UK General election, Thursday 8th June

[Drummond]

Assuming we don't have another 'Hung Parliament' ... by Friday morning, our time, we should know whether Theresa May's Conservative Party has been successful in winning a further term in Government ... OR ... if Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party has somehow been successful in denying the Conservatives an outright victory, and is able to form a Government of his own.

Current thinking is that, if he is in such a position of 'victory', he'll probably need other minority Parties to prop up his power-base.

Theresa May, at the time she called this election, was the firm favourite to win. In fact, it was thought she might well manage a landslide victory. Since then, Labour has been successful in whittling down her lead to a fraction of what it was. Current thinking is that she'll still win, but, with a shaky majority lead. She may increase the Conservative majority over the last election ... but, it was never a large one.

The fact is, a Conservative win isn't a 'certainty' -- Corbyn MIGHT manage to win out. A sobering thought ... last time around, every single poll for weeks predicted a 'hung Parliament', and they were ALL wrong, every one. So ... polls aren't respected, here, as they once was.

Here's a taste of what Corbyn's political record has been. It considers just one aspect of his record.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 1984. It introduced police powers to arrest a person suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism connected to Northern Ireland.


Corbyn: Voted against it


1989 Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which proscribed the IRA and Irish National Liberation Army.


Corbyn: Voted against it


Terrorism Act 2000


Introduced by the Labour government - gave a broad definition of terrorism for the first time. The Act also gave the police the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to seven days and created a list of proscribed terrorist organisations.


Corbyn: Voted against it


Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001


Corbyn: Voted against it

Aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings, part of the 2006 Terrorism Act - extended the detention-without-charge period from 14 to 28 days.


Corbyn: Voted against it


Counter-terrorism Act 2008


Corbyn: Voted against it


Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act

Corbyn: Voted against it


Justice and Security Act 2013


Corbyn: Voted against it


Corbyn wants State ownership of our power, water, railway companies. This programme will cost tens of billions of pounds sterling to implement .. this in the aftermath of austerity measures, designed to get our economy on an even keel following the LAST Labour Government's spendthrift behaviour. He proposes a tax hike to help pay for it, walloping 'the rich' (standard Socialist methodology). In a BBC broadcast, it was pointed out to him that 'captains of industry' would just quit the UK if they objected too strongly to having their wealth stolen from them. Corbyn had no response to give to that point.

Corbyn hates our independent nuclear deterrent. Even his own Party wants to renew it (named 'Trident') ... he's on record as opposing it. He considers ownership of nuclear weapons 'immoral'. He's consistently ducked questions as to whether he'd ever use nuclear weapons in response to an attack on the UK. He has pledged to never order a first strike under any circumstances.

Where the polls currently stand - see :

http://www.westmonster.com/final-polls-verdict/

I find this instructive ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10055&stc=1

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. Personally. I will privately PRAY that the U.K. (Your home), doesn't choose to replace May, and sends Great Britain into a Devastating Socialist Regime.

Sadly. Because of the same divides we see here in the U.S. Politics now plays more of a game for control...than PROTECTING THE NATION.

If May is defeated. Those terror attacks over the last few weeks....WILL GET WORSE.

Might be time for you, and Freedom Loving Brits to consider...Moving to the USA???

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Personally. I will privately PRAY that the U.K. (Your home), doesn't choose to replace May, and sends Great Britain into a Devastating Socialist Regime.

Sadly. Because of the same divides we see here in the U.S. Politics now plays more of a game for control...than PROTECTING THE NATION.

If May is defeated. Those terror attacks over the last few weeks....WILL GET WORSE.

Might be time for you, and Freedom Loving Brits to consider...Moving to the USA???

Thanks for that, Aboutime.

On your last point ...it's tempting. But doing so would amount to running away from a fight, one needing to be won. I've never run away from a fight in my life, and I don't propose to start now !

Thank you for the suggestion, though. I appreciate the sentiment behind it.

By the way, I've just seen the following. Shades of the aftermath of Trump's electoral victory ... Lefties behaving like clones of each other, the world over .. ??

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/814080/Jeremy-Corbyn-election-2017-Labour-Facebook-Theresa-May-Conservatives-politics


JEREMY Corbyn supporters have claimed Britain could be hit by riots if Labour loses the General Election.

In chilling social media posts seen by Express.co.uk, the hard-left activists warned of mass social unrest in the event of a Tory victory.

They raised the possibility of riots, protests and strikes – and even a revolution – if Theresa May remains Prime Minister.

The shocking comments were made in a popular pro-Labour group on Facebook named We Support Jeremy Corbyn.

The page boasts more than 55,000 fans but is not affiliated with the left-winger or his party.

Asked what would happen if Mr Corbyn loses the election, one user wrote: "National strike, riots, social unrest.

"Either the government resigns or there's civil war. That would be a catastrophe, that's exactly what the Tories want."

Others raised the possibility of a socialist revolution to overthrow Mrs May's government.

[aboutime]

Thanks for that, Aboutime.

On your last point ...it's tempting. But doing so would amount to running away from a fight, one needing to be won. I've never run away from a fight in my life, and I don't propose to start now !

Thank you for the suggestion, though. I appreciate the sentiment behind it.

By the way, I've just seen the following. Shades of the aftermath of Trump's electoral victory ... Lefties behaving like clones of each other, the world over .. ??

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/814080/Jeremy-Corbyn-election-2017-Labour-Facebook-Theresa-May-Conservatives-politics


Oh yes. I know exactly what you mean. I wouldn't run from our Fights either.

I see things in a larger perspective, I suppose, because your nation is an Island group, and we....Well....we're a little bigger, with more people.
Stay Strong. Think Positively, and remember...TRUTH always Wins.
GOD BLESS, AND GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[Drummond]

Another little taste of what Corbyn and his people are truly all about ... from a TV interview within the past 24 hours. We've become accustomed to calling these 'car crash interviews' ....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/814178/BBC-Andrew-Neil-skewers-David-Lammy-jeremy-Corbyn-john-McDonnell-security-record


ANDREW NEIL has scolded Labour candidate David Lammy after he defended Jeremy Corbyn’s record on voting against anti-terror legislation.

He also ripped into the politician over the voting record of other senior figures in the Labour Party.

Speaking on the BBC’s Daily Politics, the presenter put shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s stance on the MI5 to his guest.

He said: “Who is it at a time when we’re more dependent on the security services than ever before, who is it that a couple of years ago wanted to abolish MI5?”

Mr Lammy was left floundering as he answered: “I’m not aware of that one.”

“John McDonnell, the number two in the Labour party,” continued Neil before the Labour candidate added: “I am so unaware of that.”

Neil then continued his attack aimed at the Labour leadership.

“He wanted to abolish MI5,” he repeated. “So you’ve got a leader who has never supported any toughening of the anti-terrorism situation and a number two shadow chancellor who wanted to abolish MI5.”

On the defence, Mr Lammy insisted he had “never heard” the claims about Mr McDonnell before Neil reminded him the shadow chancellor “also wanted to abolish armed police”.

But Mr Lammy hit back and argued none of the ideas had been incorporated in the Labour manifesto.

He said: “All of these individuals have been on the backbenches for years… they’re now subject to collective responsibility – this is not in the Labour manifesto.”

It comes after Neil quoted Mr Corbyn “boasting” about his opposition to anti-terror laws during the heated interview.

He said: “He [Mr Corbyn] boasted in 2011, quote, ‘I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into parliament in 1983’.”

Mr Lammy responded by bringing up Theresa May’s record on LGBT rights but was reminded to stick to the issue of counter-terrorism.

[NightTrain]

Hoping that May pulls off a great victory!

I've watched video of May tangle with Corbyn in your parliamentary proceedings, and those two really get into some scraps.

Sad that Corbyn is anywhere around positions of power in your government - but then, we have no room to talk with the idiot we had running the show here from Jan '09 to Jan '17.

[Drummond]

Hoping that May pulls off a great victory!

I've watched video of May tangle with Corbyn in your parliamentary proceedings, and those two really get into some scraps.

Sad that Corbyn is anywhere around positions of power in your government - but then, we have no room to talk with the idiot we had running the show here from Jan '09 to Jan '17.

Thanks for your support of Mrs May, NightTrain.

Though I don't mean to minimise how bad Obama was ... still, Corbyn is orders of magnitude worse, in my opinion.

Imagine an Obama who publicly let it be known he wanted to never attack terrorists unless he absolutely 'had to', and that dialogue with them was, in his estimation, a far more productive course to take. Or an Obama who removed any perception of your nuclear arsenal constituting any measure of deterrence against an attack on America. Or, a Obama who wanted to force all your energy providers, water providers, all train transportation, into 'public ownership' i.e, have the Government own and run them all.

[Or an Obama who'd not only institute our version of an NHS (of which 'Obamacare' was just a pale shadow), and then foist the cost of all of it upon the taxpayer, whether they wanted that burden, or not. Our NHS is the fifth biggest employer on the planet, covering 'a mere' 60-65 million people .. how big an employer would an American version of it be, robbing how many countries of their doctors and nurses --- as ours does ?]

That's just a taste of what Jeremy Corbyn is all about. Mind-bogglingly .. this nightmare of a supposed 'PM' has made substantial gains in being seen to be electable, in recent weeks, if our polls are to be believed (mercifully, they may not be !).

Corbyn is a nightmare-in-waiting. God help us all if he defeats our Conservatives today. Simply -- he MUST NOT SUCCEED.

[Drummond]

... and on this occasion I'm NOT referring to Corbyn ...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/814525/dogs-at-polling-stations-pictures-photos-general-election-2017-voting-pets


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10058&stc=1

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10059&stc=1

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10060&stc=1

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10061&stc=1


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10062&stc=1

[Drummond]

One spin-off effect of the election happening today is that our media, today, are forbidden to broadcast views, reports that can in any way inject the smallest bias into the decision-making the British people are called upon to make. So, all broadcasters avoid commentary or the broadcasting of material which advances any side's 'case'.

Consequently, the BBC Parliament channel cannot operate normally today. The result ... it's switched from UK politics entirely, and is instead concentrating on US politics instead. As I type, we have a live feed of the 'Comey evidence session', with Comey giving evidence to a committee. It's playing on my TV as I type now. Interesting stuff, which we normally don't get a live feed of ....

[Drummond]

Disgusting !

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3731215/jeremy-corbyn-arab-tv-interview-jihadis-return-home/


JEREMY Corbyn’s security credentials were again cast into serious doubt after it emerged he wants to allow British jihadis to come home.

Just months before he was elected Labour leader, the veteran Socialist lashed out at the ban on ISIS fighters from returning to the UK.

The veteran Socialist and peace campaigner dubbed the national security move “strange” as well as “legally very questionable”.

The Sun can also reveal the 68-year-old said suspected extremists here should not be stopped from leaving the UK to fight holy war, and attacked the government for stripping jihadis of their passports.

Mr Corbyn’s alarming remarks were made to Arab TV station LuaLua TV just two years ago, a few months before he was made Labour leader.

Their emergence – in a video seen by The Sun – cast fresh doubt on his ability to keep Britain safe after the Manchester and London Bridge attacks.

While insisting he is “not a supporter” of ISIS, Mr Corbyn told the interviewer in March 2015: “I do think that the way to deal with this issue isn’t by a legal process which seeks to ban people from travelling.

“The important thing is to deal with issue politically and challenge Islamophobia and racism.”

I don't need to comment. Do I ?

[Drummond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10063&stc=1


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10064&stc=1

[Drummond]

On a more serious note, apparently some outfit calling itself 'Antifa' intends to target the 'I'm Millwall' hero who fought off the three London Bridge terrorists (another thread here mentions him in some detail). See this, posted on Facebook v recently ... does it get any sicker than this ???

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10065&stc=1

[gabosaurus]

I admit to being clueless about the UK election and why it is being help. My best friend in Merseyside is not much help as she is too busy being an apolitical football mum. Difficult to rely on the news media as they are biased to one side or the other.

[NightTrain]

On a more serious note, apparently some outfit calling itself 'Antifa' intends to target the 'I'm Millwall' hero who fought off the three London Bridge terrorists (another thread here mentions him in some detail). See this, posted on Facebook v recently ... does it get any sicker than this ???

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10065&stc=1


That can't be serious - is that some kind of The Onion piece?

[Drummond]

I admit to being clueless about the UK election and why it is being help. My best friend in Merseyside is not much help as she is too busy being an apolitical football mum. Difficult to rely on the news media as they are biased to one side or the other.

My advice ... if you want any chance at all of avoiding bias, you should give up reading the Guardian (your preferred paper of choice from the UK, isn't it, Gabby ?) .. since, as I'm sure you well know, they favour the Left. They're an upmarket version of the Daily Mirror, which is not only Left wing, but will go to any extremes to push such a bias.

Most other papers are more Right wing. The 'Independent' (whose sales were so poor, they had to give up selling newspapers and now only continue online) ... they were creditably anti-bias, actually living up to their name, until the Iraq War. Then they lurched to the Left, and still maintain some of that bias.

You mention Merseyside ... that's an area well known for producing Left-wing militancy. It's where Derek Hatton came from ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Hatton

As a Leftie, he's reverted to his human nature and now follows a lifestyle which any Capitalist would be happy with.

Anyway ... I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the UK s fighting for its very political soul, not to mention its future viability !! Corbyn, for Labour, has an ambitious high-spending programme all lined up which should do a good job of sabotaging all the Conservatives did to save us from Labour's PREVIOUS fiscal mess !

It doesn't help that Brexit injects a measure of perceived uncertainty as to our future in the business world (I mean 'world' literally, of course). Does that give Corbyn pause for thought ? OF COURSE NOT. When you embark on a wrecking campaign, then you don't care if 'outside' considerations have the potential to help you in that aim !

Weak on fiscal responsibility. Weak on being anti-terrorist. Weak on nuclear deterrence (actually, not merely weak, but his dedication to it is nonexistent). Yes .. Corbyn and his Party are LEFTIE.

And it shows.

Getting him into 10 Downing Street will be a disaster for us. It won't do any favours for Trump, either ... Corbyn has only contempt for him. A new era of LACK of cooperation across the Pond is likely, if Corbyn wins out.

I'm sure you're delighted, eh, Gabby ?

[Drummond]

That can't be serious - is that some kind of The Onion piece?

Well, I understand that Antifa are active in America ? Don't they contribute to violence founded on anti-Trump sentiment ?

Unless I'm well off base, my understanding is that it's perfectly serious. They should get nowhere in what they hope to achieve, of course. But Antifa, I think, are entirely serious.

Antifa = Anti Fascist. My understanding is that they're essentially a Leftie group who'll oppose those who act or think in an anti-'PC' manner (e.g Donald Trump). Within that context, I'm sure they consider the London Bridge hero qualifies, for his 'Islamophobic' resistance to their terrorists !

It's a sick world. It truly is.

Late addition .. I've just seen this ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39004753


In a divided America, two groups at the extreme ends of the political spectrum are doing battle online, and on the streets.

The alt-right - a disparate group of pro-Donald Trump provocateurs who critics say are bigoted white nationalists - has a reputation for trolling and online bullying. Now some believe they may have met their match in the form of a group of left-wing anarchists whose tactics are arguably more extreme.

They're called "antifa", short for "anti-fascist". The movement has its roots in 1930s Europe, but has had a low profile for much of the intervening period. Now the recent surge in nationalist movements across the globe has given it a new enemy to fight.

Antifa activists say they are committed to fighting fascism and racism in all its forms. Some aren't averse to violence, and the movement wasted little time in making its presence felt. Protests held during Donald Trump's inauguration turned violent. Restaurant windows were smashed, a car was set on fire and objects were thrown at the police. More than 200 arrests were made.

[NightTrain]

Well, I understand that Antifa are active in America ? Don't they contribute to violence founded on anti-Trump sentiment ?

Unless I'm well off base, my understanding is that it's perfectly serious. They should get nowhere in what they hope to achieve, of course. But Antifa, I think, are entirely serious.

Antifa = Anti Fascist. My understanding is that they're essentially a Leftie group who'll oppose those who act or think in an anti-'PC' manner (e.g Donald Trump). Within that context, I'm sure they consider the London Bridge hero qualifies, for his 'Islamophobic' resistance to their terrorists !

It's a sick world. It truly is.

Late addition .. I've just seen this ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39004753



Yeah, I'm aware of Antifa.. they're a bunch of socialist scumbags that get paid to riot and such. I just wondered if that account was legit.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if that was a serious broadcast.

[Drummond]

See this report ...

https://www.infowars.com/antifa-extremists-terrorize-le-pen-rally-in-marseilles/


Antifa brought their signature brand of political violence and antagonism to the streets of Marseille as supporters of French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen gathered for her final rally before Sunday’s first round of voting.

In scenes that have become all-to-familiar as of late, the roving bands of anarchists and communists, mostly dressed in black and with their faces hidden, created chaos, lit things on fire and deployed small explosives at police.

They marched with signs and banners reading “Migrants Welcome” and “The extreme right can’t be fought at the ballot box.”
“Marine Le Pen coming to Marseille, a city of strong immigration, is provocation,” said one of the anti-free speech activists. “I protest because when the extreme right is in power, it will be over.”

“As a communist, I came to lend a hand to an anti-fascist movement,” said another, a member of a youth communist group.

Left-wing intimidation tactics could backfire and drive undecided voters – nearly one in three as of just days ago – into the waiting arms of Le Pen and her Front National party, as they work to condense support and carry her to a critical first round victory over her opponents.

Approximately 10,000 of Le Pen’s supporters were in attendance.

Considering how they behave, and also considering their hatred of 'Islamophobia', it follows a certain twisted brand of logic to perceive that they might see something to defend when it comes to knife-wielding Muslim terrorists ?

[Drummond]

Yeah, I'm aware of Antifa.. they're a bunch of socialist scumbags that get paid to riot and such. I just wondered if that account was legit.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if that was a serious broadcast.

I can see that it's an arguable point. That I came across that on Facebook, and copied it from there, maybe doesn't do much to defend its bona fides ?

Even so, it does seemingly fit their behaviours and sympathies .... I for one believe it.

[Drummond]

https://eblnews.com/video/uk-antifa-clashes-police-protecting-far-right-activists-london-96470

UK: Antifa clashes with police protecting far-right activists in London


Clashes broke out between antifascists and police in London, Saturday, as protesters tried to break through police lines during a counter-demonstration against the far-right 'South East Alliance' in East Croydon.

https://youtu.be/-FlIifB5Pw8

[gabosaurus]

My guess is that they live in Merseyside (Prescot, to be exact) because husband works at the Port of Liverpool. If he has any political leanings, I haven't heard of it.

I think all the English media is biased toward one side or the other. I have yet to understand how the British political system works. It's Labour and Conservatives, right?

[Drummond]

My guess is that they live in Merseyside (Prescot, to be exact) because husband works at the Port of Liverpool. If he has any political leanings, I haven't heard of it.

I think all the English media is biased toward one side or the other. I have yet to understand how the British political system works. It's Labour and Conservatives, right?

For all of your reading of the British press (mainly the Guardian, no doubt ?) ... you really don't know any more than that ?

To an extent you're correct. The Conservative and Labour Parties are the two biggest Parties. But there's a little more to it than that.

Formerly known as the Liberal Party, now the Liberal Democrats ... it was that Party which had to ally itself to the Conservatives to form a workable Government, back in 2010. Why ? Because no one Party had enough seats to govern on its own, without the perpetual likelihood of Government law after Government law being voted down. Enough of that ... and not only would 'the leading' Government be unable to govern in a meaningfully long-term way, but ultimately there'd be a vote of confidence in the Commons, which said Government would be very likely to lose. That would then trigger an election.

But it didn't happen, because a minor Party allied itself to a major one, allowing for a workable majority [650 seats ... a 326 majority needed, representing one Government direction, to guarantee that all other opposition can be voted down]

Against all expectations ... in 2015, the Conservatives won a small majority, and then governed alone.

Now, a lot is riding on whether the Conservatives will win or lose seats. If they win some, the mandate Mrs May wants to proceed with Brexit talks without hindrance and sniping from within Parliament can be seen to be there. This has been Mrs May's strategy from the beginning. It's conceivable that she may be forced into a minority Government situation, with other Parties able to gang up and vote her measures down. It may be that Corbyn's Labour wins an outright majority and can 'rule' on its own. Or, Corbyn may need assistance from a like-minded Party to govern, if he lacks seats for a convincing majority (convincing in that, not only does it numerically exist, but is large enough to be proof against MP illness, deaths, defections, resignations, etc). Then, it depends on what the other minority Parties will do to offer support.

They may blackmail him into making concessions. The Scottish Nationalists, for example, may insist on supporting him ONLY if he grants them a SECOND Independence Referendum. Plaid Cymru (Welsh nationalists, Left wing in nature) may well work with him, demanding disproportionate attention be given to Wales .. devolution of power to the Welsh Government, perhaps, or certain other concessionary treatment.

So you see, it can all be a complicated business. UKIP might win seats, made more popular because the public is seen to support people who've always been uncompromising on Brexit (and have always existed to see us leave the EU as their core value).

'Ideally', you'd have strong Government with one Party going in one direction, following a single set of manifesto pledges. Only the Conservatives are likely to deliver such an outcome. Labour MIGHT ... IF they deliver the voting upset of the century, confounding every poll out there. It's not impossible, just a lot more unlikely to happen.

Does this cure your misconception about only the two Parties mattering, Gabby ? With strong Government, with the will of the People united in one cause, you'd be correct. With our recent electoral history, though, this is far from a guaranteed outcome.

[Drummond]

As I've taken this from YouTube, hopefully this BBC clip will play in America ?

Diane Abbott ... controversial in her own right, in a number of ways, and who was lined up by Corbyn to be our future Home Secretary, should Labour win today ... came up with this gem in a BBC late night interview.

With her is Michael Portillo, a former Conservative minister who worked under Mrs Thatcher. Now he's a broadcaster. It's him who reacts with incredulity at what Diane Abbott claims for Chairman Mao, in support for Mao ... enjoy ! ......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4o5n2EGyA&list=PL-_7O-whhfG2PqkIDWB8Rx4Q9Iw9I2jFc

This is 'fun', too. A recent 'car crash' interview of hers, where she unconvincingly tried to con the viewers into believing she actually KNEW what she was talking about !!! .....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_p83MeCyR4&index=5&list=PL-_7O-whhfG2PqkIDWB8Rx4Q9Iw9I2jFc

[Kathianne]

At midnight, EDT Fox Report will have special edition basically on UK elections and Comey. That's 9pm my time, so I'll likely catch it. Right now, things are not looking good for the Conservatives. While exit polling shows less than a majority, they predict they will still be ahead.

Right now, can see the results as they're tabulated: http://www.bbc.com/news/live/election-2017-40171454

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. It now appears that You have some Liberal Relatives of our Democrat party there in the U.K. as well.

Our competition for IGNORANCE, and STUPIDITY by Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters,
Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and countless other Democrat Idiots.....MUST be related to your contributions to hatred, and plain DUMBNESS.:laugh:

I sincerely hope your future over there doesn't continue to be ruled by ILLITERATES!

[gabosaurus]

For all of your reading of the British press (mainly the Guardian, no doubt ?) ... you really don't know any more than that ?

To be fair, I need to point out that The Guardian has four online sites -- U.S., U.K., Australia and International. Their content is often quite different, with certain shared departments. I have the U.S. site set as my homepage and rarely look at the other three, as the content doesn't always pertain to me.
I appreciate your breakdown of the British electoral system, which I don't really understand. I don't understand the German system, either, despite attempts by my mom to explain it to me.

[KarlMarx]

If God willing, Mrs. May wins the day... she will probably be subjected to Russian Collusion innuendo, rioting, fake news, blah blah and more blah

Perhaps George Soros will be stopping by to buy some protesters to stage phony protest marches...

(Regarding Drummond's other post ... Chairman Mao did more good than bad!?!?!? Holy Schizophrenia Batman, get that woman a strait jacket and some clozapine ... stat!)

[aboutime]

If God willing, Mrs. May wins the day... she will probably be subjected to Russian Collusion innuendo, rioting, fake news, blah blah and more blah

Perhaps George Soros will be stopping by to buy some protesters to stage phony protest marches...

(Regarding Drummond's other post ... Chairman Mao did more good than bad!?!?!? Holy Schizophrenia Batman, get that woman a strait jacket and some clozapine ... stat!)


What's to stop Comey from getting on a plane, and appearing before the British politicians to make claims about MAY asking questions about BREXIT? Comey could become a Worldwide adviser to any Politician with the RIGHT MONEY.

[Drummond]

To be fair, I need to point out that The Guardian has four online sites -- U.S., U.K., Australia and International. Their content is often quite different, with certain shared departments. I have the U.S. site set as my homepage and rarely look at the other three, as the content doesn't always pertain to me.
I appreciate your breakdown of the British electoral system, which I don't really understand. I don't understand the German system, either, despite attempts by my mom to explain it to me.

Nonetheless, Gabby, the Guardian is one paper, one media organisation. I'm aware that one version of their paper used to be printed in Frankfurt, for example. Regardless of any 'local differences' in what they print, they still remain loyal to their base ... which I think I'm correct as being located in Manchester, UK, where the paper was founded. They are all part of a LEFT WING BIASED organisation.

Thank you for your acknowledgment of my UK political explanation. Indeed, with the way things are unfolding, it's looking as though the Conservatives will continue on in power, BUT, will need to be propped up by at least one minority Party (current thinking is that it'll be the DUP coming to their rescue, a Northern Ireland party). They could theoretically struggle on without them, but always be in danger of being voted down by every single available opposition vote.

Labour have made gains, but insufficiently so to hope to gain their own majority. Conceivably they could scrabble around for a multi-Party Coalition, but they'd need to get several other minority Parties to always vote in unison with them to make it work. As the Conservatives remain the Party with the most seats, this looks to be a non-starter.

Mrs May called the election fully expecting to gain seats, so she could then approach Brexit talks asserting that she had an absolute mandate from the British people which approved of all she'll try to negotiate for. In this, Gabby, you'll doubtless be delighted to know that she's failed. Her position is much weakened, since her loss of seats can (and doubtless will) be interpreted as DISapproval -- and possibly she'll not be able to survive on as leader of the Conservative Party.

Time will tell on that one. Perhaps in hours, days, weeks ... we shall see.

[NightTrain]

It's looking like the Big Gamble didn't pan out for May... and that's a shame.

She called for this snap election, when would have the next one occurred naturally, Drummond?

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. It now appears that You have some Liberal Relatives of our Democrat party there in the U.K. as well.

Our competition for IGNORANCE, and STUPIDITY by Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters,
Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and countless other Democrat Idiots.....MUST be related to your contributions to hatred, and plain DUMBNESS.:laugh:

I sincerely hope your future over there doesn't continue to be ruled by ILLITERATES!


The Socialist opposition to Conservatism has always been better entrenched, for far longer, and been of a more pernicious extreme, than has been true of America, Aboutime.

I'm astonished that Labour has done so well, regardless of that. At the start of the election campaign, Labour was seen to be led by an extremist who'd be totally unelectable BECAUSE he was so extreme. Mrs May had good reason to think she could pick up many seats and consolidate her Brexit negotiating position on the back of it.

Instead .. barring a miracle, it looks like she's lost seats to such an extent that her Party loses its much-needed voting majority in the House of Commons (326 seats needed). They could limp on as a minority Government, betting that all the opposition Parties will be too disunited to consistently vote against them. But this is unlikely to be the way of it. If too many defeats occur in Parliament, then the Conservatives' position will become untenable, with their ability to govern fatally compromised.

There is a 'way out' ... consisting of the Conservatives allying with a minority Party. This happened in 2010 with the Liberal Democrats acting as junior partners in Government. It actually worked quite well, although the Conservatives were unable to make good on all their campaign promises because of it .. they were, until 2015, forced to compromise.

We will need to see how this shapes up in the days ahead. Current thinking is that the Conservatives' most natural ally is the DUP, who may offer enough seats to make marginally stable Government a possibility.

Labour have not won an outright victory, judging by the known results (we still have some to be declared, at time of typing). But they have, it seems, successfully eroded Mrs May's power to properly govern. Time will tell as to how this plays out. But our ability to negotiate a proper Brexit deal with the EU is in question.

One may always trust our Socialists to vandalise, Aboutime. It's what they do.

[Kathianne]

I'm watching the late version of "Special Report' and it seems their analysis is that it was May's previous position regarding 'Homeland Security' and Corbyn's emphasizing that role with the two terror attacks that caused the steep fall in support.

[Drummond]

It's looking like the Big Gamble didn't pan out for May... and that's a shame.

She called for this snap election, when would have the next one occurred naturally, Drummond?

This has all turned out to be a bad miscalculation. It was all based on the perception that Jeremy Corbyn was too much of an extremist, his Socialist Party ditto, to be electable. Mrs May wanted a stronger power base in Parliament, which she would've had from an electorate giving her Party more seats .. which she could then have said was proof that whatever negotiating position she took in Brexit talks was fully backed by popular support from our people.

She thought she had an easy job on her hands. She was wrong, as it's turned out.

Had she left things alone, the irony is that she would've presided in Government until 2020, one year AFTER the time by which Brexit negotiations need to be completed. The job could've been comfortably done.

Normally (though the rule in place governing this in its present form is a recent one) ... Governments are locked into a five year election cycle. Previously, that period was easily amended by a PM just deciding to call a snap election on a whim. Now, Parliamentary approval has to be obtained to give the PM permission to proceed -- which Mrs May asked for, and got.

After this, the 5 year cycle is theoretically re-established, with the next one due in 2022. That said ... IF her next Government - however she manages to form it !!! - turns out to be too unstable, a motion will be proposed in the House of Commons of 'No Confidence' in the Government. Should she (or whoever's in charge by that time) lose that vote, then another election will occur.

[NightTrain]

This has all turned out to be a bad miscalculation. It was all based on the perception that Jeremy Corbyn was too much of an extremist, his Socialist Party ditto, to be electable. Mrs May wanted a stronger power base in Parliament, which she would've had from an electorate giving her Party more seats .. which she could then have said was proof that whatever negotiating position she took in Brexit talks was fully backed by popular support from our people.

She thought she had an easy job on her hands. She was wrong, as it's turned out.

Had she left things alone, the irony is that she would've presided in Government until 2020, one year AFTER the time by which Brexit negotiations need to be completed. The job could've been comfortably done.

Normally (though the rule in place governing this in its present form is a recent one) ... Governments are locked into a five year election cycle. Previously, that period was easily amended by a PM just deciding to call a snap election on a whim. Now, Parliamentary approval has to be obtained to give the PM permission to proceed -- which Mrs May asked for, and got.

After this, the 5 year cycle is theoretically re-established, with the next one due in 2022. That said ... IF her next Government - however she manages to form it !!! - turns out to be too unstable, a motion will be proposed in the House of Commons of 'No Confidence' in the Government. Should she (or whoever's in charge by that time) lose that vote, then another election will occur.


Yikes. This is a disaster and the timing couldn't be worse with Brexit.

[Drummond]

I'm watching the late version of "Special Report' and it seems their analysis is that it was May's previous position regarding 'Homeland Security' and Corbyn's emphasizing that role with the two terror attacks that caused the steep fall in support.

Corbyn worked to argue that cuts in police and security staff numbers had contributed to terrorism's recent successes. Yes.

My belief is that Corbyn successfully chipped away at Mrs May's popularity for one specific reason ... Corbyn was making all sorts of promises about increased funding for various projects. Including police numbers, but also he was promising a Nationalisation of various companies, such as our railways, water and power companies.

This is all bog-standard rank Socialist stuff, tried decades ago. HOWEVER .. we've had a big influx of young voters who'll have been simultaneously become disenchanted with austerity measures, but coupled with their enthusiasm for a political programme which, in their eyes, would seem to be fresh and revolutionary.

Those youngsters will have no memory of its all having been tried before, and how much of a disaster it proved to be. Had Corbyn been re-elected, a lesson learned generations ago would've had to be re-learned, with our economy suffering all the while.

In essence, I think Corbyn knew increased popularity through his conning of youngsters who knew no better. It really comes down to that.

[Drummond]

Yikes. This is a disaster and the timing couldn't be worse with Brexit.

It's definitely a mess. Spot on, NightTrain.

[Drummond]

... anyway, it's been a long night. Not far short of 6am where I am. I'm now going to get some sleep !

[Kathianne]

Corbyn worked to argue that cuts in police and security staff numbers had contributed to terrorism's recent successes. Yes.

My belief is that Corbyn successfully chipped away at Mrs May's popularity for one specific reason ... Corbyn was making all sorts of promises about increased funding for various projects. Including police numbers, but also he was promising a Nationalisation of various companies, such as our railways, water and power companies.

This is all bog-standard rank Socialist stuff, tried decades ago. HOWEVER .. we've had a big influx of young voters who'll have been simultaneously become disenchanted with austerity measures, but coupled with their enthusiasm for a political programme which, in their eyes, would seem to be fresh and revolutionary.

Those youngsters will have no memory of its all having been tried before, and how much of a disaster it proved to be. Had Corbyn been re-elected, a lesson learned generations ago would've had to be re-learned, with our economy suffering all the while.

In essence, I think Corbyn knew increased popularity through his conning of youngsters who knew no better. It really comes down to that.


This appears to be the conclusion of some others. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/the-young-avenge-the-old-as-divided-britain-upends-its-politics


British Millennials Take Revenge on Parents and Grandparents<address class="lede-text-only__byline" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 3px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; font-family: TiemposTextWeb-Regular, Georgia, Cambria, &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, Times, serif; vertical-align: baseline; font-style: normal; color: rgb(118, 118, 118);">by Joe Mayes
, Svenja O'Donnell
, and Charlotte Ryan
</address>June 9, 2017, 1:09 AM GMT-7

...

[Drummond]

This appears to be the conclusion of some others. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/the-young-avenge-the-old-as-divided-britain-upends-its-politics

I agree. I think the biggest single reason Corbyn and his Party did as well as they did has its roots in the way the youth of the UK chose to vote.

If true, it means that sheer ignorance won through to a surprising degree. People beyond a certain age have memories of Corbyn-esque policies being implemented by Labour in previous decades. We KNOW how damaging they were. Youngsters would've liked the appearance of 'fresh and different' policies, and what they appeared to be all about ... what they promised. They won't have known from personal experience how much we'd suffered from such policies in the past.

The Winter of Discontent. The Three Day Working Week. Inflation, in the mid-1970's on Harold Wilson's watch, reaching TWENTY SIX percent, being further fueled by Union demands of 30% wage rise demands ... those being met !!

Those were days of pure and utter ruinous chaos, with most of what Corbyn wanted to introduce in modern Britain, ALREADY IN PLACE IN THOSE DAYS.

Corbyn's people call themselves (as is typical for Lefties) .. 'progressives'. The hard truth is that Corbyn's regurgitation of such failed and ruinous policies mark his Party out as exactly, literally, the very reverse ... his is a REGRESSIVE Party, his ambitions, ditto.

[Kathianne]

I agree. I think the biggest single reason Corbyn and his Party did as well as they did has its roots in the way the youth of the UK chose to vote.

If true, it means that sheer ignorance won through to a surprising degree. People beyond a certain age have memories of Corbyn-esque policies being implemented by Labour in previous decades. We KNOW how damaging they were. Youngsters would've liked the appearance of 'fresh and different' policies, and what they appeared to be all about ... what they promised. They won't have known from personal experience how much we'd suffered from such policies in the past.

The Winter of Discontent. The Three Day Working Week. Inflation, in the mid-1970's on Harold Wilson's watch, reaching TWENTY SIX percent, being further fueled by Union demands of 30% wage rise demands ... those being met !!

Those were days of pure and utter ruinous chaos, with most of what Corbyn wanted to introduce in modern Britain, ALREADY IN PLACE IN THOSE DAYS.

Corbyn's people call themselves (as is typical for Lefties) .. 'progressives'. The hard truth is that Corbyn's regurgitation of such failed and ruinous policies mark his Party out as exactly, literally, the very reverse ... his is a REGRESSIVE Party, his ambitions, ditto.


Assuming this is true, which I agree with, it does seem that the Conservatives need to educate in ways that the youth can understand. That is a problem that conservatives here have always faced also. I do think that failure to do so comes from their personal beliefs that it's all 'so self-evident,' but they ignore the idealism of youth and the siren song of 'good intentions.'

[Black Diamond]

Assuming this is true, which I agree with, it does seem that the Conservatives need to educate in ways that the youth can understand. That is a problem that conservatives here have always faced also. I do think that failure to do so comes from their personal beliefs that it's all 'so self-evident,' but they ignore the idealism of youth and the siren song of 'good intentions.'
Daunting task.

[Drummond]

Assuming this is true, which I agree with, it does seem that the Conservatives need to educate in ways that the youth can understand. That is a problem that conservatives here have always faced also. I do think that failure to do so comes from their personal beliefs that it's all 'so self-evident,' but they ignore the idealism of youth and the siren song of 'good intentions.'

In simple terms, it's a battle between hard if perhaps also uncomfortable realities being adopted (such as, the truth of the nature of the EU, as well as paying our way in the world and what we must do to manage it !), versus deceptive pied-piper messages emanating from the likes of Corbyn, and which resonates the stronger.

[Drummond]

Daunting task.

Absolutely.

[DLT]

Absolutely.

Hey dude.... any news about the UK election and May? Funny how it seemed to go off of the news radar.

[DLT]

Assuming we don't have another 'Hung Parliament' ... by Friday morning, our time, we should know whether Theresa May's Conservative Party has been successful in winning a further term in Government ... OR ... if Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party has somehow been successful in denying the Conservatives an outright victory, and is able to form a Government of his own.

Current thinking is that, if he is in such a position of 'victory', he'll probably need other minority Parties to prop up his power-base.

Theresa May, at the time she called this election, was the firm favourite to win. In fact, it was thought she might well manage a landslide victory. Since then, Labour has been successful in whittling down her lead to a fraction of what it was. Current thinking is that she'll still win, but, with a shaky majority lead. She may increase the Conservative majority over the last election ... but, it was never a large one.

The fact is, a Conservative win isn't a 'certainty' -- Corbyn MIGHT manage to win out. A sobering thought ... last time around, every single poll for weeks predicted a 'hung Parliament', and they were ALL wrong, every one. So ... polls aren't respected, here, as they once was.

Here's a taste of what Corbyn's political record has been. It considers just one aspect of his record.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 1984. It introduced police powers to arrest a person suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism connected to Northern Ireland.


Corbyn: Voted against it


1989 Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which proscribed the IRA and Irish National Liberation Army.


Corbyn: Voted against it


Terrorism Act 2000


Introduced by the Labour government - gave a broad definition of terrorism for the first time. The Act also gave the police the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to seven days and created a list of proscribed terrorist organisations.


Corbyn: Voted against it


Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001


Corbyn: Voted against it

Aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings, part of the 2006 Terrorism Act - extended the detention-without-charge period from 14 to 28 days.


Corbyn: Voted against it


Counter-terrorism Act 2008


Corbyn: Voted against it


Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act

Corbyn: Voted against it


Justice and Security Act 2013


Corbyn: Voted against it


Corbyn wants State ownership of our power, water, railway companies. This programme will cost tens of billions of pounds sterling to implement .. this in the aftermath of austerity measures, designed to get our economy on an even keel following the LAST Labour Government's spendthrift behaviour. He proposes a tax hike to help pay for it, walloping 'the rich' (standard Socialist methodology). In a BBC broadcast, it was pointed out to him that 'captains of industry' would just quit the UK if they objected too strongly to having their wealth stolen from them. Corbyn had no response to give to that point.

Corbyn hates our independent nuclear deterrent. Even his own Party wants to renew it (named 'Trident') ... he's on record as opposing it. He considers ownership of nuclear weapons 'immoral'. He's consistently ducked questions as to whether he'd ever use nuclear weapons in response to an attack on the UK. He has pledged to never order a first strike under any circumstances.

Where the polls currently stand - see :

http://www.westmonster.com/final-polls-verdict/

I find this instructive ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10055&stc=1

Korbyn's a Kommie. God help you guys if he ever wins an election.

[Black Diamond]

Hey dude.... any news about the UK election and May? Funny how it seemed to go off of the news radar.
Welcome back dlt