyn has acted this way again and again and again over the years.

Given the way that Jews in general and Israel in particular have been a prime target for terrorists you can understand British Jews (who have traditionally tended to vote Labour just as US Jews tend to vote Democratic) not warming to the party under Corbyn.

[EnglishPete]

I would have thought the Lib Dems would be the ideal party for British Jews. They are pro-Europe socially liberal but relatively pro free market as well. What's not to like?

The Lib Dems are largely non-interventionist, which tends to include tepid feelings about Israel and support for Israel and moreover attracts some of the kind of people who have less savory views on the subject (regardless of the fact that the party itself does not hold such views).

In the US the Republican try to be more pro-Israel than most Israelis are while the Democrats are much more "nuanced" on the Middle East and yet American Jews favour Democrats over Republicans by about a 4 to 1 margin. Why the difference?

British Jews used to vote Labour by similar margins. Labour, especially under Corbyn but even before then the 'anti-Zionist' 'boycott Israel' nutjobs have been getting more and more closing linked with the left and the Labour party.

I suspect that in the Democratic Party the breaks have been put on much more against this tendency because the Jewish vote is proportionately much higher and the Muslim vote proportionately much lower than in the UK. I suspect that once this tendency reaches a certain critical mass within the Democrats you'll see a similar migration of Jewish votes in the US.

[EnglishPete]

I would have thought the Lib Dems would be the ideal party for British Jews. They are pro-Europe socially liberal but relatively pro free market as well. What's not to like?

The Lib Dems are largely non-interventionist, which tends to include tepid feelings about Israel and support for Israel and moreover attracts some of the kind of people who have less savory views on the subject (regardless of the fact that the party itself does not hold such views).

In the US the Republican try to be more pro-Israel than most Israelis are while the Democrats are much more "nuanced" on the Middle East and yet American Jews favour Democrats over Republicans by about a 4 to 1 margin. Why the difference?

Well, most importantly, U.S. Jews aren't UK Jews?

and most importantly us-democrats are not corbyn labourites.

where would one put corbyn on an americanized scale? bernie sanders, hillary clinton, or something in between?

To the left of Bernie Sanders. He has spent much of his time over the last 40 or more years attending and speaking at street protests and many of his closest associates are involved with running hard left (often communist led) street protest organisations like the 'Stop the war Coalition". I would put him in the same place as a long time professional street protest organisation organiser, maybe in NYC or maybe in Portland perhaps.

[EnglishPete]

I wonder if this will be the first election since 79 Lab+Con break 80%

I was thinking the same.  On details is how do we count vote share? UK or GB.  Most polls are in GB terms.

Vote share is always UK - its a UK wide election - whilst polling is never done UK wide, only GB wide.

[EnglishPete]

If you're interested in seeing just how partisan UK newspapers can be here is the front pages of the Sun and the Daily Mail today, Britain's two most popular daily newspapers with a combined circulation of just over 3 million. From what I know of US newspapers I gather that the New York Post (like the Sun owned by Murdoch) would be a rough equivalent in the US).

[EnglishPete]

For those who are interested here are the front pages today of the UK's other national Daily morning newspapers, in descending order of circulation

London freesheet newspaper Metro



Labour supporting tabloid the Daily Mirror



Tory supporting broadsheet the Daily Telegraph



Murdoch owned Tory supporting the Times



The Daily Star, a tabloid that leans right but largely steers clear of politics (lots of topless pics of women inside not so many long words)



Right wing Tabloid the Daily Express



Liberal compact newspaper the i



The Financial Times, liberal centrist financial newspaper



And the left leaning Guardian most of you will be familiar with from its website

[EnglishPete]

Details of LucidTalk poll and projections

[EnglishPete]

For those that wonder what the NI seats would mean in case of a hung Parliament

DUP normally vote with Conservatives, in the event of a hung Parliament they can effectively be counted as part of the Conservative total

UUP normally vote with Conservatives, in the event of a hung Parliament they can effectively be counted as part of the Conservative total

SDLP normally vote with Labour, in the event of a hung Parliament they can effectively be counted as part of the Labour total

Former UUP MP Lady Sylvia Hermon broke with her former party in 2010 over an electoral pact they had formed with the Conservatives and since then has been reelected twice as an independent unionist. She normally votes with Labour. In the event of a hung Parliament she can effectively be counted as part of the Labour total.

Sinn Fein MPs abstain from the UK Parliament due to their refusal to take the oath to be sworn in. They therefore cannot be counted as part of any party's effective total as they do not vote.

[EnglishPete]

I don't think a hung parliament is particularly likely. From everything I've read, seen and heard about the details of polls combined with various reports of candidates and canvassers reporting that they are not seeing the 'Corbyn surge' I think the polls are massively exaggerating growth in support for Corbyn.

The overall impression I get is that Corbyn is surging with some sections of the electorate (particularly students) and that these are, in their enthusiasm, getting greatly over represented in online polls and responders to the (few remaining) phone polls. However these will be more likely to be registered to vote in University towns or in the South, either in London or the commuter belt of the South East. Many reports that both feedback on the doorstep (and to a degree polling subsamples) are showing Labour doing far far less well in towns across the Midlands and North which had lots of Leave voters in 2016. In those places I suspect Labour will go backwards.

The big problem for Labour is that in inner London and most of the major University towns Labour already hold big majorities in most of their seats whilst in the South East commuter belt the Tories are far ahead of Labour in almost all the seats with Labour many times in third place. Pilling up extra votes in these places will gain very little extra seats. In middle sized 'leave' towns across the midlands and the North Labour are much more vulnerable to Tory advances and I expect we'll see big Tory gains in those places tomorrow.

That's my best guess, we'll see who is right tomorrow.

[EnglishPete]

I don't think a hung parliament is particularly likely. From everything I've read, seen and heard about the details of polls combined with various reports of candidates and canvassers reporting that they are not seeing the 'Corbyn surge' I think the polls are massively exaggerating growth in support for Corbyn.

The overall impression I get is that Corbyn is surging with some sections of the electorate (particularly students) and that these are, in their enthusiasm, getting greatly over represented in online polls and responders to the (few remaining) phone polls. However these will be more likely to be registered to vote in University towns or in the South, either in London or the commuter belt of the South East. Many reports that both feedback on the doorstep (and to a degree polling subsamples) are showing Labour doing far far less well in towns across the Midlands and North which had lots of Leave voters in 2016. In those places I suspect Labour will go backwards.

The big problem for Labour is that in inner London and most of the major University towns Labour already hold big majorities in most of their seats whilst in the South East commuter belt the Tories are far ahead of Labour in almost all the seats with Labour many times in third place. Pilling up extra votes in these places will gain very little extra seats. In middle sized 'leave' towns across the midlands and the North Labour are much more vulnerable to Tory advances and I expect we'll see big Tory gains in those places tomorrow.

That's my best guess, we'll see who is right tomorrow.

Any chance of Labour winning the popular vote but the tories getting an outright majority? (or even just being the largest party) I think that has already happened before but it's a lot rarer in the UK than in the US

Its theoretically possible but I think very unlikely. We'll know tomorrow.