Westministenders: Before the Fire Alarm of Rome goes off

[RedToothBrush]

I’m going to keep this one very simple.

THE DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IS 22ND MAY.
www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

Postal votes start to go out on 23rd May.

Your challenge is to persuade someone to register to vote or to get someone who is considering not to, to get their arse to the polling station.

Go forth and harass. Especially women and the young.

That’s it. No frills OP.

Wilson won 3 terms on manifestos more left wing than "Corbo-communism".

Read Tony's Benn's diaries - he regarded Wilson as a right-wing sellout the same way Corbynistas today regard Blair. Plus ca change...

"Asked if he would categorically rule out the use of nuclear weapons, even in retaliation, Mr Corbyn did not engage with the question."

He said he would never order a first strike, but did not say that he would never retaliate.

I know that could be interpreted in different ways, but I take refusing to confirm that he wouldn't retaliate as a "maybe", not a "no."
there's uncertainty there, and uncertainty over what your enemy will do is enough for a deterrent.
We never know what any PM would actually do in the event of an enemy nuclear strike. The trident submarines contain sealed instructions, which are destroyed and replaced with a new set when a new PM takes over.

squishy that's handy, because I'm pretty sure the US code is currently 0000

I heard it was 8008.

squishysquirmy

Please, Corbyn has a lifetime commitment to unilateral disarmament. Do I have to quote the same article again?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/30/corbyn-i-would-never-use-nuclear-weapons-if-i-was-pm

Jeremy Corbyn would instruct the UK’s defence chiefs never to use the Trident nuclear weapons system if he became prime minister in 2020, the new Labour leader has confirmed.

With Corbyn, our enemies can be certain he would never retaliate. That's an extremely dangerous position to be in when it comes to nuclear defence. Don't be disingenuous.

feel free to take the piss as much as you like
No-one is taking the piss. I'm interested in language and the way it is used. I am sick of meaningless slogans like 'take our country back', 'coalition of chaos' and, of course, 'strong and stable.'

Your use of terminology like 'ordinary voter' and 'Corbo-communist' smacks of rhetoric and makes you sound like you're parroting a marketing message. Just an observation.

squishy I love that!

But the 5 point labour lead in London is nice, and clearly touches a raw nerve:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-labour-london-dominant-party-win-conservativesfive-point-lead-lose-four-seats-ukip-a7729446.html

he regarded Wilson as a right-wing sellout the same way Corbynistas today regard Blair.
I don't quite get your point here.
Nationalised industry, free education and the right to strike were all key to 1960s-70s Labour.

And there were no food banks.

Voting Labour / LibDem / Green is just to cut down the Tory majority, at least in votes if not in seats.

Gaining 50% of votes cast - a feat no govt has achieved in modern times - would give May an implicit mandate far stronger than say the 45-48% that would still give her a very big Parliamentary majority

Can Corbyn become PM ?
Well, he had 2 chances:

Slim and None.
And Slim has long left town.

twofingerstoEverything

Your use of terminology like 'ordinary voter' and 'Corbo-communist' smacks of rhetoric and makes you sound like you're parroting a marketing message. Just an observation.

Er, all punchy or persuasive language is "rhetoric". Try looking over what you write against your political opponents and tell me it's totally neutral and non-rhetorical.

I fucking despise Corbyn, and don't care who knows it. My rhetoric just drives the point home.

By definition, if there are 'ordinary working families' who and what are abnormal working families?

Think in those terms.

People will interpret in their own way, but what do the Conservatives mean?

Is it all kinds of families who work hard, both full time or perhaps part time.

Or is it more in line with Conservative values of a married heterosexual couple with 2 children?

The definition that seemed to come out when there was talk of Grammar schools was one of families who were doing above average, rather than being more typical.

Just an observation of language and who uses it and why in political terms.

Its about getting the voter to identify as the person that you are talking about, rather than the person you are actually talking about...

He can be fair and reasonable as he likes. But his unequivocal statement ("Asked if he would use nuclear weapons, he said: “No.”) is indistinguishable from unilateral nuclear disarmament. The same thing that did Labour in in 1983. That's electoral poison to the ordinary voter, and I'm sure the Tory campaign will go in very hard on the issue.

As I pointed out in my post that article was a year ago and he has now clearly, at least on the surface, agreed to toe the line on accepting trident will continue. I see no problem with being clear that he does not plan on rushing into war and sees it as a last resort. This is how it should be. I think the lives of our armed forces deserve a little more consideration than sabre rattling and blindly sending our troops to die in wars they will never win.

For what it's worth I don't see any value in us having nukes in the age of terrorism and cyber attacks. They are from another era and will not protect us against the threats of the future.

Corbyn past and his dodgy friends do make him toxic on the doorstep.

I remember Harold Wilson
His policies were indeed more radical than Corbyn's, merely because the Overton window then was centered around the postwar consensus on the welfare state.

However, his pipe and general history of calm and probity meant only the swivel-eyed feared him
(there were allegedly a few incompetent coup plots by them)

Also, that entire generation of politicians, Labour and Tory, had a solid history of serving their country in the armed forces during WW2.
They were trusted far more.
They were indeed far more responsible than recent and current pols of all parties.
Some - like Tory PM Heath - had also volunteered in Spain to fight fascists in the 1930s.

I fucking despise Corbyn I do not like the way he is leading the Labour Party but despise is a pretty strong word for a man who clearly has principles. I have met him and he is a nice man and I do think that is coming through in his campaigning. Demonising him might just start to alienate people. Prat yes, devil, no.

May however is now grating on me to the extent I cannot watch her. I find her patronising tone and rhetoric offensive and irritating. She has no charisma. Suddenly I am nostalgic for Cameron's smarmy charm and even Maggie Thatchers inability to resist demonstrating her intellectual superiority and force ion personality.

who and what are abnormal working families?

I am clearly abnormal with my 2 parent working household, lower middle income, one child and mortgage. Clearly my situation can't a be that of a 'normal working family' because as much as I try I just can't see how the Tories are doing anything but make my life harder.

what are abnormal working families?

Yes. This.

So summer please do tell us what an 'ordinary voter' is because it sounds very much like 'othering' to me.

I think there'll always be people who want to run the Opposition leader down, regardless of which Opposition it is, and it rarely makes sense.

OL in GE1 - we will have x in our manifesto
Party - umm x hasn't proven too popular with the public
OL in GE2 - That was clear, thought I still like x. Howabout we will have y in our manifesto which is somewhere near x but isn't x
Party - seems fine
People - but you said several years ago you were going to do x. You aren't allowed to change your mind. It may steal votes

I find her patronising tone and rhetoric offensive and irritating
Avoid this one then whatwouldrondo
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/theresa-may-grilled-over-state-of-public-services-during-radio-phone-in
She springs to life boasting of deportations; seems to float her boat. On NHS and inability to confirm she won't raise taxes, a wee bit embarrassed.

As I pointed out in my post that article was a year ago and he has now clearly, at least on the surface, agreed to toe the line on accepting trident will continue.

It doesn't matter that it was a year ago - nuclear disarmament is a lifetime commitment of his. It would be like the Tories promising to raise taxes to 90% - it's bullshit.

Tom Watson forced him to include not abolishing the system in the manifesto. But if the PM has publicly committed never to use it, that's like carrying around a gun everyone knows isn't loaded.

For what it's worth I don't see any value in us having nukes in the age of terrorism and cyber attacks. They are from another era and will not protect us against the threats of the future.

Russia? North Korea? Iran? Nukes are intended to deter nuclear and large-scale conventional attacks, which they do brilliantly. Obviously, terrorism and cyber attacks need different countermeasures. But just because a seatbelt can't protect you from the flu doesn't mean it won't save your life in a car crash.

Cyber attacks are shutting down NHS this afternoon, and hitting organisations across Europe. Nuking anyone isn't going to help people whose operations have just been cancelled.
And cyber interference during US election and Leave campaign? No nukes have saved us from apparent foreign attacks on democracy.

NHS isn't the only target for the malware attack, apparently Russia and Spain are very hard hit with the same ransomware.

woman12345

Cyber attacks are shutting down NHS this afternoon, and hitting organisations across Europe. Nuking anyone isn't going to help people whose operations have just been cancelled.
And cyber interference during US election and Leave campaign? No nukes have saved us from apparent foreign attacks on democracy.

Don't know why you're making me repeat myself, but here you go:

Nukes are intended to deter nuclear and large-scale conventional attacks, which they do brilliantly. Obviously, terrorism and cyber attacks need different countermeasures. But just because a seatbelt can't protect you from the flu doesn't mean it won't save your life in a car crash.

Not sure if this was picked up, apologies if so, but following from Wetherspoons Tim Martin suddenly realising they need free movement of people:

Sir James Dyson realises the European Court is ok