taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Only anecdotal, but over the weekend I spoke to two solid Libdem types who don't like Corbyn but are voting Labour.
Does blaming TM over police cuts make much sense in this case, though? Given that they had these guys shot within 8 minutes of receiving the emergency call, it's hard to argue they botched it this time...
If Labour are going to go with this - and I think they should - they should really go for it (particularly the Saudi thing). Shouldn't be going on about 'difficult conversations', should be going for the jugular on May selling weapons to the very people who are blowing us up. I realise that's high risk and there's the added problem of being able to link Saudi to specific attacks. But there's probably a form of words to be had that gets round that but also manages to go for it.Corbyn didnt bottle mentioning Saudi Arabia.
(brom bbc live updates page Latest updates: London attack - BBC News )
Has she taken any action yet? Every hour that passes without her challenging him marks her out as weaker and shitter - must be worth a few percentage points by itself. I hope he carries on...
Or bothNot that I can see. The usual evasive shit about not being afraid to say if Trump is wrong. She never does though so either she's an outright liar or agrees with Trump.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that in flames tonight...
It's only a proper wicker man if someone's in it. Someone religious, maybe a vicar's childIdeal Wicker Man material, that.
It has disappeared already, apparently.
Can Labour go for the Saudi thing though?
Can they say, "we will stop this deal"? "We won't allow any more deals?"
No government has in the past, have they? And - tragic though it is - defence jobs are a big deal in some constituencies and Tories will play it as protecting jobs.
I think May will just ignore Trump and call it a "distraction" from the serious job of battling terrorism.
How that plays with the electorate, who knows?
If I were running Labour's campaign I'd go more with the police numbers (and other emergency services). I hate to be so cynical, but first responders are the heroes of such events, and have huge public approval in troubled times. Plus it's uncomplicated and would play well in any case - middle east foreign policy and trade policy less so.
Edit select all delete then put in a punctuation mark of your choiceedited to ask Where has the fucking delete button gone? My post was no longer relevant and couldn't delete it
I think he should be going with a 'you've got blood on your hands line'. That would be about the Saudi thing even more than Libya. even if the link is more specific in terms of the Manchester bomber. Now, I recognise that's very likely to be bad advice*. To make that kind of accusation it would have to be well documented and it would have to be a planned assault - and there's no time for that. It could well make things worse. I'm just not sure about the 'everyone realises that' bit of what you say. People do realise the tories are in bed with every kind of monster on the world stage, but don't necessarily twig the connection in terms of Saudi exporting terrorism. So, if Labour want to make this an intervention that has some bearing on Thursday's result, they need to do something dramatic. Should just add, I don't mean this in terms of some kind of cynical attempt to get Corbyn as PM, it's the other side of the coin, taking a chance to hurt the kind of scum who would sell anything to anyone, regardless of end results.That line of his about the need to have difficult conversations about them is all he should say on that subject - everyone recognizes what that means, and almost everyone realises that this Government didn't and wouldn't have those conversations with them.
The Tory party are running so low on politicians they can trust to go on tv and not completely fuck it up that they've had to put michael gove on c4 news from his local pub via face time
Can Labour go for the Saudi thing though?
Can they say, "we will stop this deal"? "We won't allow any more deals?"