Election Debates

First topic message reminder :

A number of debates are taking place. Below is May v Corbyn. What is everyones' view on the debate? who do you think came out on top? Did the debate change your mind on who you will vote for or convince you who to vote for if you were undecided?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Crimey wrote:It helps that Jeremy Corbyn is an actual real person, not been pumped out by whatever machine they have to create most of the identical, robotic politicians.

He's still an IRA appeaser so is actually worse.

Actually, what evidence do you have of that?

You believe he was there for peace?

Why not? As much, if not more, evidence for that as for the fact he was secretly supportive of the IRA and their terrorism. At some point, you have to talk to the people you might hate if you want any sort of lasting peace.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Crimey wrote:It helps that Jeremy Corbyn is an actual real person, not been pumped out by whatever machine they have to create most of the identical, robotic politicians.

He's still an IRA appeaser so is actually worse.

Actually, what evidence do you have of that?

Popping at Labour's manifesto and now going at the IRA stuff..

Are you stirring ??..

Me? As if...
No, I wasn't. Did you mean to aim that at Hammersmith? You seem to have misread my reply to his comment.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Crimey wrote:It helps that Jeremy Corbyn is an actual real person, not been pumped out by whatever machine they have to create most of the identical, robotic politicians.

He's still an IRA appeaser so is actually worse.

Actually, what evidence do you have of that?

You believe he was there for peace?

Why not? As much, if not more, evidence for that as for the fact he was secretly supportive of the IRA and their terrorism. At some point, you have to talk to the people you might hate if you want any sort of lasting peace.

Being there for peace = being an appeaser.

Just because people appear confused.

Scottrf wrote:

Samo wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Samo wrote:

Spoiler:

And where is the vitriol from the right about Maria Gatland? Tory councillor for Croydon who is legitimately ex-IRA?

Remind me is Maria Gatland the party leader?

No, but the fact she is actually an ex-member of the IRA and not just an alleged supporter is an important thing to recognize.

Supporter? Do you know what appeaser means?

verb (used with object), appeased, appeasing.
1.
to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe:

2.
to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage:

3.
to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

Im assuming you're referencing number 3 here - even though Corbyn is a pacifist who was always against any form of military action. God forbid he sticks to what he believes in a tries to find a peaceful solution.

Samo wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Samo wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Samo wrote:

Spoiler:

And where is the vitriol from the right about Maria Gatland? Tory councillor for Croydon who is legitimately ex-IRA?

Remind me is Maria Gatland the party leader?

No, but the fact she is actually an ex-member of the IRA and not just an alleged supporter is an important thing to recognize.

Supporter? Do you know what appeaser means?

verb (used with object), appeased, appeasing.
1.
to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe:

2.
to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage:

3.
to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

Im assuming you're referencing number 3 here - even though Corbyn is a pacifist who was always against any form of military action.  God forbid he sticks to what he believes in a tries to find a peaceful solution.

You assume a lot. I'm simply informing you that supporter and appeaser aren't synonyms, because nobody in the thread called him a supporter.

The media has been consistently though. Apologies if I got my wires crossed.

I actually think being a terrorist appeaser is a good thing. Not sure why Hammer is against it, perhaps because terrorism thins out the poor people.

Scottrf wrote:I actually think being a terrorist appeaser is a good thing. Not sure why Hammer is against it, perhaps because terrorism thins out the poor people.

I don't like the idea of them getting away with what they did and I come from an Irish unionist family that suffered greatly because of the IRA, trying to validate what they did is not on. Corbyn wasn't there for peace per se anyway, he was there to stick two fingers up to the British government and the crown.

Do you know what it means? It sounds like you think they mean the same thing. Is that what you think?

Its not like the British were entirely innocent either.

This is as I understand it. Corbyn was openly up for negotiating with the IRA to bring peace to the region - incidentally that is what happened eventually anyway. It is NOT that Corbyn was actively funding the IRA or supporting their bombing. He was seeking peaceful solution to it all as he is with other wars in the world. That is how I understand it but feel free to point out if that is an incorrect assumption.

CaledonianCraig wrote:This is as I understand it. Corbyn was openly up for negotiating with the IRA to bring peace to the region - incidentally that is what happened eventually anyway. It is NOT that Corbyn was actively funding the IRA or supporting their bombing. He was seeking peaceful solution to it all as he is with other wars in the world. That is how I understand it but feel free to point out if that is an incorrect assumption.

In all likelyhood an accurate summary IMO (other than the GFA agreement not directly being a contract with the IRA). Although it's hard to know the content of meetings.

The way he fails is that he refuses to flat out condemn their actions without qualifying it, so people keep coming back to it. That and the timing of some of his actions.

To what extent he supported peace vs peace via IRA victories seems to be disputed and I guess which side you believe probably falls upon where you plan to vote.

It was a card that the Tories had been saving in their back pockets since he was elected leader.

Scottrf wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:This is as I understand it. Corbyn was openly up for negotiating with the IRA to bring peace to the region - incidentally that is what happened eventually anyway. It is NOT that Corbyn was actively funding the IRA or supporting their bombing. He was seeking peaceful solution to it all as he is with other wars in the world. That is how I understand it but feel free to point out if that is an incorrect assumption.

In all likelyhood an accurate summary IMO. Although it's hard to know the content of meetings.

The way he fails is that he refuses to flat out condemn their actions without qualifying it, so people keep coming back to it. That and the timing of some of his actions.

But again that is the done thing a pacifist will do. People press him on it on TV and you cannot expect someone who sees peace as being desirable to come out and rock the boat (currently in tranquil waters) by saying the IRA are evil scum or are murdering **********s. It is counter-productive to a peaceful society and I think that is the way he sees it.

I would imagine either way, his involvement in the whole thing is over exaggerated for political effect

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:This is as I understand it. Corbyn was openly up for negotiating with the IRA to bring peace to the region - incidentally that is what happened eventually anyway. It is NOT that Corbyn was actively funding the IRA or supporting their bombing. He was seeking peaceful solution to it all as he is with other wars in the world. That is how I understand it but feel free to point out if that is an incorrect assumption.

In all likelyhood an accurate summary IMO. Although it's hard to know the content of meetings.

The way he fails is that he refuses to flat out condemn their actions without qualifying it, so people keep coming back to it. That and the timing of some of his actions.

But again that is the done thing a pacifist will do. People press him on it on TV and you cannot expect someone who sees peace as being desirable to come out and rock the boat (currently in tranquil waters) by saying the IRA are evil scum or are murdering **********s. It is counter-productive to a peaceful society and I think that is the way he sees it.

Exactly. Being against all wars means he's highly unlikely to single out one side in particular, which is why he condemned the bombings by both sides.

This IRA crap isn't going to win this election..It is preaching to the converted.

The deal is whether this guy can get enough kids and non voters out to make it a workable majority rather than a big one..I imagine he has got the hardened Labour voters and some Tactical already.

Think this terrorist stuff is being overplayed.

GSC wrote:I would imagine either way, his involvement in the whole thing is over exaggerated for political effect

Welcome to politics..

In this battle between student do-gooders and the old-age home, the IRA question has a very different meaning for the two groups. Either I can look at it with a clearer perspective because it was before my time, or I cannot quite understand how emotions hold such sway as I didn't live through it.

If you are on a zero hour contract.....Worried about student debt........Worried you can't leave a big nest egg for your kids or maybe a Nurse using a foodbank........

Are you really going to be bothered what happened 20/30 years ago ??...

That is the way I look at it......But maybe I'm naive.....Certainly wouldn't assume anything is totally irrelevant but like I said above looking at Corbyn's target vote I struggle to see it counting much..

I would say that is a fairly naive way of looking at it, I wasn't around 20/30 years ago but the impression left upon me by those who were has led to my strong dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, not sure you can underestimate the effect their peers have on people.

It is odd that a vote for the Conservatives is seen as selfish yet a young person voting entirely for themselves is not.

Why is May not doing the debates? It's surely a lose-lose for her?

Either Corbyn does really well again and Rudd fails - thus support for Labour increases

Or

Rudd smashes it and suddenly the question turns to why is the babbling mess that is May leading when this seemingly competent leader is stuck behind her?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Why is May not doing the debates? It's surely a lose-lose for her?

Either Corbyn does really well again and Rudd fails - thus support for Labour increases

Or

Rudd smashes it and suddenly the question turns to why is the babbling mess that is May leading when this seemingly competent leader is stuck behind her?

Because No Theresa May is better than a bad Theresa May.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say that is a fairly naive way of looking at it, I wasn't around 20/30 years ago but the impression left upon me by those who were has led to my strong dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, not sure you can underestimate the effect their peers have on people.

It is odd that a vote for the Conservatives is seen as selfish yet a young person voting entirely for themselves is not.

I would say that is true of people who won't vote Conservative due to Thatcher years. But my folks dislike Corbyn due to the IRA stuff and I think they are being foolish, so it depends how you take a parents word. 

On the latter, most would say the problem with the youth vote is they don't vote for themselves, they vote in an idealist's world.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Why is May not doing the debates? It's surely a lose-lose for her?

Either Corbyn does really well again and Rudd fails - thus support for Labour increases

Or

Rudd smashes it and suddenly the question turns to why is the babbling mess that is May leading when this seemingly competent leader is stuck behind her?

Rudd probably already knows shes next in line.

Mays a terrible public speaker, better just delegitimise the debate by not turning up. Corbyn cost himself by not turning up to the first one, his "I turned up" point loses steam.

It's ultimately pointless anyway, his supporters will say he turned up and his detractors will say it shows desperation.

Can see why May didn't bother, 5 vs 2 and half the 2 is Paul Nuttall

Putting corporation tax up at this time is economical suicide.

Rudd doing alright so far given the opposition.

Problem for the 5 is they're all competing for largely the same vote share. Tories already know they have Nuttalls share

Farron and co would probably be better served picking off Corbyn

GSC wrote:Rudd doing alright so far given the opposition.

Problem for the 5 is they're all competing for largely the same vote share. Tories already know they have Nuttalls share

She's putting Theresa May to shame at the moment and she's emphasizing the fact the others (Corbyn) have safety in numbers.

Audience not applauding anything the Tory is saying and she is getting plenty of jeers.

If I were Angus, I'd probably leave the "where's your leader" jibes to the other parties

GSC wrote:If I were Angus, I'd probably leave the "where's your leader" jibes to the other parties

A grey area though as Angus Robertson is the leader of the SNP in Westminster.

It's only a grey area if you need to spin it as such.

Sturgeon turned up as leader a couple of weeks ago, and did the last debates.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Audience not applauding anything the Tory is saying and she is getting plenty of jeers.

There's been very little applauding and it falls down even further when Paul Nuttall has been getting cheers.

It's a waste of time having Caroline Lucas and Natalie Wood there really.

GSC wrote:It's only a grey area if you need to spin it as such.

Sturgeon turned up as leader a couple of weeks ago, and did the last debates.

No need for spin - why would there be? Angus Robertson is the leader of the SNP party at Westminster and top of the SNP just below Nicola Sturgeon whilst Nicola herself was on a debate last week - quite clearly no hiding and Angus seems to have had the majority of his responses tonight met with warm applause - there again right on cue.

Fairplay to the Tory lady she is doing okay..2018 here is the next Pm.

Farron has upped his game..Corbyn needs to up his game...Lucas competent

Ukip guy is the comedy act.

To be fair, as much as it has been made apparent that the Tories have targeted Cambridge, they ain't getting it and were only going to find a crowd who dislike them.

I think the Conservatives know May is hard to like so don't want her exposed here.

Tim Farron is reasonably competent. There just aren't enough people out there who want to stop Brexit for him to appeal to.

Rudds done more for May here than she's done for herself since calling a GE.

Brexit hasn't stuck for Farron this election, he needs an identifiable plan B.

Donald Trump said he was going to walk away from the Paris agreement during his campaign and has now walked away from it as he said, I don't think he gives a toss what anyone else thinks.

Rudd seems to be the chosen successor and did her chances no harm.

Corbyn got a bit lost, especially when it deteriorated into a bit of a shouting match. This was more PMQs Corbyn than rally Corbyn.

Still struggle to come up with a reason to vote LiB Dem beyond Brexit. Farron had a chance a month ago but has faded out of the picture. Good performance here but likely too late.

Expected a bit more from Angus based on PMQs. Sturgeon has more bite in these stages.

Nuttall is the side clownshow. Even he knows UKIPs time has gone.

Overall it kinda descended into a shouting match. Not sure we'll get more in 5 years

Was Diane Abbott due to turn up? Not surprised if Corbyn changed that last minute then.

To be fair to Corbyn, I think he was best of keeping himself out of the slanging matches when they began. Just plays into the 'coalition of chaos' line if he bands in with them - why I think he was reluctant to be seen debating with them with no May.

Rudd put in as solid a performance as possible (especially as her father died on Sunday) given she was going to cop it for May not turning up, and I think it is more certain than ever that May is not PM by the next election.

If I didn't want to go to jail for bigamy I'd ask Caroline Lucas to marry me..

#Class.

Somewhat biased but thought Amber Rudd did pretty well there considering it was pretty much 5 v 1. Corbyn would have been better served not turning up to be honest but was only there to save himself from Diane Abbott who is a calamity.

She did well..Hammer

May won this election before it started....But we have seen someone with more ummph.

#Watchyourass

Amber Rudd was a disaster for the Tories.

She stated crime has dropped under the Tories, when it has grown since the last election.
She justified selling arms to the Saudis to attack Yemeni civilians as good for industry.
She got laughed at when she said judge us on our record.

I imagine Theresa May is crying into her pillow right now.

Not a Green supporter but Caroline Lucas was the one to come out with the most credit for me