UK parlamenttivaalit 2017

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

http://www.unz.com/article/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

Erinomainen analyysi UK:n vaaleista ja asetelmista niihin liittyen.

[Hamsteri]

http://www.unz.com/article/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

Erinomainen analyysi UK:n vaaleista ja asetelmista niihin liittyen.

Perus anti-semitististä paskaa. Tuo, että Israel säästyi kolmannen maailman neemuinvaasiolta on debunkattu. Sen voi kuka tahansa käydä toteamassa etelä Tel Avivissa.

[-PPT-]

Olisihan se itse asiassa ihan hauskaa jos Corbynin kaltaisesta huru-ukosta tulisi voimakkaan valtion pääministeri. Trumpin dissaajat sanovat että Trump presidenttinä on parasta komediaa ikinä. Kyllä myös Corbyn pääministerinä saisi monet suupielet loksahtamaan.

[guest15036]

YouGov 2.6 ennuste:
https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/

Konservatiivit 42% - 308.

Labour - 38% - 261.

[Jaakko Sivonen]

[tweet]870537528310468613[/tweet]

[Jaakko Sivonen]

Jos rehellisiä ollaan, sekä Corbyn että May ovat heikkoja, mitä tulee terrorismiin. Corbyn on avoimesti ihaillut Hamasia ja IRA:ta ja 
hän haluaa avata rajat kaikille halukkaille. May toimi sisäministerinä kuuden vuoden ajan, ja sinä aikana hän leikkasi rajusti poliisien määrää ja resursseja, vaikka poliisit varoittivat, että leikkaukset heikentävät kykyä torjua terrorismia.

May on silti pienempi paha.

[Parzival]

Jos rehellisiä ollaan, sekä Corbyn että May ovat heikkoja, mitä tulee terrorismiin. Corbyn on avoimesti ihaillut Hamasia ja IRA:ta ja 
hän haluaa avata rajat kaikille halukkaille. May toimi sisäministerinä kuuden vuoden ajan, ja sinä aikana hän leikkasi rajusti poliisien määrää ja resursseja, vaikka poliisit varoittivat, että leikkaukset heikentävät kykyä torjua terrorismia.

May on silti pienempi paha.

Ei konservatiiveja ja työväenpuoluetta voi edes verrata. Labour ja muut Euroopan sosialistipuolueet ovat syyllisiä tähän nykyiseen tilanteeseen. Ovet Eurooppaan avattiin nimenomaan heidän toimestaan. Aattellisista syistä ja myös tarkoituksena pönkittää hupenevaa kannatusta uusilla äänestäjillä. Ja tässä sitä nyt ollaan. Kaikki Euroopan metropolit alkavat olla täynnä näitä musulmaanien lähiögettoja joissa kieltäydytään integroitumasta ja lähes kaikki asukkaat elävät "Allahin rahoilla". Ja äänet sieltä menevät näille sosialistisontiaisille sikäli kun äänestävät. Ja tätä tehtyä tihutyötä ei edes pysty korjaamaan toisin kuin kommunismin tuhot jotka saatiin kuntoon muutaman vuosikymmenen aikana.

[siviilitarkkailija]

Jos rehellisiä ollaan, sekä Corbyn että May ovat heikkoja, mitä tulee terrorismiin. Corbyn on avoimesti ihaillut Hamasia ja IRA:ta ja 
hän haluaa avata rajat kaikille halukkaille. May toimi sisäministerinä kuuden vuoden ajan, ja sinä aikana hän leikkasi rajusti poliisien määrää ja resursseja, vaikka poliisit varoittivat, että leikkaukset heikentävät kykyä torjua terrorismia.

May on silti pienempi paha.

...ja joutuu (kuten usein elämässä) pääministerinä syömään hatullisen sisäministeri May:n itselleen ja Britannian kansalle tarjoilemaa paskaa.

Mitkään poliisimäärärahat (paitsi ehkä totaalisen poliisivaltion) eivät riitä avoimen rajojen aiheuttamaan turvallisuustuhon korjailuun. Korporaatiokommunistinen kokoomus syöttää samaa paskaa Suomessa että poliisin määriä lisäämällä jotenkin ihmeellisesti itsetuhoterroristit voitaisiin löytää, pysäyttää ja tuhota ENNEN iskujaan?! Luultavasti lukevat jotain X men ja Batman sarjakuvia ammentaakseen ajatteluaan rikostorjunnassa.

[Jaakko Sivonen]

Suomessa kokoomus on nimenomaan leikannut poliisin määrärahoja.

[siviilitarkkailija]

Korporaatiokommunistinen kokoomus ei vain leikannut määrärahoja vaan lopetti kaksi (2) kokonaista poliisin organisaatiota, liikkuvan poliisin ja verottajan erikoispoliisin. Kummassakin terrorismin torjuntaan elimellistä osaamista. Tämän johdosta m. Isis-darsh on voinut kerätä rahaa ilman seurauksia Helsingin ympäristön radikaalimoskeijoissa. Nettipaskan vahtaamisee kyllä riittää poliiseja, vakavan väkivallan ja terroristisen talousrikollisuuden torjuntaan ei.

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

[tweet]871684579643490304[/tweet]

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, Theresa May called for a crackdown on extremist ideology, Jeremy Corbyn called on Arab countries to stop promoting it

Speaking on how to fight terrorism in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack on Sunday, UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that stamping out radical Islamist ideology is the number one priority, adding that "we cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are."

Terrorism, she said, "will only be defeated when we turn people's mind away from this violence and make them understand that our values – pluralistic, British values – are superior" to that harbored by jihadists.

In addition to eradicating terrorist propaganda, military action "to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria" will be needed, as well as showing less tolerance to the manifestations of extremism at home, she said.

May's Labour rival Corbyn, who has resumed his election campaign – briefly put on hold in the aftermath of the London carnage – pledged to empower police, granting them "full authority... to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life," and boost their numbers with 10,000 additional recruits, while taking aim at May for extensive cuts to the police force.

Echoing May's concerns over radicalization, Corbyn said that the UK needs to have "some difficult conversations, starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states," who he blamed for "funding and fueling extremist ideology."

Referring to a recent admission by the Home Office that it may never make public an inquiry delving into foreign funding of Islamist groups, which reportedly implicates Saudi Arabia, Corbyn blasted May for "suppressing the report."

Speaking at a campaign rally on Friday, the Labour leader, known for his staunch anti-war stance, stated that by getting mired in military conflicts outside its borders, such as in Iraq and Libya, Britain invites blowback.

"Many experts... have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home," Corbyn said. He added that merely pointing out the apparent link between the UK's policy of meddling and terrorism on its own soil should in no way be interpreted as a justification for terrorism.

According to a YouGov poll, Corbyn's explanation for the surge in terrorist attacks on British soil seems to strike a chord with people. Around 53 percent of the 7,134 UK citizens who were surveyed said they believe that the wars are at least in part responsible for terrorist attacks against the UK. Only 24 percent said that they do not see any connection, while another 23 percent said that they did not know.

https://www.rt.com/uk/390898-terrorism-corbyn-may-debate/

[RP]

Ei konservatiiveja ja työväenpuoluetta voi edes verrata. Labour ja muut Euroopan sosialistipuolueet ovat syyllisiä tähän nykyiseen tilanteeseen. Ovet Eurooppaan avattiin nimenomaan heidän toimestaan. Aattellisista syistä ja myös tarkoituksena pönkittää hupenevaa kannatusta uusilla äänestäjillä.

Toisaalta

A) Spesifisesti Britanniassa muslimeista runsaat puolet on Pakistani/Bangladesh-taustaisia (ja jonkin verran enemmän kun lasketaan myös vähäisemmät ex-imperiumin maat), ja heille Elizabeth II:n entisinä alamaisina ovia pidettiin pitkään varsin auki riippumatta hallituspuoluueesta.

B) Yleisesti oikeistopuolueet pitkälti taasen näyttävät katsovan, että tuomalla riittvän paljon vähän koulutettua väestöä ulkomailta taataan "riittävän" alhaiset palkat tulojakauman alapäässä ja saattavatpa vielä laskeva, että se pitkällä tähtäimellä tulee romuttamaan inhomansa turhan solidaarisuuden (sosiaalisten)väestöryhmien välillä ja aikaaansaamaan ns. hyvinvointivaltion eri elementtien alasajon.

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

Mielestäni Corbyn on ottanut kantaa monesti sen suuntaisesti, että konservatiiviset vaan haluaa halpaa työvoimaa maahan ja Corbyn ei pidä siitä, koska se laskee palkkatasoja ja vie työpaikkoja hänen kommunisti-tovereiltaan. Joten noin sosialistien kriteereillä, Corbynia voi pitää jopa "maahanmuuttokriittisenä" vaikka tietenkin vallassa ollessaan pitäisi rajoja auki maahanmuutolle siinä missä May:kin.

We've all seen or heard some right-winger furiously banging on about how they couldn't vote for Labour because they're in favour of mass immigration, and enthusing about the Tories because they are supposedly against it haven't we?

The problem with this partisan political narrative, like so many other right-wing political propaganda tropes, is that it's a complete reversal of reality.

Backwards right-wing propaganda

Do you know which home secretary oversaw the highest levels of net migration in UK history?

It was Theresa May, who in 2010 promised the electorate that she would cut net migration to below 100,000, but instead allowed the biggest inwards migration surge in history, with net migration peaking at a huge 336,000 shortly before she was appointed as Prime Minister by her Tory chums.

You might be inclined to disbelieve me because you haven't heard much about this in the media, but there are reasons you haven't heard it. Last year, under pressure from Theresa May's allies in the Tory party the Daily Telegraph spiked an excoriating article about Theresa May's track record at the Home Office.

There are people who really don't want you to know how badly Theresa May handled the immigration situation when it was her remit, and they're the same kind of people who spread lies and misrepresentations about Labour's immigration policies too aren't they?

Theresa May's immigration policy is arbitrary and stupid

Politicians plucking arbitrary numbers out of thin air and making that number their golden objective is as old as the hills. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did it with their ridiculous 3% borrowing golden rule (you know the rule that drove the expansion of rip-off PFI economic alchemy schemes and was quickly jettisoned to lob £billions at the insolvent "too big to fail" banks).

Theresa May's 100,000 target wasn't just an arbitrary and ridiculous objective that drove lamentable policies, she ended up overseeing the biggest migration surge in UK history.

Two of the dreadful policies Theresa May introduced to try to repress immigration ended up driving away economically beneficial migrants like university students and tens of thousands of non-EU citizens who are married to UK citizens,

Driving away university students in order to juke the immigration statistics has seriously harmed UK universities because foreign students are a massive net benefit to the UK economy. International students contribute £25 billion to the UK economy and support some 200,000 jobs.

Using discriminatory rules to force tens of thousands of British families into exile because one of the adults is a non-EU citizen is also ridiculous. Only an intense bigot would try to argue that migrants who are married to a British citizen are the kind of people the government should be clamping down on. If they're married to a Brit they're highly likely to speak English, assimilate well into British culture, work and pay tax in the UK, and stay here instead of taking their earnings out of the country to return to their country of origin like a lot of migrant workers do.

Despite cruelly wrecking the lives of tens of thousands of families and damaging UK universities with her dreadfully ill-considered immigration policies Theresa May still missed her arbitrary 100,000 target by miles, becoming the Home Secretary who let in more migrants than any other Home Secretary in history!

She set a stupid arbitrary target, introduced terrible policies to try to achieve it, and spectacularly failed by her own measure of success.

Comforting lies

The problem of course is that a lot of people adore Theresa May's divisive anti-immigrant rhetoric so much that they ignore the fact that all of her anti-immigration rabble rousing is completely at odds with her track record.

People like the comforting lie that Theresa May is tough on immigration a lot more than they like the uncomfortable reality that she let in more immigrants than any Labour Home Secretary in history.

people like her tough-talking anti-immigration rhetoric so much that they're willing to completely overlook the fact that she created an inwards migration sure the size of Coventry in a single year and at a time when the Tories were overseeing the lowest levels of house building since the 1920s too!

Jeremy Corbyn's approach

Jeremy Corbyn's approach is very different to Theresa May's. Instead of setting arbitrary immigration targets and then missing them by miles, he prefers to look at the immigration situation to identify the aspects of immigration that are harmful to UK workers and propose legislation to sort it out.

One of the big Labour immigration policies is to prevent unscrupulous employers from undercutting UK businesses and UK workers wages by exclusively hiring cheap migrant labour.

Labour also propose that when a job to work in the UK is advertised, it must be advertised to the UK workforce, not just overseas.

This is the sensible kind of immigration and employment policy that most people would actually like to see.

Of course all non-bigoted people accept the idea that if there's nobody available in the UK to do the work, it's acceptable for the employer to look overseas (if the job needs filling it benefits the economy that it is filled).

What they don't accept is unscrupulous gangmasters exploiting overseas workers and undercutting legitimate British businesses that pay their workers decent wages.

Nobody on the left is in favour of gangmaster exploitation of migrant workers and the damage it does to workers wages, genuine British businesses that pay decent wages to their workers, and the economy as a whole.

The Labour Party policy of banning gangmaster exploitation (as opposed to setting arbitrary immigration targets and missing them by miles) is absolutely the right kind of approach our politicians should be taking to immigration.

Conclusion

Attempting to cut immigration to some arbitrary level is a ridiculous approach in its own right, but when this fixation on cutting immigration results in economically beneficial migrants being driven away, whilst economically harmful migration (like gangmaster exploitation of migrant labour to undercut legitimate British businesses) is free to continue, then it's doubly bad.

If you take a balanced approach to migration and accept that some of it is good and some of it is bad, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to support a party that proposes a policy of cutting out harmful practices like gangmaster exploitation and exclusive overseas advertising, rather than a party that insists on reiterating the same ridiculous arbitrary targets that they have so spectacularly failed to achieve over the course of seven years in government doesn't it?

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.fi/2017/05/dont-believe-right-wing-immigration-lies.html

[tweet]871673172525010944[/tweet]
[tweet]871451490199756800[/tweet]
[tweet]871446459836747777[/tweet]

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

Jeremy Corbyn was right so many times


When we look back at the 1980s, when Jeremy Corbyn was a controversial firebrand left-wing MP, we find that he was on the right side of history while the political establishment was in the wrong.

Jeremy's progressive attitudes were considered outlandish back then, but with the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was right on so many issues, and has continued to be right on a range of fundamentally important issues up until the present (Iraq, Libya, Austerity dogma, pubic safety ...).

Back when young Conservatives were producing "Hang Mandela" merchandise and vociferously supporting Apartheid racial segregation in South Africa, Jeremy Corbyn was at the forefront of the campaign against it. It's now over two decades since the racist Apartheid regime was consigned to history; Mandela is remembered as one of the world's great peacemakers; and virtually nobody would claim that Corbyn was wrong to campaign against it.

From the 1980s onwards Jeremy Corbyn was a vocal gay rights advocate [source - Pink News]. At a time when people were still regularly being attacked, abused and harshly discriminated against for their sexual orientation, Jeremy Corbyn stood with them and demanded gay equality.

The passage of gay marriage legislation through parliament in 2013 under a Conservative government (despite fierce opposition from a large number of David Cameron's own MPs) was a huge step towards full gay equality in the UK, and a vindication for people like Jeremy who have consistently opposed homophobia. Who now, other than the bigoted fringe, would dare to argue that Corbyn was wrong to support gay rights in the 1980s, back when it was still deeply unfashionable?

Jeremy Corbyn's most controversial campaign in the 1980s was his effort to talk to politicians from either side of the conflict in Northern Ireland, both Irish republicans and Ulster loyalists, in order to try to get them to sit down and negotiate with each other towards a political solution.

The Tories and their attack dogs in the right-wing media have dug up this past "controversy" as a desperate effort to smear him into submission, but the evidence of history proves he was absolutely right. The Good Friday Agreement came about because the belligerents eventually did as Corbyn always encouraged them to, and negotiated a political solution.

Although power sharing in Northern Ireland has been a rocky road at times, who could possibly argue that things aren't better now that the bombings and killings have stopped?

In 2003 Jeremy Corbyn was one of the leaders of the campaign against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This time he had public opinion on his side, and he helped organise the biggest ever protests in the streets of London, but the Westminster establishment didn't listen, and Tony Blair, backed by the votes of Tory warmongers like Theresa May, triggered unspeakable chaos and suffering in Iraq that the world is still paying the appalling price of now, as Islamist terrorists have thrived and multiplied in the power vacuum that was created. Just watch the short extract from his speech at the Stop the War demo in London and tell me that his words weren't prophetic.


This bears repeating pic.twitter.com/e1FYUJik0e
— Another Angry Voice (@Angry_Voice) June 4, 2017

In 2011 Jeremy Corbyn was one of just 13 MPs who voted against more warmongering in Libya because he feared the creation of another power vacuum, and another breeding ground for fanatical Islamist terrorists. Six years later and Libya is a terrorist infested nightmare, and a British born terrorist who was radicalised there just committed a grotesque atrocity in Manchester. Who could say that he was wrong to express his concerns about us creating yet another mess in Libya in light of recent events?

In May 2015, after five years of coalition chaos, Labour somehow contrived to lose a general election that they should have absolutely romped to victory in. They lost because they came up with the idiotic strategy of weakly imitating Tory austerity dogma instead of confronting it head on as the failing, economically illiterate and downright dangerous hard-right fanaticism that it was, and still is.

In the wake of this pathetic defeat (in which the architect of austerity-lite Ed Balls famously lost his seat) Jeremy Corbyn was propelled to a landslide victory in the leadership election because the Labour membership understood far better than the cossetted Labour Party MPs that Britain needed actual opposition to the toxic Tory austerity dogma that was strangling the economy through lack of economic demand (unprecedented wage repression and severe government investment cutbacks in a post-crisis recession will go down in history as a textbook example of grotesque economic incompetence driven by delusional ideological zeal).

In November 2015 Jeremy Corbyn, as Labour leader, strongly opposed the ideological Tory cuts to the police service being enforced by Theresa May, saying that "By pressing ahead with these cuts the Government is failing in its most basic duty – to protect our citizens. The planned cuts pose a direct threat to the security of our own people". Jeremy Corbyn could clearly see that the Tories were putting their zealous Austerity fanaticism above public safety, and he spoke out, but yet again the political establishment wouldn't listen. They were far too ideologically blinded by their fanatical austerity dogma to care.


The crossroad

Now we stand at a crossroads in British history.

We can either stand behind the man who was consistently on the right side of history (at times earning himself the visceral hatred of his political opponents that has burned away for decades).

Or we can stand behind a woman who voted for the Iraq invasion catastrophe in 2003, and demonstrated that she had utterly failed to learn her lesson from it by voting to create another terrorist breeding power vacuum in Libya in 2011. A woman who was a key figure in David Cameron's economically ruinous austerity government, and who ignored Jeremy Corbyn, and all of the expert advice, to impose her savage ideologically driven cuts on the police force and the UK border agency.

Of course the mainstream media are pushing you with all of their might to back the woman who failed to learn the lesson of Iraq, and who let her fixation with austerity dogma overrule her primary duty to protect public safety.

Of course the establishment want to slam the door on Jeremy Corbyn. They want you to reject him because he's been a constant thorn in their sides.

Theresa May is their puppet and Corbyn is their nemesis.

So it's up to you. Will you admit that Corbyn has been right so many times when Theresa May and the Tories were so wrong, or are you actually going to go out and vote for more short-sighted warmongering imperialism, more economically ruinous austerity dogma, and more ideologically driven cuts to public safety?

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.fi/2017/06/jeremy-corbyn-was-right-so-many-times.html

Ainakin noin ulkopoliittisessa mielessä, Corbynin vallan alla tuskin britit enää sekaantuisi muitten maitten asioihin, mitä voinee pitää positiivisena kehityksenä - mikäli ei pidä Irakin ja Libyan sotaretkiä menestyksenä. Tuskin Suomessakaan nyt olisi 30 000 irakilais-miestä notkumassa, jos USA ja britit ei olisi päättänyt lähteä pikku sotaretkelle sinne.

6 Questions every ex-Ukipper needs to think about before they vote

UKIP are in complete meltdown and it seems highly likely that their ex-voters will get to decide which kind of Brexit the United Kingdom goes for.

At the 2015 General Election UKIP picked up some 3.8 million votes, which accounted for almost 13% of all votes cast. In 2017 they'll be lucky to break 4% the way things are going, which means that some 2.5 million+ ex-UKIP voters will have a huge influence on the kind of Brexit Britain ends up getting.

If you're an ex-UKIP voter fleeing the chaos under Paul Nuttall's oafish and inept leadership, then you're almost certainly wondering which other party to support in the 2017 General Election.

This article is designed to help you make up your mind by considering the case against Theresa May and the Conservatives.

he six questions

Question 1: Are you a patriot?


Do you believe that British infrastructure and services should be run by Britain, for the benefit of British people ... or do you believe that it's best off as it is, carved up and sold off to all manner of corporations and foreign governments?

Do you believe that the Chinese government should own significant stakes in our railways, water companies, power stations and National Grid? (as they already do)

Do you think it's right that 74% of our rail franchises are operated as cash cows for foreign governments, but the UK state is barred from bidding to run its own rail network for the benefit of the British people? (as is the case now)

Theresa May likes running Britain in this ridiculous manner, and she's absolutely determined to keep it this way.

As far as Theresa May and her neoliberal Tory bully-boys are concerned, it doesn't matter if the governments of China, and France, and Qatar, and Singapore get a slice of UK public infrastructure, as long as their corporate mates get nice flat slices too.


As long as their corporate mates get the chance to milk obscene profits out of the British people, who cares if communist China and the Islamist tyrants in Qatar get to cream some off too? - That's genuinely the Tory attitude!

Jeremy Corbyn wants to repatriate British infrastructure and services, including the rail franchises, the Royal Mail, the national Grid and the water companies (check the labour manifesto for yourself)

jeremy Corbyn also wants to set up a network of not-for-profit energy companies in order to challenge companies like EdF (the French government) and Eon (German state owned) to increase competition and get a better deal for UK energy customers. Theresa May and the Tories hate this idea and want to stop it at all costs.

If you're an economic patriot you wouldn't dream of voting for Theresa May and her treasonous neoliberal agenda, you'd vote for Jeremy Corbyn and renationalisation.

Question 2. Do you want sensible immigration policies?


In 2010 Theresa May promised to reduce migration to below 100,000 (she increased it to the all time record high of 336,000).

In 2015 Theresa May promised to reduce migration to below 100,000 (she totally failed again).

In 2017 Theresa May is promising to reduce migration to below 100,000, but who on earth would believe her empty anti-immigration rhetoric 3rd time around?

Instead of just plucking an arbitrary number out of the air like Theresa May, don't you think a better approach might be to look at immigrants as people rather than as numbers?

Some of them are people coming to live with their British families (highly likely to integrate into British society and contribute to the economy and to society). Some of them are foreign students who bring huge amounts of cash into the economy (£25 billion per year) then go back again. Some of them are workers who fill skills shortages (if a job needs doing it's obviously better that an immigrant does it than nobody, otherwise the economy suffers).

However some of them are deliberately brought into the UK to undercut British workers.

Don't you think an immigration policy that differentiates between socially and economically beneficial migration and harmful immigration practices like undercutting, gangmastering, and exclusive overseas recruitment makes more sense than treating a wealthy foreign PhD student, the foreign spouse of a British national or an NHS doctor as exactly the same as someone who has been brought in by gangmasters in order to undercut UK wages?

Well, Labour has listened to reason and they're not plucking numbers out of the air like Theresa May.

They've set out a policy of clamping down on harmful migration and companies that undercut the minimum wage, and they're also proposing to introduce a migration fund so that areas that have had high levels of migration over the last decade will get extra funds to stop infrastructure and public services from getting over-stretched. Don't believe the Tory lies that Labour want uncontrolled migration, read the Labour manifesto on immigration for yourself.

Question 3: Do you believe in public safety?

Since 2010 the Tories have overseen the longest and deepest cuts in police numbers in history. They've reduced the number of police per 100,000 people back to 1970s levels.

They've also slashed the UK border force (meaning more than a million people per month pass through our airports without proper security checks), shrunk the army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era (and brazenly lied to the public about their army-slashing agenda too), sacked 10,000 fire service personnel, and closed dozens of A&E units.

The Tories clearly and undeniably considered their (economically illiterate) austerity dogma to be of far more importance than public safety.

Labour would put 10,000 more cops on the street, increase funding to the UK border agency, hire 3,000 more fire fighters, and stop the latest Tory plan to close even more A&E units in its tracks. Theresa May and Amber Rudd refuse to say whether they would stop cutting police numbers now, even after Manchester!

If you believe in public safety you wouldn't dream of voting for even more Tory austerity cuts to the public safety budget would you?

Question 4: Do you believe in fairness?

Theresa May's shambolic and uncosted manifesto of misery has something nasty for almost everyone.
She's promising to snatch food out of infant school children's mouths.
She's scrapped the 2015 Tory pledges not to raise National Insurance and Income Tax for ordinary workers (any guesses why?).
She's going to scrap the Triple Lock and Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners.
She's planning to asset strip anyone who gets ill and needs social care with her so-called Dementia Tax.
She's also keen to bring back the barbaric practice of ripping live foxes to pieces with packs of dogs when 84% of the British public want it to stay banned.
The objective of all of these cuts is to save money so that she can hand another £70 billion in tax giveaways to corporations and the super-rich!

Jeremy Corbyn believes that after seven years of it, it's time to stop the Tories loading austerity onto the poor and ordinary in order to help the super-rich elitists literally double their wealth.

Jeremy Corbyn thinks it's time to redress the balance a bit by pledging no tax rises for the 95%, and making those who can easily afford it pay a little bit more. Don't you agree with him?

Question 5: Do you support the Westminster establishment?

Theresa May is the embodiment of the Westminster establishment. In 1997 she was handed one of the safest of safe Tory seats. In 2010 she was handed the Home Office and allowed to stay there for six years despite her record-breakingly bad performance on immigration, and her savage ideologically driven cuts to the public safety budget. Then in 2016 she was hand-picked as Tory leader by her fellow Tory MPs without even the Tory membership getting a vote.

Jeremy Corbyn is about as anti-establishment as you can get. He was a constant thorn in Tony Blair's side, opposing the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, opposing Gordon Brown's bonkers PFI economic alchemy schemes, opposing the reckless deregulation of the financial sector, opposing the introduction of the ID database, opposing every harebrained privatisation.

Then in 2015 Corbyn stood as a 200-1 outsider to become the Labour Party leader and somehow won a landslide victory with the votes of 250,000 ordinary Labour members!

After the Brexit vote the Westminster establishment tried to use it as an excuse to destroy him, but he stood strong against the Anyone But Corbyn coup that was orchestrated by the Labour faction of the Westminster establishment. And he was swept back to the leadership with an even bigger majority than he had before!

Just go out to your local newsagents and look at the front pages. Can't you see that such an extreme fearmongering campaign against Jeremy Corbyn can only be explained by a neoliberal establishment that is absolutely shit-scared of losing the grip on power they've held since 1979?

Brexit was part one of the anti-establishment revolution. Corbyn is step two.

If you hand the keys of 10 Downing Street to Theresa May, you're simply inviting the Westminster establishment to conduct Brexit exclusively in their own interests, not in the interests of ordinary people up and down the country.

If you give Jeremy Corbyn a crack, he'll give the complacent Westminster establishment the shake-up they've so thoroughly deserved for decades

Question 6: What kind of Brexit do you want?

Do you want a Brexit that is negotiated by the right-wing core of the Westminster establishment to benefit them, and their corporate mates, and the dodgy tax-dodgers who bankroll their party, and the property speculators who are queuing up to get their teeth into the NHS property portfolio under Theresa May's Naylor Report firesale plans?

Or do you want a Brexit that brings British infrastructure and services back under British control, to be used for the benefit of the British people?

A Brexit that makes sure every kid gets the chance of a decent education no matter what their background, and every adult who needs retraining gets free access to the National Education Service too?

A Brexit that properly funds public services like the NHS, police, fire service and UK Border Agency?

A Brexit where immigration is determined by a sensible policy-based approach that allows positive migration and clamps down on negative migration, rather than just plucking numbers out of the air and missing them by miles>

The choice is clear. You can vote Tory for a Brexit for the billionaires, or you can vote Labour for a People's brexit.

I know which kind of Brexit I'm going to chose. Do you?

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.fi/2017/06/6-questions-every-ex-ukipper-needs-to.html

[Jaakko Sivonen]

Gallupit ovat ihan all over the place: jotkin näyttävät konservatiiveille yli 10 prosenttiyksikön johtoa ja toiset vain 1 prosenttiyksikön johtoa.

[RP]

Ilmeisesti Britanniassa vielä gallupit ovat yleensä olleet aika pahasti väärässä, mitä tulee ääniosuuksien. Pääsääntönä tosin niin, että ne ovat aliarvioineet konservatiivien menestystä:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-u-k-polls-skewed/

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

Suosituin alt-right uutissivusto Daily Stormer virallisesti kannattaa Corbynia vaaleissa, siten arvatenkin Corbyn lienee myös monien hommalaisten suosikki voittoon. Itse ainakin kannatan häntä. Aika kummallinen tilanne tosiaan, kuinka alt-right on sosialistien takana tällä kertaa, mutta niin se vaan menee...

This is Real: I'm Not Joking About Endorsing Jeremy Corbyn

Apparently some people think I'm engaged in some kind of childish prank in telling Brits to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm not.

I am actually, literally endorsing him, and encouraging all of my readers to go tick the box and get everyone they know to do the same.

I should have started meming this earlier, but it didn't really look like there was much of a chance. Now there is a chance. A recent poll had Theresa only one point ahead.

Let's just go point by point here.

"Always Vote Tory Because They're Harder on Immigration"

The main argument against voting Corbyn is that Tory is harder on immigration.

This is just factually inaccurate.

Cameron allowed the highest numbers of immigrants per year ever in the history of Britain. At least since the Norman invasion.

There are graphs.

Theresa is the female Cameron – no one even argues that point – and she is not going to do anything different with immigration than Corbyn would do.

So this – the main argument against Corbyn – is based on nothing.

Also, for the record – though I don't think many people care about this – Cameron was less fiscally responsible than Tony and Gordon.

Speaking of Brexit

Theresa May was the rabid henchman of Cameron in opposing Brexit.

Corbyn, on the other hand, only nominally said like "yeah, whatever."

He was viciously attacked by bremoaners after the vote, and blamed for it, because he didn't go out and campaign against Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn has a better record on Brexit than Theresa May – that is a non-controversial fact of reality.

I think there is an actual, real life possibility – even a strong one – that Corbyn is hiding his power level and did support Brexit, personally. There is not really another potential explanation of why he didn't campaign against it. People were literally begging him to, and he just didn't.

Speaking of Power Levels

Look – Corbyn is definitely a multi-racialist, pro-faggot leftist. But he is also an old school type leftist and thus ANTI-GLOBALISM.

And sorry to break the rough news – but a multi-racialist, pro-faggot leftist against globalism is better than a multi-racialist, pro-faggot "Tory" for globalism.

Just look at this on the geo-political scale here.

Theresa is:
•Anti-Russia
•Pro-Israel
•Pro-Saudi
•Pro-international free trade
•Pro-EU
•Female

Jeremy is:
•Not even concerned about Russia, would probably just be cool with Putin
•Anti-Israel
•Anti-Saudi
•Anti-international free trade
•At least less pro-EU than Theresa
•Male

Honestly, if you look at this from just a basic cost-benefit analysis, I don't even understand how we are having this discussion.

He is genuinely against Israel. He is seriously against this whole Jewish-run Sunni Islamist terrorist agenda in the Middle East.

And okay, you can say he won't have any power to do anything, and will be forced to go along with the Jews – okay, I agree, but the fact that he is against it means it's going to be lot more difficult for them.

You're not going to see him out there aggressively supporting all this like Theresa is.

No Argument

There is simply no argument for May over Corbyn that makes any sense, whatsoever.

You cannot say "May is a better choice than Corbyn, because..." and have the sentence make sense.

Go vote.

Get your friends to vote.

VOTE CORBYN.

https://www.dailystormer.com/this-is-real-im-not-joking-about-endorsing-jeremy-corbyn/

[Alaric]

Suosituin alt-right uutissivusto Daily Stormer virallisesti kannattaa Corbynia vaaleissa, siten arvatenkin Corbyn lienee myös monien hommalaisten suosikki voittoon. Itse ainakin kannatan häntä. Aika kummallinen tilanne tosiaan, kuinka alt-right on sosialistien takana tällä kertaa, mutta niin se vaan menee...

Mikähän ihme logiikka tässä on taustalla? Juutalaisten salaliitoista mouhottava sivusto kannattaa sosialistia, niin tokihan sitten hommalaisetkin?

Hämmästelisin suuresti, jos muslimiapologeetta Corbyn mokuttajapuolueineen saisi täältä kovinkaan kummoista kannatusta.

[qwerty]

Peräkammarin Kylänraitin Päivän gallup - Brittilän parlamenttivaalit Siitä tulemme näkemään onko @kriittinen_ajattelija lähelläkään todellisuutta arvauksessaan.

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

Suosituin alt-right uutissivusto Daily Stormer virallisesti kannattaa Corbynia vaaleissa, siten arvatenkin Corbyn lienee myös monien hommalaisten suosikki voittoon. Itse ainakin kannatan häntä. Aika kummallinen tilanne tosiaan, kuinka alt-right on sosialistien takana tällä kertaa, mutta niin se vaan menee...

Mikähän ihme logiikka tässä on taustalla? Juutalaisten salaliitoista mouhottava sivusto kannattaa sosialistia, niin tokihan sitten hommalaisetkin?

Hämmästelisin suuresti, jos muslimiapologeetta Corbyn mokuttajapuolueineen saisi täältä kovinkaan kummoista kannatusta.

Juu, ei toki varmaankaan kaikki, mutta hyvin huomattava osa. Tosin ketjusta päätellen UK:n vaalit ei kovin monia kiinnosta täällä, mutta varsin monet täällä tuntuu jakavan ainakin Corbynin ulkopoliittisen narratiivin. Mitä Corbyn sitten tekee sisäpoliittisesti, niin eihän sillä ole suomalaisten kannalta kovin suurta merkitystä. Kuten aiemmat jutut ja tilastot sen kertoo, niin tuskin ainakaan maahanmuutossa tulee juurikaan muutosta riippumatta siitä valitaanko May vai Corbyn valtaan.

Corbyn taitaakin nähdäkseni olla myös venäjämielisten suosikki maan johtoon. RT ja muut julkaisee pelkästään positiivisesti Corbynista.

Toisellakin suositulla alt-right sivustolla (Unz.com) monet kannattaa Corbynia myös.

Currently traveling, posting this from my cell phone so discuss the UK general elections, the ROG inspired spat between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, or whatever.

So Jeremy Corbyn has soared to a point where he's neck and neck with Theresa May after being 20 points behind. Reminder the Conservatives called this election to expand their dominance in Parliament. Instead, they've put themselves in a position where they can lose power outright. Same story with Brexit. Talk of hubris.

I do like Corbyn as a person, more so than May who evokes only the most dreary sensations. To be sure Corbyn is a sandal-wearing open borders socialist who will drive the economy into the ground, but his foreign policy stances at least are solid, and as a perennial sandal wearer myself, I can only approve of his sartorial choices (minus his heresy of pairing them with socks). Anyhow, it's clear May's ideas about dealing with Islamic terrorism revolve around the same old of cracking down on Internet "extremism" (read: porn, islamophobia, etc). Whereas at least with Corbyn we have some chance of him unleashing his inner tankie against the jihadists.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-14/

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

How Trump Helped Jeremy Corbyn—and Normalized the World's Most Radical Leaders

Parkin sees a lot of similarities between the mood of the electorate in Britain and the United States, where the conditions were set for an extraordinary Trump victory. "People are angry at the establishment, people are angry at not being taken care of, they feel like politicians don't represent them anymore," he said. "That's why Trump got elected. They saw Hillary Clinton—she's been around forever, she's the establishment candidate and then regardless of the terrible things Trump said, he was new, he was different, he was promising a change."

Parkin has volunteered to help Corbyn, whose Bernie-like campaign succeeded inside the Labour Party—giving him the opportunity to put his populist case to the wider electorate. The Labour manifesto promises to increase taxes on businesses and wealthy families, to increase funding for health and education, to nationalize water and rail, to make university tuition free, to reduce the voting age to 16, to grant free childcare for 2- to 4-year-olds and introduce four additional bank holidays, to name but a few proposals.

He said Trump had correctly identified the voters' desire to tear down the political establishment. "It wasn't so much that Trump won, it was that the Democrats lost," he said. "So what I'm trying to do is to fundamentally rebuild the Democratic party—fundamentally transform the Democratic party from a party that is top-down to a party of working people; to a party of young people; to a party which has the guts to stand up to the billionaire class."
Sanders clearly feels Corbyn's approach to his party is much the same as his own. "What he is trying to do is to revitalize democracy and remake the Labour party into a more grassroots party," he said. "I appreciate that."

The polls suggest Labour have the support of approximately two-thirds of votes between ages 18 and 24, while the Conservatives have two-thirds of the votes of over-65s. Younger voters have always skewed left but not to this extent—Labour's young vote has shot up 20 percent in the last six weeks.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-trump-helped-jeremy-corbynand-normalized-the-worlds-most-radical-leaders
Pätkiä hyvästä jutusta. Corbynin suosio kumpuaa pitkälti samasta "populismin" aallosta kuin Trumpin ja Bernienkin kannatus.

[tweet]871177044847185920[/tweet]
[tweet]871190325926264832[/tweet]
[tweet]871089866804785155[/tweet]
[tweet]868441139489198080[/tweet]
[tweet]867711202281082881[/tweet]

Jatketaan kommunisti-propagandalla yksinäisenä sutena täällä. Myös wikileaks on Corbynin tukena, miksiköhän....

[qwerty]

Wikileaks on Corbynin tukena, miksiköhän....

Ei varmaan mitään tekemistä sillä että Assange on piiritettynä Ecuadorin Lontoon suurlähetystössä.

[RP]

Mikähän ihme logiikka tässä on taustalla?

Ainakaan sen osan "alt-right"ista, joka on Moskovan ohjauksessa, linjauksia ei tarvitse ihmetellä. Ainakin aiemmin Corbynilla on tullut varsin Nato-vastaisia kommentteja, hän varmaankin tulisi huonommin toimeen Washingtonin kanssa myön jonkun muun kuin "Trump" nimisten presidenttien kanssa ja kaiken kaikkiaan konservatiivit ovat yhä todennäköisin voittaja, joten he ovat se luonnollinen lokakamppanjan kohde sikälikin.

[Porcius]

On kovin harmillista, että britit ovat ulkopolitiikassaan alentuneet 2000-luvulla lähinnä vasallin tasolle suhteessa Yhdysvaltoihin. Venäjään voi suhtautua kielteisesti olematta amerikkalaisten puudeli kuten Ranska osoitti De Gaullen aikaan.

Vanha vitsihän kuuluu: "Kun amerikkalaiset sanovat 'hyppää', brittihallitus kysyy 'kuinka korkealle?'"

[kriittinen_ajattelija]

Mikähän ihme logiikka tässä on taustalla?

Ainakaan sen osan "alt-right"ista, joka on Moskovan ohjauksessa, linjauksia ei tarvitse ihmetellä. Ainakin aiemmin Corbynilla on tullut varsin Nato-vastaisia kommentteja, hän varmaankin tulisi huonommin toimeen Washingtonin kanssa myön jonkun muun kuin "Trump" nimisten presidenttien kanssa ja kaiken kaikkiaan konservatiivit ovat yhä todennäköisin voittaja, joten he ovat se luonnollinen lokakamppanjan kohde sikälikin.

Juu ja Ron Paul henkiset toisinajattelijat myös tukenee Corbynia, niitäkin on kohtuu iso määrä "englanninkielisessä maailmassa"

Ron Paul instituution uusin juttu ylistää Corbynin ulkopolitiikkaa.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/june/07/jeremy-corbyn-talks-of-war-and-blowback-on-the-campaign-trail/

Toisin kuin muut "valkoiset nats nationalistit" niin David Duke kuitenkin tuntuu vihaavan Corbynia. xD
[tweet]872709811149975552[/tweet]

[vihapuhegeneraattori]

Vaalien ensimmäisiä tuloksia odotetaan klo 01:00 Suomen aikaa.

Vastakkain pääosin "kova" ja "pehmeä" Brexit. Mutta viimeaikojen tapahtumat tuovat lisää suolaa vaalitaistoon.

EDIT: Teinkin tuplaketjun, kiitoksia nopeasta siirrosta modeille. Joskus on hyvä että isoveli valvoo

[Jaakko Sivonen]

Ovensuukysely tulee puoliltaöin. 2015 vaaleissa se oli melko tarkka.

[qwerty]

Kaikki muu kuin konservatiivien enemmistö olisi yllätys.

Yksi jännityksen kohde vaikka virheiden paikkamäärä. Yksi todennäköisin, kaksi mahdollisuuksien rajoissa. Toivotaan nollaa Ukip tuskin saa yhtään paikkaa tällä kertaa. Kerroin nollalle paikalle on 1.10

Tällä mennään. YT: Sky News LIVE

[qwerty]

Exitpoll Tory 314 Lab 266

Enemmistöön vaaditaan 326.

[Jaakko Sivonen]

Vituilleen meni Mayn strategia, jos ovensuukysely pitää paikkansa.