Theresa May calls General Election for June 8

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, what d'you make of this then? Will it be ignored by all the fervent admirers of Ms. May or perhaps dismissed by Frank as more made-up Russian propaganda? Is Brexit the only thing that matters to the extent that we'll just look the other way when the ruling party says that it wants to control what people cam say online? 

Theresa May to create new internet that would be controlled and regulated by the government

Really i think if this doesn't ring some alarm bells just a little, you haven't really thought through the implications. 

[keithisco]

I dont think that is what it says in the manifesto - what it says is:

Quote

We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users-even unintentionally-to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm"

It would

Quote

"introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law."

I think it is clear to everyone that there are certain areas of the internet that need to be restricted such as terrorist recruiting sites and pretty much the entire "Dark Web". I am a firm believer in internet access rights, but with those rights must also come responsibilities.IMO

[PersonFromPorlock]

1 hour ago, keithisco said:

I dont think that is what it says in the manifesto - what it says is:

It would

I think it is clear to everyone that there are certain areas of the internet that need to be restricted such as terrorist recruiting sites and pretty much the entire "Dark Web". I am a firm believer in internet access rights, but with those rights must also come responsibilities.IMO

Regulation takes away 'responsibility' and replaces it with 'punishment'.

[keithisco]

No... regulation reinforces responsibility. I should say that regulation is always dependent on the cultural context as is responsibility

Edited May 19, 2017 by keithisco

[spud the mackem]

I think that some readers here are missing the point, we are not voting for T.May or J.Corbyn ,unlike the Americans who have a straight race between 2 candidates who "rule the World", but we are voting for a Party through election of M.P's in their areas, and which ever party has the most people elected forms a Government. These M.P's then decide who will make the best Prime Minister and have a series of votes when people put their names forward. so Mrs May or Mr.Corbyn might not get a majority vote if they decide that another person is better to handle the Nations welfare for the next few years.At the moment the Labour party have elected Corbyn (God help us all if he becomes P.M the guy doesn't even dress properly, baggy trousers, a charity shop jacket, unironed shirt, and unshined shoes...not my idea of a Countries Leader) . However Mrs May is running the Gov't on a temporary basis after Cam dropped out ,and she still has to be elected within her party to become P.M unless Liam Fox or some other candidate  puts their name forward and is elected as P.M.. Mrs May will not Automatically become P.M if the Party wins the election.So we either vote Tory or Labour  but not Corbyn or May the rest are non runners. 

[Space Commander Travis]

 

7 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

I think that some readers here are missing the point, we are not voting for T.May or J.Corbyn ,unlike the Americans who have a straight race between 2 candidates who "rule the World", but we are voting for a Party through election of M.P's in their areas, and which ever party has the most people elected forms a Government.

Yes, that's the theory, but whichever empty suit may be sitting in the particular chair with your constituency's name on it might have at best the ability to vote for who they want as Party leader, nut the voter has no say in it at all, do they. And whoever your local MP may be really makes not the slightest difference in any way to anything, does it. The only thing that has any importance at all is which party is in charge and who's PM.

[Space Commander Travis]

For example, who among the voters had a chance to choose Boris "Yoiks! Zoinks! Zowie" Johnson to be their face to the world as Foreign Secretary? 

And you say Corby is, by having a wrinkled suit and not wearing shiny shoes, a disgrace to the nation.

[Space Commander Travis]

Or George "absolutely no qualifications in economics at all, but a chum of Dave Cam's from Eton" Osborne as Chancellor? But we must obediently put our little X next to the name of the empty suit representing Ms. May. Because she's our best hope for Brexit! And then what! Well, we'll be Free! Free from Jean-Claude Junkers' authoritarian dictatorship! And free to enjoy Ms. May's hard right authoritarian regime! But it's one that we chose ourselves! it's our authoritarian regime! So we'll be Free!

[Space Commander Travis]

I'm getting to sound like Alibongo here. I'll be posting random quotes from the Independent next.  

[Frank Merton]

I think most people have either figured you out or don't care; at any rate not paying much attention.  You do seem like a one note (pro-Russia and pro-the Left) poster.

[Essan]

In theory, there is nothing stopping the Queen from asking an Independent MP (if, of course, any were elected) to be her PM and form a government.   Now that would really throw the cat amongst the pigeons

[stevewinn]

23 hours ago, Torchwood said:

You think May can give you Brexit?  This fickle woman who changes her mind about everything on a daily basis (strongly suggesting she isnt doing the thinking and is merely Murdochs mouthpiece.) isn't reliable enough to deliver Brexit. She can't stand up to Corbyn in the commons, she refuses to even try to take him on in the run up to the election, and when given an opportunity to make Britains case against the EU did she do anything useful? Did she have our backs and fight our corner?  No, she tried her hardest to sabotage the whole damn thing before it even started  for the sake of bloody soundbite!  

Shes not strong and stable, shes bloody deluded and dangerous! 

If Tory win the next election then you're right, Corbyn will probably survive, get rid of the Blairites and be back in 5 years for another go- Problem is that Britain as you know it will be dead and gone by then. There will be nothing left for him to save.

This is about more than just Brexit. The right has had its way to long- the inequalities are getting more and more marked and something needs to change. The Capitalists need a good kicking now, before they sell of the country and leave us to starve.  The Blairites and the Murdoch media need a thorough going over for the good of society to remind them of morals and things, and then we can start again. Theyve had 20 years of bending us over and doing whatever they want. 20 years of trying to squeeze every penny out of us that they can. Its time for that to stop, to redress the imbalances and rebuild Britain for the many who don't have the Money and power to buy the Goverments support. 

Vote for anyone but the Tories this June, while there is still a Britain left to save.

 

 

 

I look around me, in my everyday life and i don't recognise the picture you paint.

Why would or should the Tory party take on or give Corbyn the time of day, the old adage applies, - dont interrupt your enemy when their making mistakes.

And lets be honest the Labour Party are doing a pretty good job of making themselves unelectable through their own actions, for starters their manifesto is a joke, So many policies that not even a quarter of them could be enacted if elected, double the number of the Tories, Tory policies 8 Labour 16,  the Tory manifesto 88 pages, Labour 127 pages. its no wonder its been compared to the "The longest suicide note in history"

Then we have the fact Corbyn pulled out of the TV debates with the remaining parties. just because Theresa did, didnt mean Corbyn had to follow suit, a big sigh from the labour party, keeping Jeremy out of such debates as he's weak at live Q & A's and goes off script.

Then we have the fact that both Jeremy Corbyn (Labour Leader) and John McDonnell (shadow chancellor) attended IRA sympathiser marches some 30 odd years ago. So much that MI5 had files open on the pair of them, and no wonder, The IRA the terrorist organisation that carried out an active bombing campaign against the UK state and its citizens. Does this sound like a man, a Leader, a person who could lead the nation in Brexit, and have the nations best interest at heart. No.

So who are you going to vote for?

[stevewinn]

15 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Another piece of idiocy from the May government: The Royal Navy's helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, which is only 20 years old, will be decommissioned next year and possibly sold to Brazil. This will leave the RN without any kind of a big ship with an aviation capability until the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier becomes fully operational, possibly in 2028*. But of course this will be ignored, because only Ms. May can give us Brexit, and after Brexit, we'll be free! 

* I'm being slightly satirical here, but that's pretty much what it's like

I'm against cutting numbers in the Royal Navy, but on this occasion, it is the right action to decommission HMS Ocean. at the time she was built, she was build on the cheap and to commercial design. as such if you go aboard there are doors that lead to nowhere, she's also costing more to maintain, and maintenance cycles are becoming more frequent as the operational tempo and intensity rate of the Royal Navy means with each deployment she spends longer in repair, I believe as of now she is to undergo another maintenance period before being deployed for the final time before possibly being sold to Brazil.

She would serve the Brazilan Navy well, as they're a green water navy and steaming up and down the Brazilian coast as opposed to the North Atlantic etc..plus they wouldn't run her anywhere near the tempo of the Royal Navy. so she'd be a great asset to the Brazilian Navy, in much the same way HMS Hermes of Falklands fame as served the Indian Navy.

The Queen Elizabeth Carriers; The First of the Class HMS Queen Elizabeth as had her propeller brakes taken off she's not far off going to sea trials. and i hope to see her sometime later this year as she makes her way to Portsmouth.

[stevewinn]

 

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

For example, who among the voters had a chance to choose Boris "Yoiks! Zoinks! Zowie" Johnson to be their face to the world as Foreign Secretary? 

And you say Corby is, by having a wrinkled suit and not wearing shiny shoes, a disgrace to the nation.

Do you know what i like Boris for his eccentricity, you read History and most of the best reformers and ministers of our country had that about them. i mean who do you want Boris who has a go and doesnt think twice of making a fool of himself or Ed Miliband takling a bacon butty, or other leaders looking awkward holding a pint of ale in the pub. trying to look "normal" give me Boris any day of the week, at least when he's stuck on a zip wire he's not dying of embarrassment, you put any other politician stuck on a zip wire and they'd be worrying about their public image, the headlines in the following days paper or on social media, Boris just doesn't give a hoot.

Edited May 20, 2017 by stevewinn

[Space Commander Travis]

5 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I think most people have either figured you out or don't care; at any rate not paying much attention.  You do seem like a one note (pro-Russia and pro-the Left) poster.

You know frank, popping up with these random little ad hoc digs on topics that until now you haven't made much contribution to you're getting to be a right pest. 

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I'm against cutting numbers in the Royal Navy, but on this occasion, it is the right action to decommission HMS Ocean. at the time she was built, she was build on the cheap and to commercial design. as such if you go aboard there are doors that lead to nowhere, she's also costing more to maintain, and maintenance cycles are becoming more frequent as the operational tempo and intensity rate of the Royal Navy means with each deployment she spends longer in repair, I believe as of now she is to undergo another maintenance period before being deployed for the final time before possibly being sold to Brazil.

She would serve the Brazilan Navy well, as they're a green water navy and steaming up and down the Brazilian coast as opposed to the North Atlantic etc..plus they wouldn't run her anywhere near the tempo of the Royal Navy. so she'd be a great asset to the Brazilian Navy, in much the same way HMS Hermes of Falklands fame as served the Indian Navy.

The Queen Elizabeth Carriers; The First of the Class HMS Queen Elizabeth as had her propeller brakes taken off she's not far off going to sea trials. and i hope to see her sometime later this year as she makes her way to Portsmouth.

Yes, but 12 fixed wing aircraft as regular establishment (but could be increased to 24!) for the largest ship the RN's ever had? A WWII escort carrier could nearly carry that many. 

[PersonFromPorlock]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Yes, but 12 fixed wing aircraft as regular establishment (but could be increased to 24!) for the largest ship the RN's ever had? A WWII escort carrier could nearly carry that many. 

Wikipedia says aircraft complement for escort carriers was 24-30.

Still, so long as you've got the words, you've got the thing; that's Bureaucracy 101!

Edited May 20, 2017 by PersonFromPorlock

[Space Commander Travis]

1 minute ago, PersonFromPorlock said:

Wikipedia says aircraft complement for escort carriers was 24-30.

yes, almost exactly the same as the maximum number of F-35s that could be crammed in!

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Yes, but 12 fixed wing aircraft as regular establishment (but could be increased to 24!) for the largest ship the RN's ever had? A WWII escort carrier could nearly carry that many. 

total number of aircraft to be purchased 138.

24 per carrier. 48 in total for the Navy, remainder for RAF, RAF to embark on carriers when required.

Capacity per carrier is 48 F35's, with a grand total of 57 aircraft including rotary. Merlin/Merlin crows nest. (emergency surge conditions allows for a mix of up to 74 for limited period)

On the number of 12 fixed wing being the norm, this all depends on the operational requirement, for example, if HMS Queen Elizabeth is in home waters there is no need for 24 fixed wing F35's.

Like wise, If she's in the Caribbean especially during the hurricane season, she could have a tailored air wing of mainly light and heavy lift helicopters to help British overseas territories with disaster/humanitarian relief. having such a tailored airwing would also allow her to call into America on the way home to carry out exercises with the US Marines.

But im sure if she's operating East of Suez, 24 F35's will be standard number, (its expected one of the carriers will be based at the Royal Navy base Bahrain. mere yards from the United States fifth fleet base)

im sure if she's deployed to the far east 48 F35B's will be embarked.

So in short 12 to 24 normal, the more dangerous deployments further away from home 48.

[hetrodoxly]

On 2017-5-19 at 9:26 AM, hetrodoxly said:

No mater your political allegiance.

 

[Torchwood]

On 2017-5-20 at 9:07 AM, stevewinn said:

 

And lets be honest the Labour Party are doing a pretty good job of making themselves unelectable through their own actions, for starters their manifesto is a joke, So many policies that not even a quarter of them could be enacted if elected, double the number of the Tories, Tory policies 8 Labour 16,  the Tory manifesto 88 pages, Labour 127 pages. its no wonder its been compared to the "The longest suicide note in history"

Ending Homelessness and Zero Hour contracts , pay rises in the public sector, an improved living wage, generally trying to take stuff that breaking down under the tory jackboot and get it working again, all fully costed is "suicide" ?  This suicide note contains a lot more offers of Hope and Optimism than yer average suicide note. Compared to the Torys "things are going to get worse, but don't worry; all the Rich people will be fine. And just ignore the promises from the previous two manifestos that we copied and pasted in even though we've never kept them". (BTW where are you getting your policy count from? I tried to find these numbers but reading through both manifestos gave either 5 policies to 12 OR a hell of a lot more depending on what you thought counted as a distinct policy- neither seems to divide up its policies in such a manner, using chapters and subheadings instead.  If length is to be considered btw wouldnt word count rather than page count be a better measure?  The labour font looked bigger... Also  can you provide some evidence to support your assertion that a government can't enact more than 4 policies in 5 years).

 It astonishes me that a future of peace and prosperity for all is considered a bad thing. 

Then again...thats not your post says. Your post only gives one reason for it being a suicide note- its page count.  I cannot begin to fathom how the page count could possibly determine whether something is suicide or not- presumably there is some sort of sliding scale ?  A Tweet from Trump=a punch in the face  all the way up to The complete works of Shakespeare= literary Genocide?  

But in fact you post gives away the entire problem with all of the arguments against Corbyn - there is absolutely no substance to it.

The tories pet media have tried to dig up as much dirt as they can and they havn't found enough to fill a spoon; "he doesnt wear a tie", "he's an atheist who refuses to pray to a god he doesnt believe in", "he's sympathetic to the plight of the common, poor, forgotten, and downtrodden- he must be a commie terrorist sympathiser because who else would want to help them!" , and now "look how many pieces of paper they've written on- he must be mad."

Its a feeble argument for voting Tory. 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Torchwood

[Space Commander Travis]

9 hours ago, Torchwood said:

But in fact you post gives away the entire problem with all of the arguments against Corbyn - there is absolutely no substance to it.

Really I suppose the most optimistic thing one could say would be that, as is usually the case, the "promises" from all of them are just a load of hot air and they never fulfil any of them. The only policies I've seen that seem to have any substance are:

(a) Conservative or "Tory": (i) Tell Brussels where to stuff it, (ii) .... um ......

and

(b) Labour: Renationalise everything.

And other than that, lots of guff about pouring more money than ever before into the NHS, and pictures of policemen, and rushing to reassure everyone that they'll both keep the Trident Nuclear Deterrent so the Russkies won't attack us. 

[stevewinn]

13 hours ago, Torchwood said:

Ending Homelessness and Zero Hour contracts , pay rises in the public sector, an improved living wage, generally trying to take stuff that breaking down under the tory jackboot and get it working again, all fully costed is "suicide" ?  This suicide note contains a lot more offers of Hope and Optimism than yer average suicide note. Compared to the Torys "things are going to get worse, but don't worry; all the Rich people will be fine. And just ignore the promises from the previous two manifestos that we copied and pasted in even though we've never kept them". (BTW where are you getting your policy count from? I tried to find these numbers but reading through both manifestos gave either 5 policies to 12 OR a hell of a lot more depending on what you thought counted as a distinct policy- neither seems to divide up its policies in such a manner, using chapters and subheadings instead.  If length is to be considered btw wouldnt word count rather than page count be a better measure?  The labour font looked bigger... Also  can you provide some evidence to support your assertion that a government can't enact more than 4 policies in 5 years).

 It astonishes me that a future of peace and prosperity for all is considered a bad thing. 

Then again...thats not your post says. Your post only gives one reason for it being a suicide note- its page count.  I cannot begin to fathom how the page count could possibly determine whether something is suicide or not- presumably there is some sort of sliding scale ?  A Tweet from Trump=a punch in the face  all the way up to The complete works of Shakespeare= literary Genocide?  

But in fact you post gives away the entire problem with all of the arguments against Corbyn - there is absolutely no substance to it.

The tories pet media have tried to dig up as much dirt as they can and they havn't found enough to fill a spoon; "he doesnt wear a tie", "he's an atheist who refuses to pray to a god he doesnt believe in", "he's sympathetic to the plight of the common, poor, forgotten, and downtrodden- he must be a commie terrorist sympathiser because who else would want to help them!" , and now "look how many pieces of paper they've written on- he must be mad."

Its a feeble argument for voting Tory. 

 

 

You seem to be struggling with the word suicide in the "longest suicide note in history" as used in the political metaphor, compared to the literal sense. (even though i did provide a link so that mistake could not be made)

Do you remember when labour held the office of Government for 13 years, 1997 to 2010. why didn't labour end homelessness or Zero hour contracts? or any of the other policies you've mentioned.

I'm glad you've taken the time to read both manifestos most people wouldn't, having read both you'd see the folly of Labours.

When it comes to Corbyn and McDonnell their attendances and support for the IRA is well documented. If it was 1917 the pair of them would've been shot as traitors.

Its seems a lot of Labour supporters have forgotten History. but then again many who elected Corbyn for £3 where not labour supporters at all, but paid their £3 to destroy the party. sad thing is many people with a fleeting interest didn't understand this and think Corbyn was made Labour leader under a large mandate.

Torchwood your stance is very telling.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/jeremy-corbyns-three-decades-of-comfort-and-aid-to-the-provisionals-35727183.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/mi5-probed-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-over-links-to-ira-terrorists-35735504.html

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by stevewinn

[keithisco]

...and today Corbyn is telling all students that he will immediately scrap all tuition fees, that along with other un-costed nationalisation proposals, the removal of the benefits cap, and other hand-outs for the few not the many means huge public bills and I wonder who will end up paying for it all?? I hope that Corbyn has the phone number handy for the IMF bail-out team.

[stevewinn]

35 minutes ago, keithisco said:

...and today Corbyn is telling all students that he will immediately scrap all tuition fees, that along with other un-costed nationalisation proposals, the removal of the benefits cap, and other hand-outs for the few not the many means huge public bills and I wonder who will end up paying for it all?? I hope that Corbyn has the phone number handy for the IMF bail-out team.

It seems Labour are going down the Lib Dem route, no chance of being elected so they can pretty much promise anything and everything knowing they''ll not be in a position to enact it. So, what you do when faced with such a defeat labour is expecting you make proposals and promises hoping that enough people dotted about the country don't give it to much thought and vote labour, that means in a great number of seats Labour will get their deposit back.