Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 2017 General Election campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Election 2017: Abbott says she will 'rejoin fray soon' after standing aside as shadow home secretary over illness – politics live

Statement from Thornberry:

Just a few months ago, if you’d asked me what I thought of Theresa May, I would have said that – while I disagreed with her politics – I admired her character. I considered her stolid, strong and principled, with a basic sense of decency not always found in front-line politics.

Well what a difference seven weeks make. Since calling the election, she has been well and truly shown up as tetchy and thin-skinned about criticism, weak and unstable under pressure, cowardly when faced with a challenge, and deceitful when it suits her political ends.

But more than anything, I believe she has been exposed as a hypocrite.

She is happy to trade on her faith one minute, then tell blatant lies about Jeremy Corbyn the next. She viciously attacks Diane Abbott over getting her numbers wrong in an interview, then brazenly and repeatedly refuses to offer any costings of her own.

And worst, most sickening of all, she stands outside 10 Downing Street and tells the British public that ‘enough is enough’ on terrorism, then goes back inside to call her Jihadist-funding friends in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and see what business deals she can strike with them next.

Jihadist-funding friends in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, wow!
 
Last edited:
Can you show me where in the Times report (that you asked me to search out) that it says Dugdale said what Sturgeon claimed she said?

If not, then it's simply a matter of taking one person's word or another's. And no matter how much you hope people take Nicola Sturgeon's, it's unverifiable so they might not.
Firstly...didn't ask you to search for anything.

Secondly, don't actually give a shit what you believe on the matter. You didn't see the debate. When you say "Dugdale immediately denied this categorically." you're talking utter garbage. Lying basically.



You posted "Dugdale immediately denied this categorically."

You're a liar. She did no such thing.
 
Firstly...didn't ask you to search for anything.

Secondly, don't actually give a shit what you believe on the matter. You didn't see the debate. When you say "Dugdale immediately denied this categorically." you're talking utter garbage. Lying basically.



You posted "Dugdale immediately denied this categorically."

You're a liar. She did no such thing.

I said I hadn't watched the debate and said apparently this had happened.

However, rather than pointing out where in the Times report it confirms Dugdale said what Sturgeon says she said, you go ahead and call me a liar if it makes you happy.

But it might help other readers if you can show where in the Times report people should be looking.
 
Well, this is annoying. I'm trying to make some calls for Labour, and they give me a wide range of options, including my ultra safe seat. But none for Hallam, so I can't campaign against Clegg :(

In slightly better news, it won't let me campaign for Angela Smith either.
 
gVVfDEql.jpg


IdNDp3Wl.jpg
 
I said I hadn't watched the debate and said apparently this had happened.

However, rather than pointing out where in the Times report it confirms Dugdale said what Sturgeon says she said, you go ahead and call me a liar if it makes you happy.

But it might help other readers if you can show where in the Times report people should be looking.
I'm not calling you a liar...I'm just making the point that you are a liar. The video clearly shows no such 'immediate' and 'categorical' denial. And you're not man enough to admit it.

But yes...it makes me happy. And I had a little laugh when squirrel liked your post, too.
 
I'm not calling you a liar...I'm just making the point that you are a liar. The video clearly shows no such 'immediate' and 'categorical' denial. And you're not man enough to admit it.

But yes...it makes me happy. And I had a little laugh when squirrel liked your post, too.
I'm not "man enough to admit what"? That I hadn't seen the debate? I prefaced my first post on the matter with that caveat. I further said this had "apparently" happened. So perhaps you can apply your forensic truthiness to that.

However, I note you still aren't pointing out where it says in the Times report that Dugdale said what Sturgeon said she said.

And that's the point I was making: it's one person's word against another's.

Of course, you're completely ignoring that. Because it's a mild criticism of Sturgeon. And you don't like that.
 
,


. But it will be a fucking shit five years if tm wins big

IMHO, More terrorism will be on the menu, put it like this, them load of Kuntz are in bed with the Saudi's, and along with the usual suspects, they wanna feck up Iran.

If there is a God up there, may he have mercy on their blood soaked souls.
 
yeah what kind of anarchists are they!?
From what I've seen, shit ones. Though I've no idea if you're question is sincere.

If they cared about the working class they'd be voting Labour, even if they have to pinch their nose while doing so. You don't have to like it, you just have to recognise that the alternative is a world of shit.
 
I'm struggling to get anywhere near your logic. You think Class War should have joined in with Corbyn? :confused:
Nowhere did I say anything of the sort. They don't have to ally with him, they just have to vote him to get the bastards out.
 
From what I've seen, shit ones. Though I've no idea if you're question is sincere.

If they cared about the working class they'd be voting Labour, even if they have to pinch their nose while doing so. You don't have to like it, you just have to recognise that the alternative is a world of shit.
The world is shit. If you think a Labour government is the solution you can't recall 1997-2010 The only saving grace they have is they're not the tories.
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen, shit ones. Though I've no idea if you're question is sincere.

If they cared about the working class they'd be voting Labour, even if they have to pinch their nose while doing so. You don't have to like it, you just have to recognise that the alternative is a world of shit.
i am a socialist, which is why I can't support the Labour Party. but i agree anarchists have got no excuse.
 
The world is shit. If you think a Labour government is the solution you can't recall 1997-2007. The only saving grace they have is they're not the tories.
It's one thing to think Labour as a solution. It's another to lend it a vote for the time being.
There is an impetous right now for political discourse to veer towards the left in a way that was impossible 8 weeks ago. A Corbyn led Labour victory can help in that direction.
 
It's one thing to think Labour as a solution. It's another to lend it a vote for the time being.
There is an impetous right now for political discourse to veer towards the left in a way that was impossible 8 weeks ago. A Corbyn led Labour victory can help in that direction.
yeh. the left. but how far left? the thing is of course that anarchists oppose the state and the labour party rather support it. i don't know how you propose to square that particular circle.
 
Why can't you support voting as a socialist?
to be exact i didn't say I can't support voting, I said I can't support the Labour Party. it is a party with a long and evil history and which is violently opposed to all the principles of socialism as I understand it.

plus a single vote may not take much effort, but if it is especially important that Labour wins the election then is simply casting a vote sufficient? and if not, well that's not my politics or where I would want to focus what little resource I have to offer. the time, money and energy poured into the Labour Party could be put to far better use as far as I am concerned.
 
to be exact i didn't say I can't support voting, I said I can't support the Labour Party. it is a party with a long and evil history and which is violently opposed to all the principles of socialism as I understand it.

plus a single vote may not take much effort, but if it is especially important that Labour wins the election then is simply casting a vote sufficient? and if not, well that's not my politics or where I would want to focus what little resource I have to offer. the time, money and energy poured into the Labour Party could be put to far better use as far as I am concerned.
Ok, so the labour party has a shady history.

So what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom