Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[Tunney]

hardly much of a 'smear' when it simply contains clips of him making various statements... he did after all say all of those things on camera

I await the Full Fact check on the video. After all, it's easy to twist sound bites out of context to suit an agenda.

Out of interest, has that video been cropping up in your Facebook feed? If so, as an advert or shared by friends? I've never seen it on my feed despite it having 3.6 million views.

 

[Uther]

Unbelievable.... lol

Jeremy Corbyn stumbled over the cost of his party's plan to offer free childcare to two-year-olds during an interview for BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour.

"It will cost... it will obviously cost a lot to do so we accept that," he said, when quizzed by Emma Barnett about plans to give free childcare to 1.3m youngsters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/electi...umbles-over-childcare-figures-on-woman-s-hour

And yet, the Tory manifesto is totally uncosted...

 

[darkgen]

I think May is even worse as PM than she was as Home Secretary, but the idea of Corbyn as PM, Abbott as Home Sec and McDonnell as Chancellor is the stuff of nightmares.

This; These three stooges alone will prevent my vote for Labour this time round. Well that and the fantastical manifesto.

 

[dowie]

to be fair I still think that Abbot's error is worse - it is better to not remember a figure and therefore be upfront that you need to check vs making one up that is obviously wrong and demonstrates a complete lack of numeracy - Corbyn handled this much better than Abbot IMO and I say that as someone who can't stand the man

 

[krooton]

hardly much of a 'smear' when it simply contains clips of him making various statements... he did after all say all of those things on camera

Very much a smear, typical political ****-slinging.

Funnily enough, loads of the comments are people not falling for their bull.

 

[dowie]

I await the Full Fact check on the video. After all, it's easy to twist sound bites out of context to suit an agenda.

Out of interest, has that video been cropping up in your Facebook feed? If so, as an advert or shared by friends? I've never seen it on my feed despite it having 3.6 million views.

nope - I googled it after you posted that image

I'm not sure what you expect from full fact - the video is of him saying various things.. no one has made any further comments regarding what he said or added anything, sure you can complain about context but it is still literally clips of him making certain dubious statements

 

[Dolph]

And yet, the Tory manifesto is totally uncoated...

The Tory manifesto doesn't propose massive changes in the status quo though.

 

[dowie]

Very much a smear, typical political ****-slinging.

Funnily enough, loads of the comments are people not falling for their bull.

I don't think you understand what a smear is

"damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander."

the video simply contains clips of him making various statements... no allegations (false or otherwise) from third parties but literally statements right from the horses mouth

 

[dowie]

And yet, the Tory manifesto is totally uncoated...

according to the IFS both are... though the Labour one contains much bigger changes and therefore also much more risk re: funding and impact

 

[StriderX]

It can still be a smear if it's presented in a false manner. Such that they only show certain things to aggravate a demographic.

 

[dowie]

It can still be a smear if it's presented in a false manner. Such that they only show certain things to aggravate a demographic.

that's reaching a bit...

 

[StriderX]

that's reaching a bit...

Well lets be honest, if they even bothered to show something like that over their own policies and talking about how not weak and wobbly May is, then yes it seems like a smear to me.

Wouldnt be surprised if Labour did something similar.

 

[dowie]

Well lets be honest, if they even bothered to show something like that over their own policies and talking about how not weak and wobbly May is, then yes it seems like a smear to me.

you're not making any sense - it isn't as though it is the only bit of media released by the Tories, they can show this and show other things too...

 

[Freakbro]

Unbelievable.... lol

Jeremy Corbyn stumbled over the cost of his party's plan to offer free childcare to two-year-olds during an interview for BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour.

"It will cost... it will obviously cost a lot to do so we accept that," he said, when quizzed by Emma Barnett about plans to give free childcare to 1.3m youngsters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/electi...umbles-over-childcare-figures-on-woman-s-hour

About 40% of 2 y/o's already get 15 hrs free childcare, and the goal has always been to make it universal

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Strong and stable....

LOLOLOLOL

 

[krooton]

I don't think you understand what a smear is

"damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander."

the video simply contains clips of him making various statements... no allegations (false or otherwise) from third parties but literally statements right from the horses mouth

Or when you put some more meat on the bones:

A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character. Like negative campaigning, most often smear campaigns target government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in companies, institutions, the legal system, and other formal groups.

Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual with the aim of undermining their credibility.

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines. Even when the facts behind a smear campaign are demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Even under existing rules the property can be taken into consideration when receiving care in your own home, but its upto the local authority, so its in a way a postcode lottery
However most LAs dont seem to go after the prperty wealth right now some do, and with ever increasing squeeze on LA if there was to be no change to the current rules then its likely more would go after that wealth

 

[Freakbro]

to be fair I still think that Abbot's error is worse - it is better to not remember a figure and therefore be upfront that you need to check vs making one up that is obviously wrong and demonstrates a complete lack of numeracy - Corbyn handled this much better than Abbot IMO and I say that as someone who can't stand the man

Funny no-one seems to be commenting on the Chancellor fluffing up his figures on a radio interview by £20Bn....I would say that's even worse since he's supposed to be the guy good with the figures


Philip Hammond gets cost of HS2 wrong by £20bn in radio interview

 

[dowie]

Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual with the aim of undermining their credibility.

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines. Even when the facts behind a smear campaign are demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.

The video literally contains statements he has made... no ad hominem attacks or lies or half truths... but literal statements from the man himself... his past support for terror groups, support for cutting the armed forces etc.. is relevant

 

[ubersonic]

1. Corbyn thought killing Bin Laden 'was a travesty'.

He thought killing him without trial was a travesty, there's an important difference.

2. War with the USA? What?

Exactly, we're not going to be getting into a war with the USA anytime soon (hell we're not going to be getting into a war with anyone anytime soon) so wasting billions to ensure we could last another five minutes against them (the only thing the upgrade will achieve as it's already far superior to what would be enemies possess or are planning) is pointless.

3. So he doesn't have the backbone to make the decision himself. Great.

Not like it actually matters who pushes the button, if it's him or the next in line it still gets pressed. This is one of those mountain/molehill things. I mean is who specifically pushes the button to retaliate after we have all been killed that important in the long run.