I would myself seriously consider voting for them, if they would only abandon their objective of splitting my nation up.
As things stand, I'm probably not going to bother voting in this election, or I'll just vote UKIP again to signal my support for Brexit. I live in a safe labour seat ( the former constituency of one Anthony Charles Lynton...Blair).
We need a strong opposition, maybe the SNP could be it.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's pretty obvious that Labour are going to collapse. UKIP will fall apart and a lot of their natural voters will vote Tory. The SNP will of course win Scotland and nothing outside.
See, this is I think is a massive opportunity for the SNP.
They are perfectly placed to become THE opposition. If Labour collapses, thats going to leave a political vacuum. There are going to be plenty of left leaning people across England crying out for a new left wing party to rally behind. The SNP could be that party, if they would only expand their horizons and seek more broad support in England and Wales. And yes, I do appreciate the irony in suggesting that a Nationalist Party that seeks independence should campaign for support in a country it wants to secede from.
If they do go ahead with this Indy Ref 2.0, and still lose once again, then they need to accept defeat, abandon that goal and stop sniping and whining from the sidelines. They should step up and engage fully in the UK. If you can't leave it, change it. If the Tories truly are as bad as people in this thread like to suggest, then another 5 years of unfettered Tory government with a shrivelled husk of a Labour opposition will be the perfect opportunity for a new Left Wing party to ruse from Labour's ashes.
I don't see the Scottish Nationalist Party making much of a dent in English constituencies.
I don't see why they should or would shut up if losing IndyRef2. The Brexiteers never shut up their carping about the EU for 40 years.
Is it wrong to say I'm too damn burned out from the last couple of years to have to choose and cast a vote again.
Really don't see a strong choice in the parties that we have.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's pretty obvious that Labour are going to collapse. UKIP will fall apart and a lot of their natural voters will vote Tory. The SNP will of course win Scotland and nothing outside.
See, this is I think is a massive opportunity for the SNP.
They are perfectly placed to become THE opposition. If Labour collapses, thats going to leave a political vacuum. There are going to be plenty of left leaning people across England crying out for a new left wing party to rally behind. The SNP could be that party, if they would only expand their horizons and seek more broad support in England and Wales. And yes, I do appreciate the irony in suggesting that a Nationalist Party that seeks independence should campaign for support in a country it wants to secede from.
If they do go ahead with this Indy Ref 2.0, and still lose once again, then they need to accept defeat, abandon that goal and stop sniping and whining from the sidelines. They should step up and engage fully in the UK. If you can't leave it, change it. If the Tories truly are as bad as people in this thread like to suggest, then another 5 years of unfettered Tory government with a shrivelled husk of a Labour opposition will be the perfect opportunity for a new Left Wing party to ruse from Labour's ashes.
I don't see the Scottish Nationalist Party making much of a dent in English constituencies.
I don't see why they should or would shut up if losing IndyRef2. The Brexiteers never shut up their carping about the EU for 40 years.
Agreed anyway there platform on Scotland means why do they have any reason to feilding candidates UK side.
The sad thing is, given our electoral system, even with a massive swing of Remain voters to the Lib Dems it would just end up with them in second place all over the country, winning only a handful of extra seats.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Assuming that the SNP retain their majority it's difficult to see how that can't be taken as popular support for a second independence referendum, which is going to make arguing against it very hard for the Tories.
Jadenim wrote: The sad thing is, given our electoral system, even with a massive swing of Remain voters to the Lib Dems it would just end up with them in second place all over the country, winning only a handful of extra seats.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Assuming that the SNP retain their majority it's difficult to see how that can't be taken as popular support for a second independence referendum, which is going to make arguing against it very hard for the Tories.
If that's true also though then we end up with a 5 yearly event that's a long way from "once in a generation" event.
If she can not pull this off now and if Indy ref 2 goes to remain, the SNP should stop shouting it so much and do some serious thinking on how, what and the future for Scotland.
"Once in a generation" was presumably meant as a rally to the SNP - here's our one chance! Don't mess it up! rather than a promise to those who aren't the SNP - If we don't get this, we'll shut up and never trouble you again!
On a side note, it's interesting that when anything like this happens pretty much my first reaction is "I wonder what the folks in Dakka OT think of this". Strange state of affairs when you turn to a wargames forum for your in depth political analysis. Thank you for that, everyone!
Jadenim wrote: The sad thing is, given our electoral system, even with a massive swing of Remain voters to the Lib Dems it would just end up with them in second place all over the country, winning only a handful of extra seats.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Assuming that the SNP retain their majority it's difficult to see how that can't be taken as popular support for a second independence referendum, which is going to make arguing against it very hard for the Tories.
If that's true also though then we end up with a 5 yearly event that's a long way from "once in a generation" event.
If she can not pull this off now and if Indy ref 2 goes to remain, the SNP should stop shouting it so much and do some serious thinking on how, what and the future for Scotland.
Given that a key part of the original indendence referendum campaign was "the only way to guarantee EU membership is to stay in the UK" I think the SNP have a valid argument for a second vote. However, I agree that if it still comes out as staying in the UK then the matter should be considered settled for the foreseeable future.
Similarly the general election is a chance for everyone who voted remain, or who voted leave but didn't want the so-called "hard brexit", to stand up and have the views represented, if not then we will have to live with the consequences. Sadly I think there is so much political fatigue in the public at the moment that a lot of moderate voters will just shrug their shoulders and vote for the status quo as a "whatever, I'm tired of all this" reaction.
Graphite wrote: "Once in a generation" was presumably meant as a rally to the SNP - here's our one chance! Don't mess it up! rather than a promise to those who aren't the SNP - If we don't get this, we'll shut up and never trouble you again!
On a side note, it's interesting that when anything like this happens pretty much my first reaction is "I wonder what the folks in Dakka OT think of this". Strange state of affairs when you turn to a wargames forum for your in depth political analysis. Thank you for that, everyone!
Not sure we're in-depth - just perhaps a little less shallow than FB ranting? (I mean that as a sincere compliment)
I still suspect May might well get a nasty shock from this. The Tory position isn't especially strong in Parliament - and a great many of Labour's seats are very safe.
If Labour can make gains in Scotland (and it does seem feasible), May could find herself either with a reduced majority (which is 17 at the moment), or even in a coalition.
Hmm. Wonder if this is all thought of and accounted for? After all, what better way to deal with the Swivel Eyed Racists in your party than by calling an election, and receiving a mandate against the lunacy of a Hard Brexit?
I claim no credit for this having pinched it from Twitter
but here's a very good argument that says Labour should vote against holding a GE on June 8th.
1. Labour are behind in the polls, likely to be crushed in June, so why make things easy for the Tories
2. If the Tories had to go for the vote of no confidence, it would be farcical to be saying that the Tories had no confidence in themselves
3. Fix term parliaments act was a Tory creation - let them sort out their own mess
4. The right wing press attack Labour in the media everyday anyway, so who cares about their reaction to Labour blocking a GE.
5. Labour can take the moral high ground by telling the Tories to get on with the day job, stop putting the Tory party before the country's interests, and can accuse May of bottling it over the Brexit talks.
Jadenim wrote: The sad thing is, given our electoral system, even with a massive swing of Remain voters to the Lib Dems it would just end up with them in second place all over the country, winning only a handful of extra seats.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Assuming that the SNP retain their majority it's difficult to see how that can't be taken as popular support for a second independence referendum, which is going to make arguing against it very hard for the Tories.
If that's true also though then we end up with a 5 yearly event that's a long way from "once in a generation" event.
If she can not pull this off now and if Indy ref 2 goes to remain, the SNP should stop shouting it so much and do some serious thinking on how, what and the future for Scotland.
Given that a key part of the original indendence referendum campaign was "the only way to guarantee EU membership is to stay in the UK" I think the SNP have a valid argument for a second vote. However, I agree that if it still comes out as staying in the UK then the matter should be considered settled for the foreseeable future.
Similarly the general election is a chance for everyone who voted remain, or who voted leave but didn't want the so-called "hard brexit", to stand up and have the views represented, if not then we will have to live with the consequences. Sadly I think there is so much political fatigue in the public at the moment that a lot of moderate voters will just shrug their shoulders and vote for the status quo as a "whatever, I'm tired of all this" reaction.
Fatigue yeah but opposition claims they are the path, they claim the people think this or that. Now is a chance to see a true answer. What do the people think.
If May can pass this, she has a solid basis to negotiate and the other parties can no longer say they did not have a chance.
Graphite wrote: "Once in a generation" was presumably meant as a rally to the SNP - here's our one chance! Don't mess it up! rather than a promise to those who aren't the SNP - If we don't get this, we'll shut up and never trouble you again!
On a side note, it's interesting that when anything like this happens pretty much my first reaction is "I wonder what the folks in Dakka OT think of this". Strange state of affairs when you turn to a wargames forum for your in depth political analysis. Thank you for that, everyone!
Not sure we're in-depth - just perhaps a little less shallow than FB ranting? (I mean that as a sincere compliment)
I still suspect May might well get a nasty shock from this. The Tory position isn't especially strong in Parliament - and a great many of Labour's seats are very safe.
If Labour can make gains in Scotland (and it does seem feasible), May could find herself either with a reduced majority (which is 17 at the moment), or even in a coalition.
Hmm. Wonder if this is all thought of and accounted for? After all, what better way to deal with the Swivel Eyed Racists in your party than by calling an election, and receiving a mandate against the lunacy of a Hard Brexit?
If Labour make gains in Scotland i.e more than 10 seats, I'll change my name to Dakka McDakkka Face
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would myself seriously consider voting for them, if they would only abandon their objective of splitting my nation up.
We need a strong opposition, maybe the SNP could be it.
I agree. While I have no strong feelings either way on Scottish independence (though I am definitely in favour of a second referendum and would fully support independence if that were the result Scotland chose), the SNP are a party I could happily vote for. Sturgeon is one of the handful of politicians in the UK who seems to have any real drive and commitment, their domestic policies are broadly in line with what I'd like to see from Labour and at the moment they're the only ones having any success against the Tories.
I'll be voting Labour this time (as usual) as while I accept Corbyn is not the best politician, a) I do agree with the vast majority of what he says and b) any Labour government is preferable to any Tory one as far as I'm concerned.
Honestly though, I doubt much will change this time around. With Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the picture, the Conservatives aren't going to get the kind of landslide they're after, but I sadly don't think either Labour or the Lib Dems will get anywhere unless they form a coalition and bring the SNP in as well, which is possible, I guess, but seems unlikely.
The important thing, though, is that if you are eligible to vote, please go and vote! A bigger turnout is better for everyone; we get a more representative government, a more accountable set of MPs and if the worst comes to the worst, you get to grumble for the next 5 years if your lot don't get in! Make sure you register in time, get out on June 8th and vote!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would myself seriously consider voting for them, if they would only abandon their objective of splitting my nation up.
We need a strong opposition, maybe the SNP could be it.
I agree. While I have no strong feelings either way on Scottish independence (though I am definitely in favour of a second referendum and would fully support independence if that were the result Scotland chose), the SNP are a party I could happily vote for. Sturgeon is one of the handful of politicians in the UK who seems to have any real drive and commitment, their domestic policies are broadly in line with what I'd like to see from Labour and at the moment they're the only ones having any success against the Tories.
I'll be voting Labour this time (as usual) as while I accept Corbyn is not the best politician, a) I do agree with the vast majority of what he says and b) any Labour government is preferable to any Tory one as far as I'm concerned.
Honestly though, I doubt much will change this time around. With Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the picture, the Conservatives aren't going to get the kind of landslide they're after, but I sadly don't think either Labour or the Lib Dems will get anywhere unless they form a coalition and bring the SNP in as well, which is possible, I guess, but seems unlikely.
The important thing, though, is that if you are eligible to vote, please go and vote! A bigger turnout is better for everyone; we get a more representative government, a more accountable set of MPs and if the worst comes to the worst, you get to grumble for the next 5 years if your lot don't get in! Make sure you register in time, get out on June 8th and vote!
Least if you vote you earn right to grumble about it.
The important thing, though, is that if you are eligible to vote, please go and vote! A bigger turnout is better for everyone; we get a more representative government, a more accountable set of MPs and if the worst comes to the worst, you get to grumble for the next 5 years if your lot don't get in! Make sure you register in time, get out on June 8th and vote!
I'm honestly not sure I can be bothered. Seriously. The whole thing has grown into such a farce. I may well just go to the booth and spoil my vote. I've faith in none of them.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would myself seriously consider voting for them, if they would only abandon their objective of splitting my nation up.
We need a strong opposition, maybe the SNP could be it.
I agree. While I have no strong feelings either way on Scottish independence (though I am definitely in favour of a second referendum and would fully support independence if that were the result Scotland chose), the SNP are a party I could happily vote for. Sturgeon is one of the handful of politicians in the UK who seems to have any real drive and commitment, their domestic policies are broadly in line with what I'd like to see from Labour and at the moment they're the only ones having any success against the Tories.
I'll be voting Labour this time (as usual) as while I accept Corbyn is not the best politician, a) I do agree with the vast majority of what he says and b) any Labour government is preferable to any Tory one as far as I'm concerned.
Honestly though, I doubt much will change this time around. With Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the picture, the Conservatives aren't going to get the kind of landslide they're after, but I sadly don't think either Labour or the Lib Dems will get anywhere unless they form a coalition and bring the SNP in as well, which is possible, I guess, but seems unlikely.
The important thing, though, is that if you are eligible to vote, please go and vote! A bigger turnout is better for everyone; we get a more representative government, a more accountable set of MPs and if the worst comes to the worst, you get to grumble for the next 5 years if your lot don't get in! Make sure you register in time, get out on June 8th and vote!
Least if you vote you earn right to grumble about it.
Bollocks. Thats not true at all. There is no moral obligation on me to vote, if I feel that no parties represent me. Politicians do not have a right to expect my vote.
I don't like Labour.
I don't like the Tories.
UKIP has achieved its single issue objective (Brexit) and have immediately disintegrated having failed to evolve.
But I live in a safe Labour seat, so regardless of whether I vote or not, my vote is meaningless.
I'd rather walk into a voting booth and take a steaming big dump on my vote ballot, than vote for any of these parties.
If the SNP stood a candidate in my constituency, at least I'd have a real alternative.
Word is out that the SNP will abstain from today's vote, so Labour's future is in Labour's hands.
If Labour back the Tory motion, it really will be turkeys voting for Christmas.
Labour can win a tactical victory by:
Making the Tories look foolish by having them vote no confidence in their own government!
Take the principled stand of saying the government should get on with the job with the majority they have from the election of 2015. If May has problems with Tory back benchers, then too bad. That's her problem.
As bad as it may sound to some people, Corbyn gets 3 more years until 2020 to turn things around.
If Brexit is a mess, the Tories will suffer in the polls, and Labour could capitalise.
So please, for the LOVE OF GOD! COULD SOMEBODY EXPLAIN CORBYN'S SUPPORT FOR THE TORY MOTION?
sorry for the caps, but's it's bizarre. Why are they doing this? Why? Why?
The right-wing rags hate Corbyn anyway, so if he's worried about their reaction of cowardice accusations, then that is equally as bizarre.
I'd argue a deliberate spoiled ballot is still better than not bothering to go at all. There's a small but important difference between registering your dissatisfaction at not being adequately represented and just seeming like you can't be bothered or don't care about the result. It's a formal 'feth you' to the stagnant political establishment that just might make a few people in said establishment take notice.
If (as far as the statistics are concerned) you show up as someone not going to vote, the various parties in play will see no incentive to try and represent you, and nothing will change. A high enough number of formal spoilt ballots/abstentions have a chance to make a difference somewhere down the line.
But I live in a safe Labour seat, so regardless of whether I vote or not, my vote is meaningless.
But then how many other people feel the same? We were a safe Labour seat until the last GE when we went SNP, and sometimes the margin is only a few hundred votes.
If everyone who didn't bother to vote due to a safe seat, decided to turn up, you might get a different answer.
Or at least spoil your ballot to show that you don't like the options, rather than just can't be bothered. As mentioned, a large percentage of spoiled ballots may encourage 1+ parties trying to appeal to that untapped electorate and might actually change something.
Heard Michael Gove on Radio Scotland yesterday. His best quote was "There's no problem with Tory backbenchers".
Surely the entire point of being a backbencher is, by definition, to be a problem for your party? You're either too incompetent to be trusted with a real job, you're part of a faction that's currently out of favour,or you're such a frothing zealot that even the higher-ups in your own party want nothing to do with you.
I've never had a problem with May. Strong leader, confident politician with convictions. Agree or not with her politics she does what an MP is supposed to do.
Over the past two days I changed my mind completely. Every speech from her has been laced with cowardice and lies, from her announcement yesterday to PMQs today. An irredeemable wretch.
Gah, so angry. I always vote not based upon the party but always on the candidate. For once I can say that no matter how good the candidate is (and it's Ed Vaizey for me, so he's pretty good), I can not vote Tory.
Also I'm thoroughly pee'd off with the average person getting interviewed by news agencies. How many times do we have to hear the mistruth that May is "unelected" as Prime Minister? The ignorance amongst the general population of how a parliamentary system works is exhasperating.
Henry wrote: I've never had a problem with May. Strong leader, confident politician with convictions. Agree or not with her politics she does what an MP is supposed to do.
Over the past two days I changed my mind completely. Every speech from her has been laced with cowardice and lies, from her announcement yesterday to PMQs today. An irredeemable wretch.
Gah, so angry. I always vote not based upon the party but always on the candidate. For once I can say that no matter how good the candidate is (and it's Ed Vaizey for me, so he's pretty good), I can not vote Tory.
Also I'm thoroughly pee'd off with the average person getting interviewed by news agencies. How many times do we have to hear the mistruth that May is "unelected" as Prime Minister? The ignorance amongst the general population of how a parliamentary system works is exhasperating.
Good post.
For weeks, May has had the cheek to tell the SNP that now is not the time for another Scottish independence referendum, and yet, here we are with the mother of all U-turns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graphite wrote: Heard Michael Gove on Radio Scotland yesterday. His best quote was "There's no problem with Tory backbenchers".
Surely the entire point of being a backbencher is, by definition, to be a problem for your party? You're either too incompetent to be trusted with a real job, you're part of a faction that's currently out of favour,or you're such a frothing zealot that even the higher-ups in your own party want nothing to do with you.
It's Gove. If he told me that grass was green, I'd be out on my front lawn double checking.
Of late I find that line of reasoning a little bizarre to be honest.. hard to tell if the man fits the role unless he's in the role. He seems competent, has generally stuck to his values for many years and certainly often outshines May in PMQs as leader of the opposition.. and after all I really didn't think much of Cameron as PM, and May well, May is a joke really.. and yet there she is as our PM.
I always have to wonder, how much of that opinion is my own, and how much is the bias I have taken on from the media. I thought Ed Miliband was a bit of muppet back when he was the Opposition leader.. and why, now when looking back, the media hammered that home for four years and I accepted it as face value. I never looked into his policies, I never followed him much as the Opposition leader, but there I was thinking he was no good, no chance, because the media basically told me so.
Since Brexit, I scrutinise everything.. as in the months leading up to it I thought like many do the EU was worthless to us, but with such an important vote I thought I better spend at least some time studying the thing I was about to vote on.. it was eye opening to say the least, switched from a probably leave to remain over night, for me this is a cornerstone election and I won't do what a lot of the big boys want for us to do and just let others decide our fate for us.
The PM is struggling to get her way, but on domestic issues. On grammar schools, on national insurance contributions, you name it, she can't do it. On every issue other than Brexit, there is a disgruntled faction of the Tory party bigger than her majority. That's the real reason why we're 50 days away from a general election.
Well, farewell to the Labour party. I've been against them for a long time now, but when I was growing up in the 1980s, they were a big part of my community and the political landscape. I used to vote them. Seems a lifetime away now...
It seems strange to see them fade away, but I suppose it's been a long time coming...
Right or wrong, I think McDonnell and Corbyn think they can win it.. I am not entirely convinced, but some surprise remain voters turnout switches in certain seats might throw a cat in amongst the pigeons.. I mean Cornwall is a bloody interesting area considering what has come out regarding their funding post the ref vote.. a lot of Tory seats, traditionally Lib Dem, could easily switch back.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Of late I find that line of reasoning a little bizarre to be honest.. hard to tell if the man fits the role unless he's in the role. He seems competent, has generally stuck to his values for many years and certainly often outshines May in PMQs as leader of the opposition.. and after all I really didn't think much of Cameron as PM, and May well, May is a joke really.. and yet there she is as our PM.
I always have to wonder, how much of that opinion is my own, and how much is the bias I have taken on from the media. I thought Ed Miliband was a bit of muppet back when he was the Opposition leader.. and why, now when looking back, the media hammered that home for four years and I accepted it as face value. I never looked into his policies, I never followed him much as the Opposition leader, but there I was thinking he was no good, no chance, because the media basically told me so.
Since Brexit, I scrutinise everything.. as in the months leading up to it I thought like many do the EU was worthless to us, but with such an important vote I thought I better spend at least some time studying the thing I was about to vote on.. it was eye opening to say the least, switched from a probably leave to remain over night, for me this is a cornerstone election and I won't do what a lot of the big boys want for us to do and just let others decide our fate for us.
Pretty much everything about Corbyn in the gutter press is an outright fabrication (photoshopped image on Remembrance Sunday of him 'dancing' anyone?) or a wilful bending of the facts into the shape of a pretzel.
And a lot of people see through it - and there's even more people worried by the deeply sinister tone of the Daily Heil's frontpage today.
I really think the Tories could be in for a bit of a shock. They've pushed too many people, and with UKIP out of the picture and the EU issue relatively settled, it's hard to see what Right Wing Rubbish they can lie about this time around. Spesh as PMTM is refusing televised debates....
I've been thinking over possible outcomes for the Tories after the election:
1) Tories gain greater majority. May remains party leader and now basically feels like she has carte blanche to pursue whatever form of Brexit she thinks is best whilst hiking in Wales.
2) Tories retain current majority. Could see May facing leadership challenge as she managed to fail to make any gains at a time when they have a huge advantage in the polls. She'll also take flak for wasting article 50 negotiation time with absolutely nothing to show for it.
3) Tories keep majority, but a lesser one. May is backstabbed and vicious leadership battle ensues as she lessened the tory majority for absolutely no reason. Tories once again put party interest above country as they waste more time with a mudslinging leadership contest.
4) Tories lose majority. May is history, no matter whether the Tories form a coalition government or Labour team up with other parties to kick them out.
Given what the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph and Times are going to tell their readers about this election, and any non-Tory politicians over the next 6 weeks, I think its going to be 1).
The Guardian will proudly and resolutely concern itself with Labour infighting.
Darkjim wrote: Given what the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph and Times are going to tell their readers about this election, and any non-Tory politicians over the next 6 weeks, I think its going to be 1).
The Guardian will proudly and resolutely concern itself with Labour infighting.
This is what I don't get. People are saying, including political commentators, that Labour had to support the GE vote or otherwise, the right-wing rags would have crucified them.
But they crucify Labour on a daily basis anyway!
Corbyn could have stuck two fingers up at them and said I don't care, but he lacked the courage to do so...
The madness of this. Corbyn was guaranteed 3 years until 2020, and in that time, if Brexit talks went belly up, Labour could have capitalised.
Instead, he decided to pick a 7 week contract over a 3 year one...
loki old fart wrote: Tony Blair urges voters to back any candidate who opposes Brexit amid speculation that he will campaign with the Liberal Democrats
Darkjim wrote: Given what the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph and Times are going to tell their readers about this election, and any non-Tory politicians over the next 6 weeks, I think its going to be 1).
The Guardian will proudly and resolutely concern itself with Labour infighting.
This is what I don't get. People are saying, including political commentators, that Labour had to support the GE vote or otherwise, the right-wing rags would have crucified them.
But they crucify Labour on a daily basis anyway!
Corbyn could have stuck two fingers up at them and said I don't care, but he lacked the courage to do so...
The madness of this. Corbyn was guaranteed 3 years until 2020, and in that time, if Brexit talks went belly up, Labour could have capitalised.
Instead, he decided to pick a 7 week contract over a 3 year one...
I think it's a case of honest naivety. Corbyn is willing to take this election now because he believes if he wins, he can bring in the reforms and policies he's aiming for 3 years earlier. It's arguably politically incompetent but I think it's born of genuine good will rather than just backing down to the Conservative power play.
Darkjim wrote: Given what the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph and Times are going to tell their readers about this election, and any non-Tory politicians over the next 6 weeks, I think its going to be 1).
The Guardian will proudly and resolutely concern itself with Labour infighting.
This is what I don't get. People are saying, including political commentators, that Labour had to support the GE vote or otherwise, the right-wing rags would have crucified them.
But they crucify Labour on a daily basis anyway!
Corbyn could have stuck two fingers up at them and said I don't care, but he lacked the courage to do so...
The madness of this. Corbyn was guaranteed 3 years until 2020, and in that time, if Brexit talks went belly up, Labour could have capitalised.
Instead, he decided to pick a 7 week contract over a 3 year one...
I think it's a case of honest naivety. Corbyn is willing to take this election now because he believes if he wins, he can bring in the reforms and policies he's aiming for 3 years earlier. It's arguably politically incompetent but I think it's born of genuine good will rather than just backing down to the Conservative power play.
Politically incompetent? You're a master of understatement
Imagine the farce of the Tories holding a vote to say that they have no confidence in themselves. Corbyn could have embarrassed them, won a tactical victory, and we would have got the GE anyway.
Instead, he hands it to the Tories on a plate.
Never in a million years will Middle England vote for Corbyn and Abbott, so why the rush to electoral suicide? After 3 years of Brexit talks, and a jittery economy, May could have been on the ropes, or thrown out by her own backbenchers revolting over Europe if things went wrong.
That's fair. Forcing the Tories into Vote-Of-No-Confidencing themselves would have been a very smart move indeed, leaving them looking like an utter shambles. Trouble is, it's that sort of political manoeuvring and gamesmanship that Corbyn has made a point of avoiding since he got in, I imagine he just wouldn't want to be seen to engage in what would inevitably be slammed by the media as a 'dirty trick'.
Corbyn is set on doing the 'right' thing rather than the politically smart thing, and while I admire that it's undoubtedly going to cost him and the party.
Co'tor Shas wrote: As a slightly bemused (and confused) American, the party in power can just initiate a new election just like that? It seems ripe for abuse.
It has to have a 2/3rd majority in the House of Commons. The Commons just rolled over and let it happen however. (This two line wip is getting fecking ridiculous! )
Co'tor Shas wrote: As a slightly bemused (and confused) American, the party in power can just initiate a new election just like that? It seems ripe for abuse.
Yes and No. In times of crisis, such as a world war, it allows strong government to quickly be appointed.
Also, these snap elections happen very rarely, the last one being in 1974.
Ultimately though, the people decide, and the British people have had this system for 300 years, and seem happy with it.
On the plus side, it's a 6 week campaign and not the 2 year circus you guys have.
I admire Americans for surviving 2 years of political campaigning
Co'tor Shas wrote: As a slightly bemused (and confused) American, the party in power can just initiate a new election just like that? It seems ripe for abuse.
There are some requirements that make it difficult to do, if there's any credible opposition. The rules changed to avoid this sort of thing but again it relies on the opposition being able to, well, oppose anything
Co'tor Shas wrote: As a slightly bemused (and confused) American, the party in power can just initiate a new election just like that? It seems ripe for abuse.
As the others have said, we have fixed terms of five years after which we have elections regardless. It used to be that a government could call an election when it liked which could be used for political expediency. As part of the coalition government, the Liberal Democrats got the conservatives to set the fixed length parliaments to prevent the Tories from calling a general election and getting the Lib Dems kicked out when it was convenient.
There is a provision in the act that allows parliament to call an early election on a two thirds vote. Here's where the current situation gets weird. A government with a strong majority would not propose an early general election as they would have little to gain and plenty to lose. A strong opposition on the other hand would support a proposal for an early general election as they would have little to lose and a great deal to gain.
A government with a weak majority (like the current government has) would not normally propose an election unless they felt they were in a strong position to make gains. Normally a government with a weak majority is facing a strong opposition, so we wouldn't usually see a weak majority government proposing an early general election.
This year though we have a government with a weak majority facing an opposition with disastrous standing with the public. The smart money is that the government stands to make impressive gains. (This is why May and the rest of the Tories spitting the statements that this isn't being done for purely party political reasons is such a whopping lie)
An opposition always declares that they'd like the opportunity to remove the government as soon as possible, and they keep saying this even as their position gets weaker. May spotted an opportunity to make a cynical political move that runs in contrast to everything she's been saying since she became PM - and she didn't hesitate to play games with the public. As others have said, the smart political move for Labour would have been to make the Tories initiate their own vote of no confidence - something the Tories would be unlikely to do as it would be a serious embarassment. Let Brexit be done and over with before the next election when Labour can turn to home affairs where they have a much stronger standing. If Labour didn't back a vote for a general election, and then presumably the Tories wouldn't trigger their own vote of no confidence, the government would have an easy piece of ammunition to attack the opposition with. Labour would have to accept that and work on the 2020 election.
Instead Labour decided that they had to back up their statements (that they want the government out as soon as possible) with actions and took the bait. God knows what's going to happen. The smart money says that the Tories should walk away with a landslide majority. But then the smart money said Trump never stood a chance. (ooh, ooh, can we get Whembly to say that there's no way the Tories can lose, it worked on HRC)
Co'tor Shas wrote: As a slightly bemused (and confused) American, the party in power can just initiate a new election just like that? It seems ripe for abuse.
As the others have said, we have fixed terms of five years after which we have elections regardless. It used to be that a government could call an election when it liked which could be used for political expediency. As part of the coalition government, the Liberal Democrats got the conservatives to set the fixed length parliaments to prevent the Tories from calling a general election and getting the Lib Dems kicked out when it was convenient.
There is a provision in the act that allows parliament to call an early election on a two thirds vote. Here's where the current situation gets weird. A government with a strong majority would not propose an early general election as they would have little to gain and plenty to lose. A strong opposition on the other hand would support a proposal for an early general election as they would have little to lose and a great deal to gain.
A government with a weak majority (like the current government has) would not normally propose an election unless they felt they were in a strong position to make gains. Normally a government with a weak majority is facing a strong opposition, so we wouldn't usually see a weak majority government proposing an early general election.
This year though we have a government with a weak majority facing an opposition with disastrous standing with the public. The smart money is that the government stands to make impressive gains. (This is why May and the rest of the Tories spitting the statements that this isn't being done for purely party political reasons is such a whopping lie)
An opposition always declares that they'd like the opportunity to remove the government as soon as possible, and they keep saying this even as their position gets weaker. May spotted an opportunity to make a cynical political move that runs in contrast to everything she's been saying since she became PM - and she didn't hesitate to play games with the public. As others have said, the smart political move for Labour would have been to make the Tories initiate their own vote of no confidence - something the Tories would be unlikely to do as it would be a serious embarassment. Let Brexit be done and over with before the next election when Labour can turn to home affairs where they have a much stronger standing. If Labour didn't back a vote for a general election, and then presumably the Tories wouldn't trigger their own vote of no confidence, the government would have an easy piece of ammunition to attack the opposition with. Labour would have to accept that and work on the 2020 election.
Instead Labour decided that they had to back up their statements (that they want the government out as soon as possible) with actions and took the bait. God knows what's going to happen. The smart money says that the Tories should walk away with a landslide majority. But then the smart money said Trump never stood a chance. (ooh, ooh, can we get Whembly to say that there's no way the Tories can lose, it worked on HRC)
<putting my UK-ignorance-hat> ... there's no way the Tories can lose.
Theresa May does her best impression of a scared Scooby Doo when anyone mentions a public debate because:-
a) any proper debate will show fully that she has no clue; and
b) she has as much charisma as a wart on Jeremy Corbyn's backside (and the other end isn't much better)
She would much prefer to go face to face with anyone that can't put together a coherent argument like a 2 year old (it's unlikely that she will go to a primary school as they the children will be able to put together a more coherent argument) or the local senility (private) social care housing.
DON'T VOTE FOR THE LYING TORIES AND EMPRESS MAY
BBC And ITV To Defy Theresa May And Hold General Election 2017 TV Debates Anyway
Two of Britain’s biggest broadcasters are set to defy Theresa May’s threat to boycott a TV election debate - by going ahead with them anyway.
ITV confirmed it would hold a televised leaders debate, as it did at the last two general elections, while the BBC said it would refuse to let the government stop it producing a programme in the public interest.
May had ruled out appearing in TV debates popularised by her predecessor, David Cameron, after announcing a snap election yesterday.
“We won’t be doing television debates,” she said on Wednesday. “I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters.”
But Jeremy Corbyn has already ridiculed the PM for refusing to take part, saying it was “what democracy needs and the British people deserve”.
While Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron accused May of running “scared”, adding: “The British people deserve to hear party leaders set out their plans and debate them publicly.”
May has even faced calls from some of her own MPs to debate Corbyn and other party leaders in the format that has been a custom since 2010.
Despite her refusal, the BBC’s Head of Newsgathering, Jonathan Munro, told the Telegraph that he had “heard what the Prime Minister has said” but did “not want to get in a position where any party leader stops us doing a programme that we think is in the public interest”.
Munro said: “There is a proven track record over two elections and two referendums that debates reach huge audiences including a lot of young people who don’t watch conventional political coverage in great numbers.
”In 2010 and 2015 the number of young and first time voters going to the polls was up on previous elections.
“We believe there was a relationship between that and the audience the debates pulled in. It helps engagement with hard to reach audiences.”
ITV, another of the broadcasters who held debates in 2010 and 2015, also confirmed plans were already in place for a repeat programme this year.
“ITV will hold a Leaders’ debate as we did in 2010 and 2015,” a spokesperson for the channel said.
“We will announce more details in due course.”
The first time party leaders clashed in live TV debates was 2010, when David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg sparred.
They were repeated in 2015, when Ed Miliband replaced Brown. 7 million people watched the programme
Anyone considered the idea that May (and potentially, a whole lot less but still... the tories as a whole) be actually ok with losing this election?
Like they say, a week is a long time in politics, as is 5 years. Whoever ends up holding the reins is going to have a heckuva issue to deal with. - And the tories, they can legitimately say, "hey, we left it up to the people. It's your problem now."
Lets say an anti Brexit party do win, it's not like all the pro Brexiters are going to suddenly shut up either. The shoes going to be on the other hoof.
The whole thing is a mess, but lets just hope that there is a clear mandate at the end of this.
Personally I am not very interested in the debates. Like a lot of voters I am rather politicked out at the moment.
Between Brexit, Trump, the Turkish referendum and the sadly strong showing of Le Pen in France, it seems that the forces of reaction and petty nationalism are strong. Very dismal times.
I can't see any outcome from this general election that will not be very unpalatable to me.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: [And a lot of people see through it - and there's even more people worried by the deeply sinister tone of the Daily Heil's frontpage today
Provided a fair bit of twitter mirth on my lunch break though If they keep that kind of tone and language up it could backfire on them. Being called a saboteur sounds much cooler than being called a remoaner, and you get a ready made anthem
I had a quite enjoyable, and relaxed political discussion at work where I asked several of the staunch Conservative supporters how they would get a floating voter like me, and three of my colleagues, to back Theresa May. I've voted Tory, Labour, Lib dem and Green in my time based on how I rated the candidate, but this time the GE is all about Brexit. I voted for remain, and I'm not really interested in supporting a hard and destructive Brexit, hence why I asked them how they would convince me and my other colleagues to vote for their party, and they didn't really know.
There's a lot of anger and resentment towards the Conservative party out there, and they need to work very hard to convinces swing voters to back them. If I decide to vote Lab or Lib dem the idea will be to temper any will full self destruction and make sure the Tories don't think they have care blanche to do whatever they like.
A lot of people I know are very motivated to vote this time to make sure that May doesn't have a Mandate to do whatever she wants. Rest assured that she will take this mandate to mean not only forging ahead with a destructive EU policy, but also also as a mandate for all the distasteful Tory ideologies that she keeps putting forward.
At the moment I'm leaning Lib dem, but Labour are stronger here. Both are, however, miles behind the conservatives and UKIP, so my vote won't really matter, but by god I'll be out there voting, because it used to be Labour around here, and there's no guaranteeing that Brexit Boston will stay that way forever.
However, I do encourage all UKIP supporters on here who say they can't be arsed to waste their time voting to carry on staying at home. That would be super thanks.
BBC And ITV To Defy Theresa May And Hold General Election 2017 TV Debates Anyway
Two of Britain’s biggest broadcasters are set to defy Theresa May’s threat to boycott a TV election debate - by going ahead with them anyway.
ITV confirmed it would hold a televised leaders debate, as it did at the last two general elections, while the BBC said it would refuse to let the government stop it producing a programme in the public interest.
May had ruled out appearing in TV debates popularised by her predecessor, David Cameron, after announcing a snap election yesterday.
“We won’t be doing television debates,” she said on Wednesday. “I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters.”
But Jeremy Corbyn has already ridiculed the PM for refusing to take part, saying it was “what democracy needs and the British people deserve”.
While Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron accused May of running “scared”, adding: “The British people deserve to hear party leaders set out their plans and debate them publicly.”
May has even faced calls from some of her own MPs to debate Corbyn and other party leaders in the format that has been a custom since 2010.
Despite her refusal, the BBC’s Head of Newsgathering, Jonathan Munro, told the Telegraph that he had “heard what the Prime Minister has said” but did “not want to get in a position where any party leader stops us doing a programme that we think is in the public interest”.
Munro said: “There is a proven track record over two elections and two referendums that debates reach huge audiences including a lot of young people who don’t watch conventional political coverage in great numbers.
”In 2010 and 2015 the number of young and first time voters going to the polls was up on previous elections.
“We believe there was a relationship between that and the audience the debates pulled in. It helps engagement with hard to reach audiences.”
ITV, another of the broadcasters who held debates in 2010 and 2015, also confirmed plans were already in place for a repeat programme this year.
“ITV will hold a Leaders’ debate as we did in 2010 and 2015,” a spokesperson for the channel said.
“We will announce more details in due course.”
The first time party leaders clashed in live TV debates was 2010, when David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg sparred.
They were repeated in 2015, when Ed Miliband replaced Brown. 7 million people watched the programme
We won’t be doing television debates,” she said on Wednesday. “I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters.”
In other words "I don't want to have to answer difficult questions, only talk to people who will agree with me mixed in with the odd scream of Tory hating that let's us complain about the lefty loons"
If the Torys do gain more of a majority I truly worry for the UK. The Torys have gone back to their old ways of being anti public services and a bizarre belief that private is always better and full of voters who believe the only poor people are poor because they want to be or have not tried hard enough. Unfortunately I fear that is the way we are going because Corbyn is a complete idiot, with no idea about politics and the Lib Dems are still being attacked for being a very minority party to the coalition when the Torys increased tuition fees. I respect Corbyn for holding on to his values and beliefs in fairness and equality, but he is very naive and much more suited to student union politics.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I am not very interested in the debates. Like a lot of voters I am rather politicked out at the moment.
Between Brexit, Trump, the Turkish referendum and the sadly strong showing of Le Pen in France, it seems that the forces of reaction and petty nationalism are strong. Very dismal times.
I can't see any outcome from this general election that will not be very unpalatable to me.
Thank you for summing up my feelings precisely! It's really beginning to feel like someone went back in time and stepped on a bug, because I do not remember the world being this way.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I am not very interested in the debates. Like a lot of voters I am rather politicked out at the moment.
Between Brexit, Trump, the Turkish referendum and the sadly strong showing of Le Pen in France, it seems that the forces of reaction and petty nationalism are strong. Very dismal times.
I can't see any outcome from this general election that will not be very unpalatable to me.
Thank you for summing up my feelings precisely! It's really beginning to feel like someone went back in time and stepped on a bug, because I do not remember the world being this way.
Unfortunately, this is not the time to take a back seat because of tiredness of petty nationalism that is growing. If many of us do this then the only group that wins are the petty nationalists as they will spout a lot of nonsense (that is easy to create) that on 'face value' panders to peoples bias but doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. It is up to us to argue against such nonsense so the more rational side of the debate can be heard. If too many liberal people become tired of the process then you will only 'wake up' in five/ten years to realise that the petty nationalism has taken such a stranglehold of things that moving back towards liberalism will take a long time.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I am not very interested in the debates. Like a lot of voters I am rather politicked out at the moment.
Between Brexit, Trump, the Turkish referendum and the sadly strong showing of Le Pen in France, it seems that the forces of reaction and petty nationalism are strong. Very dismal times.
I can't see any outcome from this general election that will not be very unpalatable to me.
Thank you for summing up my feelings precisely! It's really beginning to feel like someone went back in time and stepped on a bug, because I do not remember the world being this way.
Unfortunately, this is not the time to take a back seat because of tiredness of petty nationalism that is growing. If many of us do this then the only group that wins are the petty nationalists as they will spout a lot of nonsense (that is easy to create) that on 'face value' panders to peoples bias but doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. It is up to us to argue against such nonsense so the more rational side of the debate can be heard. If too many liberal people become tired of the process then you will only 'wake up' in five/ten years to realise that the petty nationalism has taken such a stranglehold of things that moving back towards liberalism will take a long time.
DON'T VOTE FOR THE LYING TORIES AND DARTH MAY!
I feel the opposite way at the moment - the only way the world is going to see what these people are capable of when given power, is to give them power, let the nationalism flow, and in 20 years, if anyone is left, restart the cycle. Sadly we seem completely incapable of looking back to the last time the flag wavers held sway. We are a very, very stupid race.
Don't worry Whirlwind, I'll be out and voting and putting my views to those around me, it's just the endless cycle of partisan politics is getting very tiresome.
I feel the opposite way at the moment - the only way the world is going to see what these people are capable of when given power, is to give them power, let the nationalism flow, and in 20 years, if anyone is left, restart the cycle. Sadly we seem completely incapable of looking back to the last time the flag wavers held sway. We are a very, very stupid race.
Except in the worst case scenario the nationalists get hold of power and then entrench it and either condemn or out right ban liberalism or speech that doesn't conform. In the past we did not have the technology to really mess things up, but now we do - even if thins don't end in a calamitous war we may find that the environment has so been crewed over that it will have a long term negative impact on the human race. For example if nationalism takes off and fossil fuels are used more and more extensively (like Trump wants) again then the oceans will rise significantly, the centre of continents will heat up more and become more barren and we will be exposed to more extreme weather. That will place more pressures on governments as resources like food and fresh water dwindle, migration increases and for anyone that has studied the interactions of animals, lack of resources inevitably leads to conflict and humans are still animals (just ones that know how to kill each other quicker) .
In such a case the 'Star Trek scenario' might be the best we can hope but there are a lot of other options.
I feel the opposite way at the moment - the only way the world is going to see what these people are capable of when given power, is to give them power, let the nationalism flow, and in 20 years, if anyone is left, restart the cycle. Sadly we seem completely incapable of looking back to the last time the flag wavers held sway. We are a very, very stupid race.
Except in the worst case scenario the nationalists get hold of power and then entrench it and either condemn or out right ban liberalism or speech that doesn't conform. In the past we did not have the technology to really mess things up, but now we do - even if thins don't end in a calamitous war we may find that the environment has so been crewed over that it will have a long term negative impact on the human race. For example if nationalism takes off and fossil fuels are used more and more extensively (like Trump wants) again then the oceans will rise significantly, the centre of continents will heat up more and become more barren and we will be exposed to more extreme weather. That will place more pressures on governments as resources like food and fresh water dwindle, migration increases and for anyone that has studied the interactions of animals, lack of resources inevitably leads to conflict and humans are still animals (just ones that know how to kill each other quicker) .
In such a case the 'Star Trek scenario' might be the best we can hope but there are a lot of other options.
DON'T VOTE FOR THE LYING TORIES AND DARTH MAY!
I absolutely agree, it's why I said 'if anyone is left'. Even the 'Star Trek' scenario relies on lessons actually being learned, at some point. But the right have now clearly identified that the people they have been exploiting to make themselves rich are now so poorly informed that they can be led to just about any opinion with a flag waved in front of them.
I will, for my part, be voting for my current MP, Tim Farron. But just to take him as an example, the OUTRAGE in the papers yesterday at his stance on homosexuality (not least in one paper that recently attacked a judge for being 'openly gay', I won't bother naming it), is exactly what every non-Tory is now up against. No discussion of policy, just play the man, shout a lot, it works. 5 years of coalition and we shot the monkey, gave the organ grinder a free hand, and here we are. Like I said, stupid.
I understand why people are probably bored at me for banging this drum, and you're probably rolling your eyes again already
but it should be crystal clear to everybody that once again, the Conservative party has put THEIR interests before the nation.
It is clear to anybody that the hard Brexit cabal, the flat earthers sitting on the backbenches, who want no deal with the EU, and want to crash out on WTO terms, are causing trouble for another Tory leader, and May, mindful of what happened to Major and Cameron, feels she needs a bigger majority to put these backbenchers in their place.
I swear to God, for as long as I've been on God's Earth, the trouble these have caused, and the damage they have done to this nation cannot be measured...
And Corbyn? The quicker this clueless wretch is swept away the better for the country.
He's just ruled out a deal with the SNP.
That worked well for Ed Miliband, didn't it?
We're caught between a geography teacher out of his depth, and a cabal of scheming Tory backbenchers who are ruthless and know exactly what they want for the UK...
God help us
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm still worried about the fate of Scotland. It would break my heart to see them leave the uk. Never take anything for granted.
At least labour are going to take a beating in this election. It's the least they deserve. I hate the Torres but I loathe Labour.
Sorry to say this, but I will vote and campaign for, the SNP.
We have a large activist base, a popular leader, we're hovering at nearly 50% of the vote, the money is there for the election, and the opposition is all over the place.
If we get at least 50 seats again, then indy ref 2 is on.
"Petty nationalists to the left of me, self-righteous pseudo-liberals to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.....And I'm wonderin' what it is I should do..."
Ketara wrote: "Petty nationalists to the left of me, self-righteous pseudo-liberals to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.....And I'm wonderin' what it is I should do..."
I can sympathise with people like yourself who might be fed up with politics and might be experiencing voter fatigue. If anything, I'm the one who should be suffering voter fatigue.
In the last 5 years, I've probably voted in more elections and referendums than nearly every other dakka member.
But I like politics, so I'm loving this.
I will happily make the short trip to the polling booth on May 4th for the council elections and again a few weeks later in June 8th.
On a serious note, you and other English, Welsh, and NI dakka members have my sympathy - because I know a lot of people in the rest of the UK are struggling to decide who to vote for. especially if you're pro-EU.
I know that not everybody here supports indy Scotland. Fair enough, but I least I know the cause I support, the party I support is united and heading in the same direction, and I have no decisions to make on who to vote for.
I suspect a lot of people in the rest of the UK wish they had that clarity for June 8th.
Which is nuts, because that's an easy 55+ seats who'll side with anything that's not Tory, and as far as I can tell about the only route to get them out.
I don't begrudge you for going SNP. If you leave though you will be missed.
Northern Ireland's not out of the woodwork either. One consolation if we leave will be getting to watch all the scrounging low lives around here trying to cope without the NHS, housing executive, DLA etc.
I absolutely agree, it's why I said 'if anyone is left'. Even the 'Star Trek' scenario relies on lessons actually being learned, at some point. But the right have now clearly identified that the people they have been exploiting to make themselves rich are now so poorly informed that they can be led to just about any opinion with a flag waved in front of them.
I will, for my part, be voting for my current MP, Tim Farron. But just to take him as an example, the OUTRAGE in the papers yesterday at his stance on homosexuality (not least in one paper that recently attacked a judge for being 'openly gay', I won't bother naming it), is exactly what every non-Tory is now up against. No discussion of policy, just play the man, shout a lot, it works. 5 years of coalition and we shot the monkey, gave the organ grinder a free hand, and here we are. Like I said, stupid.
It shows in part where the papers think the risk might lie with the GE and trying to turn anyone that is more liberal than far left or far right of UK politics. I think he could see they were trying to entrap him with questioning. I think I would have answered by saying that it isn't my decision and would be "god's" decision and judgement so why ask unless the papers are making a judgement on behalf of god (or in the Daily Fail and Scums case the devil)?
I don't begrudge you for going SNP. If you leave though you will be missed.
If Scotland leaves, then rUK are pretty much condemned to Tory rule (which is unfortunate, but that's how rUK votes). At least you have the potential to get out as well
I absolutely agree, it's why I said 'if anyone is left'. Even the 'Star Trek' scenario relies on lessons actually being learned, at some point. But the right have now clearly identified that the people they have been exploiting to make themselves rich are now so poorly informed that they can be led to just about any opinion with a flag waved in front of them.
I will, for my part, be voting for my current MP, Tim Farron. But just to take him as an example, the OUTRAGE in the papers yesterday at his stance on homosexuality (not least in one paper that recently attacked a judge for being 'openly gay', I won't bother naming it), is exactly what every non-Tory is now up against. No discussion of policy, just play the man, shout a lot, it works. 5 years of coalition and we shot the monkey, gave the organ grinder a free hand, and here we are. Like I said, stupid.
It shows in part where the papers think the risk might lie with the GE and trying to turn anyone that is more liberal than far left or far right of UK politics. I think he could see they were trying to entrap him with questioning. I think I would have answered by saying that it isn't my decision and would be "god's" decision and judgement so why ask unless the papers are making a judgement on behalf of god (or in the Daily Fail and Scums case the devil)?
This had been ticking through my mind. The only way Labour gets in is with a coalition with SNP. That almost certainly means a break up of the union. That's not a strong platform for an English party to run on - especially as the break up of the union almost grantees what's left will be Tory dominated for generations.
The only way it works for Labour is to say they won't form a coalition, hope that the Tories don't get enough seats for a majority, Labour then does form a coalition on the proviso that proportional representation comes into effect. The union still ends up broken but it prevents the Tories having a stranglehold on England.
This had been ticking through my mind. The only way Labour gets in is with a coalition with SNP. That almost certainly means a break up of the union. That's not a strong platform for an English party to run on - especially as the break up of the union almost grantees what's left will be Tory dominated for generations.
The only way it works for Labour is to say they won't form a coalition, hope that the Tories don't get enough seats for a majority, Labour then does form a coalition on the proviso that proportional representation comes into effect. The union still ends up broken but it prevents the Tories having a stranglehold on England.
I'm just going to point out that Labour is not an English party, they are a national party. Yes there is a Scottish (and Welsh) Labour that run at the local government level, but they have to look at it at from the level of the whole country. Ruling out a coalition with the SNP is on the same level as ruling out a coalition with the Lib Dems.
I don't begrudge you for going SNP. If you leave though you will be missed.
If Scotland leaves, then rUK are pretty much condemned to Tory rule (which is unfortunate, but that's how rUK votes). At least you have the potential to get out as well
Ubran myth
Every Labour Government would' still have been in power with or without their Scottish seats.
I'm still interested to see what happens North of the Border. The Tories can largely forget it - but if Sturgeon has pushed too far with the second IndyRef, Labour could make gains.
Probably, though I can vary it up a bit if you want. How about
DON'T VOTE FOR THE LYING TORIES - THEY ARE AS COWARDLY AS GROTS AND AS STUPID AS TROLLS
It's kind of annoying, guv. If you want a specific piece of text/image at the end of every one of your posts though, the correct place to put it would be in your signature. Saves copying and pasting every time.
Ketara wrote: "Petty nationalists to the left of me, self-righteous pseudo-liberals to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.....And I'm wonderin' what it is I should do..."
I can sympathise with people like yourself who might be fed up with politics and might be experiencing voter fatigue. If anything, I'm the one who should be suffering voter fatigue.
In the last 5 years, I've probably voted in more elections and referendums than nearly every other dakka member.
But I like politics, so I'm loving this.
I approach my politics in the same way I do my philosophy; with the acceptance of the absurd.
He was cheerleading the IRA when they were still killing people on a large scale whilst claiming to be a man of peace. He took money to be on Iranian state T.V (that country that hangs gay people for being gay), and he also described Bin Laden's death as a tragedy, among other things. If it's anti-west he'll back it, no matter how repugnant it is.
Future War Cultist wrote: He was cheerleading the IRA when they were still killing people on a large scale whilst claiming to be a man of peace. He took money to be on Iranian state T.V (that country that hangs gay people for being gay), and he also described Bin Laden's death as a tragedy, among other things. If it's anti-west he'll back it, no matter how repugnant it is.
He's a scumbag.
Oh and retracted but said negoiate with Islamic State...
There is only victory or death with them.
My biggest regret is not being able to vote in a police and crime commisioner election. What English and Welsh dakka members have against these commisioners...I'll never know
I think they're a good idea in theory, just badly executed.
Future War Cultist wrote: He was cheerleading the IRA when they were still killing people on a large scale whilst claiming to be a man of peace. He took money to be on Iranian state T.V (that country that hangs gay people for being gay), and he also described Bin Laden's death as a tragedy, among other things. If it's anti-west he'll back it, no matter how repugnant it is.
He's a scumbag.
Oh and retracted but said negoiate with Islamic State...
There is only victory or death with them.
That too. What is there to negotiate with them?
And the anti-semitism in his party and his whitewashing of it. No, he's a scumbag.
I'm just going to go ahead and put you on my ignore list, because I'm not reading that everytime I look in here.
You will though everytime I get quoted...and really if you want to do that why are you actually bothered to look in a UK politics forum in the first place unless you just want to be in an echo chamber!
Probably, though I can vary it up a bit if you want. How about
DON'T VOTE FOR THE LYING TORIES - THEY ARE AS COWARDLY AS GROTS AND AS STUPID AS TROLLS
It's kind of annoying, guv. If you want a specific piece of text/image at the end of every one of your posts though, the correct place to put it would be in your signature. Saves copying and pasting every time.
Nah, that's just being lazy, I'm passionate enough about the issue that I want to write it each and everytime....
Future War Cultist wrote: He was cheerleading the IRA when they were still killing people on a large scale whilst claiming to be a man of peace. He took money to be on Iranian state T.V (that country that hangs gay people for being gay), and he also described Bin Laden's death as a tragedy, among other things. If it's anti-west he'll back it, no matter how repugnant it is.
He's a scumbag.
Oh and retracted but said negoiate with Islamic State...
There is only victory or death with them.
That too. What is there to negotiate with them?
And the anti-semitism in his party and his whitewashing of it. No, he's a scumbag.
I know.
Ken Livingston should just shut up as he only making the hole worse.
Stay out the campaign. Corbyn has ernough issues.
Thinking about the SNP a bit more, while I'm not Scottish and have no say in UK voting, and think Scotland leaving the UK is as daft as Brexit is, if I were the SNP, I'd be going for broke on this election if Scottish Independence is the true ultimate goal.
If I were Sturgeon and Independence was truly the central ultimate goal, and there is a chance of the SNP losing its current station, I'd be telling my people that the SNP is going to own this election (as much as they can), that the SNP is going to either seize it through overwhelming force or die trying. Tell everyone they're working 80+ hour weeks until the election. Empty the coffers, leverage or liquidate every party asset and call in every favor in the bank. Burn all the rocket fuel the party has. Drive up the cost of competition to the point where your opposition thinks you have gone completely bonkers and winces at the mere thought of the resources they would have to expend to compete. Make the other parties think about future elections while you crush this one.
Because the SNP has been given a once in a lifetime second chance with some real potential impetus and standing that a UK out of the EU, a decision made mostly by England and opposed by most voters in Scotland, was not what was promised in the referrendum, a Westminster government thats not terribly interested in devolution and a UKPM who may get "empty chaired" in televised debates, and they can ride that to the polls, to another Indyref and to actual independence. They have a platform, a cause, and momentum, and it must be seized on now.
If they fail, then the Scottish Independence idea is dead for the next hundred years either way (barring some other major unforseen upheaval that cannot be adequately planned for), if they couldnt manage it between 2014 and this event...they never will.
Now I'd rather set my testicles on fire that vote Tory again, and usually agree with you, but if you're going to do that in every post gor the next 2 months I'm going to block you until after the election. People are going to stop taking you seriously.
If he was head 30 years ago, or this was the Labour party of 30 years ago. I reckon he would be much more well received.
You've forgotten, or possibly you are too young to remember, how shambolic Labour was under Michael Foot.
I believe he was a man of great principles, but the drubbing he got at the hands of the Tory press, plus the hangover from the attempted Spartacist takeover of the party in late 70s to early 80s, meant he never had a chance.
Corbyn would have been well received and just as disastrous. It will be interesting to see how he does this time around.
Just been checking the results for my own constituency, Henley-on-Thames. To be blunt, unless you plan to vote Tory, there isn't really any point in going to the polls. In fact, it might make more of a strategic long term difference if everyone who wants to vote for the Liberals, Labour or Greens, either refused to vote or spoiled their ballot.
I guess I do live on one of the battleground areas then. Makes me wonder if the UK has the same "swing state" problem the US has but on a smaller scale...
If he was head 30 years ago, or this was the Labour party of 30 years ago. I reckon he would be much more well received.
You've forgotten, or possibly you are too young to remember, how shambolic Labour was under Michael Foot.
I believe he was a man of great principles, but the drubbing he got at the hands of the Tory press, plus the hangover from the attempted Spartacist takeover of the party in late 70s to early 80s, meant he never had a chance.
Corbyn would have been well received and just as disastrous. It will be interesting to see how he does this time around.
Just been checking the results for my own constituency, Henley-on-Thames. To be blunt, unless you plan to vote Tory, there isn't really any point in going to the polls. In fact, it might make more of a strategic long term difference if everyone who wants to vote for the Liberals, Labour or Greens, either refused to vote or spoiled their ballot.
Similarly I live in Boston, and voted Tory to keep UKIP out last time, plus the Conservative candidate was a Remainer, and also not a bad chap, who works pretty hard for the constituency.
However, this time I'm not voting for him, but am voting either Labour or Lib Dem, to make sure that I add my voice of dissent to another 5 years of tory governance and a bad Brexit. I've told Matt why I won't be voting for him, and I've made inquiries about the Labour and Lib Dem candidates. It used to be Labour around here, nothing is forever.
Vote for anyone but the Tories and UKIP, it shows the opposition parties that they have some support and should start campaigning to win.
If he was head 30 years ago, or this was the Labour party of 30 years ago. I reckon he would be much more well received.
You've forgotten, or possibly you are too young to remember, how shambolic Labour was under Michael Foot.
I believe he was a man of great principles, but the drubbing he got at the hands of the Tory press, plus the hangover from the attempted Spartacist takeover of the party in late 70s to early 80s, meant he never had a chance.
Corbyn would have been well received and just as disastrous. It will be interesting to see how he does this time around.
Just been checking the results for my own constituency, Henley-on-Thames. To be blunt, unless you plan to vote Tory, there isn't really any point in going to the polls. In fact, it might make more of a strategic long term difference if everyone who wants to vote for the Liberals, Labour or Greens, either refused to vote or spoiled their ballot.
Similarly I live in Boston, and voted Tory to keep UKIP out last time, plus the Conservative candidate was a Remainer, and also not a bad chap, who works pretty hard for the constituency.
However, this time I'm not voting for him, but am voting either Labour or Lib Dem, to make sure that I add my voice of dissent to another 5 years of tory governance and a bad Brexit. I've told Matt why I won't be voting for him, and I've made inquiries about the Labour and Lib Dem candidates. It used to be Labour around here, nothing is forever.
Vote for anyone but the Tories and UKIP, it shows the opposition parties that they have some support and should start campaigning to win.
Though sometimes the voting is for a candidate on local reasons.
Not always party reasoning but maybe they are a good local mp. Its more than just natinal issues.
If he was head 30 years ago, or this was the Labour party of 30 years ago. I reckon he would be much more well received.
You've forgotten, or possibly you are too young to remember, how shambolic Labour was under Michael Foot.
I believe he was a man of great principles, but the drubbing he got at the hands of the Tory press, plus the hangover from the attempted Spartacist takeover of the party in late 70s to early 80s, meant he never had a chance.
Corbyn would have been well received and just as disastrous. It will be interesting to see how he does this time around.
Just been checking the results for my own constituency, Henley-on-Thames. To be blunt, unless you plan to vote Tory, there isn't really any point in going to the polls. In fact, it might make more of a strategic long term difference if everyone who wants to vote for the Liberals, Labour or Greens, either refused to vote or spoiled their ballot.
Of course I'm too young. I'm only 25! My earliest political memories was the Blair Era.
If he was head 30 years ago, or this was the Labour party of 30 years ago. I reckon he would be much more well received.
You've forgotten, or possibly you are too young to remember, how shambolic Labour was under Michael Foot.
I believe he was a man of great principles, but the drubbing he got at the hands of the Tory press, plus the hangover from the attempted Spartacist takeover of the party in late 70s to early 80s, meant he never had a chance.
Corbyn would have been well received and just as disastrous. It will be interesting to see how he does this time around.
Just been checking the results for my own constituency, Henley-on-Thames. To be blunt, unless you plan to vote Tory, there isn't really any point in going to the polls. In fact, it might make more of a strategic long term difference if everyone who wants to vote for the Liberals, Labour or Greens, either refused to vote or spoiled their ballot.
How did the area vote in the EU referendum. If it was a strong pro-EU area there is the possibility that it might swing dramatically especially if May keeps heading down the same disastrous route for the UK.
Alternatively have you got a relative you can go and live with for a few months in a swing area and register there?
And this election is getting even more bizarre as people are now funding a tactical voting drive...
If he was head 30 years ago, or this was the Labour party of 30 years ago. I reckon he would be much more well received.
You've forgotten, or possibly you are too young to remember, how shambolic Labour was under Michael Foot.
I believe he was a man of great principles, but the drubbing he got at the hands of the Tory press, plus the hangover from the attempted Spartacist takeover of the party in late 70s to early 80s, meant he never had a chance.
Corbyn would have been well received and just as disastrous. It will be interesting to see how he does this time around.
Just been checking the results for my own constituency, Henley-on-Thames. To be blunt, unless you plan to vote Tory, there isn't really any point in going to the polls. In fact, it might make more of a strategic long term difference if everyone who wants to vote for the Liberals, Labour or Greens, either refused to vote or spoiled their ballot.
How did the area vote in the EU referendum. If it was a strong pro-EU area there is the possibility that it might swing dramatically especially if May keeps heading down the same disastrous route for the UK.
Alternatively have you got a relative you can go and live with for a few months in a swing area and register there?
And this election is getting even more bizarre as people are now funding a tactical voting drive...
I'm just going to go ahead and put you on my ignore list, because I'm not reading that everytime I look in here.
I did it a week ago, his posts are frankly getting more and more puerile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Of course I'm too young. I'm only 25! My earliest political memories was the Blair Era.
Me too.
Blair is the reason why I will never consider voting for Labour again until every last Blairite that held a position of power under his government (i.e. Ministers) has been purged from the party. And to that end, I'm cheering Corbyn on.
I will never forgive Blair for his war crimes and lies about Iraq and the damage he did to that country and our own.
If he was head 30 years ago, or this was the Labour party of 30 years ago. I reckon he would be much more well received.
You've forgotten, or possibly you are too young to remember, how shambolic Labour was under Michael Foot.
I believe he was a man of great principles, but the drubbing he got at the hands of the Tory press, plus the hangover from the attempted Spartacist takeover of the party in late 70s to early 80s, meant he never had a chance.
Corbyn would have been well received and just as disastrous. It will be interesting to see how he does this time around.
Just been checking the results for my own constituency, Henley-on-Thames. To be blunt, unless you plan to vote Tory, there isn't really any point in going to the polls. In fact, it might make more of a strategic long term difference if everyone who wants to vote for the Liberals, Labour or Greens, either refused to vote or spoiled their ballot.
How did the area vote in the EU referendum. If it was a strong pro-EU area there is the possibility that it might swing dramatically especially if May keeps heading down the same disastrous route for the UK.
Alternatively have you got a relative you can go and live with for a few months in a swing area and register there?
And this election is getting even more bizarre as people are now funding a tactical voting drive...
I'm not even sure if MPs could take that money even if they wanted to...
There's pretty strict rules on campaign spends.
I'm not sure it's meant to be for MPs though. Reading it's going to promote people to vote for 'not the Tories' to ensure that there is a more balanced parliament (i.e. hung or only just favouring one side or another) to avoid them being able to railroad anything through they want and really damage the country in the process.
I'm just going to go ahead and put you on my ignore list, because I'm not reading that everytime I look in here.
I did it a week ago, his posts are frankly getting more and more puerile.
You mean you don't want to hear the other arguments and are quite happy in the world you have surrounded yourself and not brokering any change to this...
welshhoppo wrote: Of course I'm too young. I'm only 25! My earliest political memories was the Blair Era.
Me too.
Blair is the reason why I will never consider voting for Labour again until every last Blairite that held a position of power under his government (i.e. Ministers) has been purged from the party. And to that end, I'm cheering Corbyn on.
I will never forgive Blair for his war crimes and lies about Iraq and the damage he did to that country and our own.
Then you were fortunate never having to see the poll tax riots and what happens when the Tories really do get out of hand. Blair by comparison was relatively mild. The mistake everyone pulls him up on is the bad information on weapons of mass destruction (which were based on one persons account). On the other hand if he had come out and said that Saddam is butchering his own people and gassing whole towns then I think people might be a bit more forgiving. We all condemn Hitler for doing the same thing, but when it came to Saddam who was doing the same thing we were happy to stick our heads in the sand and not do anything.
If you're addressing me Whirlwind, I'm sorry but I just can't be arsed. I've just finished a back shift in a warehouse and theres only so many copy & pasted rants I can read before I lose interest in whatever a person has to say.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If you're addressing me Whirlwind, I'm sorry but I just can't be arsed. I've just finished a back shift in a warehouse and theres only so many copy & pasted rants I can read before I lose interest in whatever a person has to say.
Good night everyo...
Rest assured there are no copy and paste rants. But still have a good night. I'm just about to start work for the evening!
I'm not sure how I'll vote, really. A Labour vote here is wasted, as they've never had more than 25% of the vote and that was in 1950 when the constituency was formed. In more recent history--the past 20 odd years--their highest was 16.3% back in '15, and 9.4% in '10. Before then it was 14% in 2001, 8.8% in 2005, and 4.6% in a 2005 by-election.
It's always been between the Tories and Lib Dems, and looking at the voting histories of both the candidates we've got, they're both arseholes.
I'm not really in favour of putting myself behind either of them, and I don't trust Tim Farron as far as I could throw him, but I'm not fond of Tory governance currently, either.
I might have to grit my teeth and throw my lot in with the Lib Dems, even though their candidate here dislikes people on welfare and young people just as much as the current Tories seem to. At least it's just one man and not an entire party.
Avatar 720 wrote: I'm not sure how I'll vote, really. A Labour vote here is wasted, as they've never had more than 25% of the vote and that was in 1950 when the constituency was formed. In more recent history--the past 20 odd years--their highest was 16.3% back in '15, and 9.4% in '10. Before then it was 14% in 2001, 8.8% in 2005, and 4.6% in a 2005 by-election.
It's always been between the Tories and Lib Dems, and looking at the voting histories of both the candidates we've got, they're both arseholes.
I'm not really in favour of putting myself behind either of them, and I don't trust Tim Farron as far as I could throw him, but I'm not fond of Tory governance currently, either.
I might have to grit my teeth and throw my lot in with the Lib Dems, even though their candidate here dislikes people on welfare and young people just as much as the current Tories seem to. At least it's just one man and not an entire party.
The question you have got to ask yourself is what you want from your government. There is a significant risk given how weak Labour are that the Tories could get such a significant advantage in numbers that they will be able to railroad anything through. That might be your preference depending on whether you see that as a strong government. Personally I think that a government that has a huge majority is not good for the country whether that be Tories/Labour/LDs/Greens etc because I think that stifles debate and challenge on issues. A huge majority just ends up (even if they don't start that way) with a government that feels invulnerable and only favours what it wants to, regardless of whether the 60% of the population that didn't vote for them disagrees (because we don't have proportional representation).
So in this election I think you have a choice between a significant majority government and possibility of a minority government and then vote accordingly. It doesn't make you be part of a party you don't like/trust. If we had full PR, that's been debated several times, you wouldn't be limited in this way - but we have FPTP therefore that is what we have to live with.
1 - It's about as likely to have any substantive effect on anything as the Lottery ticket I occasionally buy
2 - The amount of money she will raise will not be enough to get anywhere, Dacre and Desmond probably spent £200K between them on people to go through her bins and interview ex lovers
But she's trying, and it has been a very, very weird year of politics.
1 - It's about as likely to have any substantive effect on anything as the Lottery ticket I occasionally buy
2 - The amount of money she will raise will not be enough to get anywhere, Dacre and Desmond probably spent £200K between them on people to go through her bins and interview ex lovers
But she's trying, and it has been a very, very weird year of politics.
Even if its only used in 100 marginals. That's down to 2k a area. It won,t gp far.
Sah you went to only 20... 10. Then you might start changing things.
1 - It's about as likely to have any substantive effect on anything as the Lottery ticket I occasionally buy
2 - The amount of money she will raise will not be enough to get anywhere, Dacre and Desmond probably spent £200K between them on people to go through her bins and interview ex lovers
But she's trying, and it has been a very, very weird year of politics.
Even if its only used in 100 marginals. That's down to 2k a area. It won,t gp far.
Sah you went to only 20... 10. Then you might start changing things.
Indeed, possibly even just 3 or 4. Anything that reduces Cruella Devilles majority would be a bonus though, so I'll have a punt.
I'm just going to go ahead and put you on my ignore list, because I'm not reading that everytime I look in here.
I did it a week ago, his posts are frankly getting more and more puerile.
You mean you don't want to hear the other arguments and are quite happy in the world you have surrounded yourself and not brokering any change to this...
welshhoppo wrote: Of course I'm too young. I'm only 25! My earliest political memories was the Blair Era.
Me too.
Blair is the reason why I will never consider voting for Labour again until every last Blairite that held a position of power under his government (i.e. Ministers) has been purged from the party. And to that end, I'm cheering Corbyn on.
I will never forgive Blair for his war crimes and lies about Iraq and the damage he did to that country and our own.
Then you were fortunate never having to see the poll tax riots and what happens when the Tories really do get out of hand. Blair by comparison was relatively mild. The mistake everyone pulls him up on is the bad information on weapons of mass destruction (which were based on one persons account). On the other hand if he had come out and said that Saddam is butchering his own people and gassing whole towns then I think people might be a bit more forgiving. We all condemn Hitler for doing the same thing, but when it came to Saddam who was doing the same thing we were happy to stick our heads in the sand and not do anything.
Nope, the Poll tax riots didn't affect my family (because we were poor in the 1980s to the mid 1990s) so all I have to go on is Blair and what he did.
Also, everyone knows that we only went into Iraq and that whole mess because Blair was loving following America around and shoving fingers into pies which ended up giving everyone herpes.
It would be an entirely different world if we hadn't bothered Iraq and messed up the whole balance of power. Blair may be gone (or is he) but his actions have had such a large effect that we will be feeling them for decades.
I'm just going to go ahead and put you on my ignore list, because I'm not reading that everytime I look in here.
I did it a week ago, his posts are frankly getting more and more puerile.
You mean you don't want to hear the other arguments and are quite happy in the world you have surrounded yourself and not brokering any change to this...
No. Don't flatter yourself. Its because you keep copy and pasting the same childish rants in every post. Ketara's already called you out on it.
Note that I haven't put Kilkrazy or Herzlos or Vaktathi or Do I Not Like That on ignore, because they aren't posting childish copy-pasted rants in every post. I listen to their opinions, as much as I might disagree with them. You however are just becoming obnoxious and a waste of time engaging with.
And no, I haven't taken you off my ignore list, I'm only responding to this because I saw it quoted. I'll take you off and start reading your posts again when you stop copy pasting.
They are, but Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence to trigger a General Election - just as constituents can recall their MP forcing a local by-election.
For the General Election to be trigged, 2/3rds of the house must vote in favour of it - which typically prevents The Official Opposition from just trying it every five minutes.
A By-Election can also be trigged by the death of the incumbent (it doesn't just pass to his party successor), quitting entirely, or swapping Parties (but not, as we found out via Dougal Carswell if they leave their party to become an Independent MP)
So if the majority party controls, do they ever have to have an election? And is there regular elections for the parliament members?
Do parliament members ever vote against their party's stance? In the US the party members can be counted on to vote for whatever the party says at any given time now. Is it the same in your system?
It's not exactly standard, and in fact our previous government brought in a Fixed Term Parliament act meant to ensure elections occur regularly every 5 years. However, the PM has called this election (with the support of the majority of MPs) on the grounds that it will provide her a stronger position for Brexit negotiations with Europe. Theresa May became head of the Conservative Party after David Cameron stepped down, so technically hasn't 'won' an election (not that she needs to; In the UK we elect parties, the head of the elected party is PM).
As for why, the cynical approach is that a) the Labour party are not in a good place at the moment, an election now could potentially kick them while they are down, b) May has a tenuous majority in parliament, getting more seats (which is rather likely) secures the Conservative's position and basically gives them free reign for the next 5 years and c) the next election was scheduled for 2020, just after Brexit would be coming into effect. If that went badly, the Conservatives would suffer in that election, now they have a chance to 'fix' any fallout before another election which will now be in 2022.
Frazzled wrote: So if the majority party controls, do they ever have to have an election? And is there regular elections for the parliament members?
As mentioned, usually elections are every 5 years unless, as is happening now, they're triggered earlier. These are general elections where each constituency elects an MP, the party with the most MPs elected becomes the government and the head of that party becomes the PM. It's not like the US where you elect the president and the house separately, it's all done in one go here.
Do parliament members ever vote against their party's stance? In the US the party members can be counted on to vote for whatever the party says at any given time now. Is it the same in your system?
It can happen, party leaders can 'force' their members to vote a certain way with the whip system but there's nothing stopping them from voting against the party, and it does happen on occasion over particularly divisive issues.
Yeah we use 'whips' in the parties to force them to do things. They can either be no whips, 1 line whips, 2 line or 3 line whips. The more lines the more the leader (and so theoretically the party) want you to vote. But you don't have to vote that way. May may put out a 3 line whip, but some Tories may rebel and vote the other way.
Now May only has a majority of about 15 because a few of the Irish MPs don't turn up on principle. So a few rebels can cause a vote to fail.
But if she gets a majority of 100 MPs. You'd need a huge rebel alliance to bring down the Empire.
But ours also got stuff done, and voted with the area on Brexit.
He after years of complaints got several speed limits changed and saved lives.
So party may not always be good but there's local issues to vote on to.
This is falsifiable thinking. You are making the leap that because he was the MP that the speed limits were put in place and lives saved. Neither the former or the latter can be proved and is overstating someone's value. You don't know that even if Bob from the Monster Raving Looney party had been in that the same changes would have been made and the same lives saved. You are applying a cause to the effect and it is likely that the MP is only 'claiming' the ones that look good (and not the ones that just annoy everyone). These same things I think get said by all MPs all over the place (and not just Tories).
In reality speed limits are determined by the Highways Authority based on a number of internal factors (such as number of people using the road, the location of residential estates (including new ones), risk to pedestrians and so on, so there is a specific calculation behind what they do. Otherwise Highway Authorities resist changes to speed limits if there is no particular reason to apply them. You cannot say the specified MP had the changes implemented because you do not know whether these changes would have implemented regardless of which MP was in place. Therefore you are attributing this 'gain' when it can't be evidenced that it is deserved.
1 - It's about as likely to have any substantive effect on anything as the Lottery ticket I occasionally buy
2 - The amount of money she will raise will not be enough to get anywhere, Dacre and Desmond probably spent £200K between them on people to go through her bins and interview ex lovers
But she's trying, and it has been a very, very weird year of politics.
Even if its only used in 100 marginals. That's down to 2k a area. It won,t gp far.
Sah you went to only 20... 10. Then you might start changing things.
Probably not if you divide it by area, but it could for example be enough to put adverts in newspapers etc. that would raise the profile of the issue and make people more aware that these options exist (and someone has done the legwork). This could then affect more swing areas than door stepping would do for example.
Now, that's an unelected body, and some would argue undemocratic.
But when you understand what they can and can't do, they're actually a very useful check against a 'rogue' government.
Consider 1997. Labour came to power with a colossal majority - so large in fact that they could pretty much put through whatever they wanted. And as manifestos aren't legally binding, that could prove problematic if they start to misbehave.
But it still has to be passed by The House of Lords. Now, the Lords cannot stop an Act of Parliament. Ever. They don't have that power. They can however stall, and send it back to the House of Commons for further debate, and with amendments which the House of Commons aren't bound by.
So they're a useful stopcheck, but have very limited powers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for local MPs?
I live in Royal Tunbridge Wells, which is about as True Blue a constituency as you'll ever find - but one which voted Remain in the referendum.
Our MP however voted against his constituents - which I fundamentally disagree with.
However, he is active locally. He played a central role in having one of my favourite pubs declared a Community Asset - the first time such a thing has ever happened. And he's responded to me personally on a number of issues.
So whilst I can't vote for his party, I'm still of a mind that we could do a lot worse in terms of having an MP with a backbone.
No. Don't flatter yourself. Its because you keep copy and pasting the same childish rants in every post. Ketara's already called you out on it.
No flattery involved - I'm making a statement of a political nature (after all it's not like I'm calling anyone a saboteur like a well known paper is) and you don't like it for whatever reason. Ketara only noted it was annoying to put it in every post and I should put it my signature instead. You also previously noted the block happened a week ago, but seeing as I only started putting comments about the election on Tuesday evening then I must be mistaken as to how long an actual week is. Alternatively blocking is a way of not having to see something that argues against perceived wisdoms and it is easier to ignore challenges rather than face them and put forward counter arguments (unlike Ketara for example who will put forward counter arguments even if I disagree with some of them).
Frazzled wrote: So if the majority party controls, do they ever have to have an election? And is there regular elections for the parliament members?
As mentioned, usually elections are every 5 years unless, as is happening now, they're triggered earlier. These are general elections where each constituency elects an MP, the party with the most MPs elected becomes the government and the head of that party becomes the PM. It's not like the US where you elect the president and the house separately, it's all done in one go here.
But we do have local elections where Councillors are voted in my County or City so there are some restraints on what MPs can do. Though I get the point that unlike the US there is no second/third body to really challenge national decisions.
I live in Royal Tunbridge Wells, which is about as True Blue a constituency as you'll ever find - but one which voted Remain in the referendum.
Our MP however voted against his constituents - which I fundamentally disagree with.
However, he is active locally. He played a central role in having one of my favourite pubs declared a Community Asset - the first time such a thing has ever happened. And he's responded to me personally on a number of issues.
So whilst I can't vote for his party, I'm still of a mind that we could do a lot worse in terms of having an MP with a backbone.
I think this is a misunderstanding of the way our politics works. The local MP is there to act on the best interests of the voting constituency. They are not there to vote as the general populace would do so (otherwise what is the point of having an MP). If the MP believed voting to Remain was for the best of his community (or vice versa) then that is what they should do. Their failing is not going out to the community and explain why (and hence defend the EU from papers like Daily Fail and the Scum or vice versa).
Two years ago, during the 2015 GE, everybody on dakka ended up praying for death. That's how bored we were with the GE campaign.
2 years on, and I get that feeling again.
We pretty much made up our minds weeks ago on who would get our votes, so 7 more weeks of this...
I'm ready to vote now. SNP.
In saying that, aside from the car-crash that will be Corbyn's campaign
We know that May's pitch will be micro-managed from CCHQ. No debates, very few press conferences. Staged managed events, and a right-wing media falling into line behind the Tories...
I'm glad it's only 7 weeks away, because this election is going to be depressing as hell
I'm you're reading this electoral commission, just give the Tories a 100 seat majority, Labour 160 seats, throw the Lib Dems a few bones with 30 seats. A couple of seats to the Greens and PC, and give the SNP their 50 seats in Scotland. And make sure Farage is humiliated again in Thanet.
Let's not waste good time and money on this circus...
We have this nonsense of an unwritten constitution and an unelected second chamber.
They make it up as they go along.
The USA for all its faults, has the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments. Some of the greatest legal protections in human history. I wish we in the UK had them in a constitution.
But ours also got stuff done, and voted with the area on Brexit.
He after years of complaints got several speed limits changed and saved lives.
So party may not always be good but there's local issues to vote on to.
This is falsifiable thinking. You are making the leap that because he was the MP that the speed limits were put in place and lives saved. Neither the former or the latter can be proved and is overstating someone's value. You don't know that even if Bob from the Monster Raving Looney party had been in that the same changes would have been made and the same lives saved. You are applying a cause to the effect and it is likely that the MP is only 'claiming' the ones that look good (and not the ones that just annoy everyone). These same things I think get said by all MPs all over the place (and not just Tories).
In reality speed limits are determined by the Highways Authority based on a number of internal factors (such as number of people using the road, the location of residential estates (including new ones), risk to pedestrians and so on, so there is a specific calculation behind what they do. Otherwise Highway Authorities resist changes to speed limits if there is no particular reason to apply them. You cannot say the specified MP had the changes implemented because you do not know whether these changes would have implemented regardless of which MP was in place. Therefore you are attributing this 'gain' when it can't be evidenced that it is deserved.
1 - It's about as likely to have any substantive effect on anything as the Lottery ticket I occasionally buy
2 - The amount of money she will raise will not be enough to get anywhere, Dacre and Desmond probably spent £200K between them on people to go through her bins and interview ex lovers
But she's trying, and it has been a very, very weird year of politics.
Even if its only used in 100 marginals. That's down to 2k a area. It won,t gp far.
Sah you went to only 20... 10. Then you might start changing things.
Probably not if you divide it by area, but it could for example be enough to put adverts in newspapers etc. that would raise the profile of the issue and make people more aware that these options exist (and someone has done the legwork). This could then affect more swing areas than door stepping would do for example.
Strangely you seem to be wrong on this one .
people had said for years that road was a danger, and there had been a few nasty crashes over the years and that it should be dropped from a 60 to a 50MPH
now. the last MP, nothing was done and that road remained a nat speed.
new one comes in,
people raise it. we a while later get a visit from the transport minsiter,
short time later the road is 50MPH.
without our MP raiding the issue. it might of waited for yeas.
but he brought it to the right office, and got things moving that the last one never did.
No it's not. You have every opportunity to organize a party and push for reform to remove them. Whether something is democratic or not is a really lousy measure of whether it's good or not.
No it's not. You have every opportunity to organize a party and push for reform to remove them. Whether something is democratic or not is a really lousy measure of whether it's good or not.
It has influence on laws generated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Nobody gets to elect these lords. It is undemocratic by any measure.
Just because the current parties, many of whom treat as a care home for retired MPs and dodgy donors, haven't scrapped it, doesn't give it a respectable air.
Sure the SNP have a lot of voters and a zeitgeist for independence, but at the same time they are making a pigs ear of the Scottish economy, its getting worse and 'indyref' is at least in part a smokescreen.
new one comes in,
people raise it. we a while later get a visit from the transport minsiter,
short time later the road is 50MPH.
without our MP raiding the issue. it might of waited for yeas.
but he brought it to the right office, and got things moving that the last one never did.
so... seems he did do right by his constuants.
But you are still linking a cause and effect to the MP. The Highways Authority includes crash data into its analysis as all crash information is recorded and is used to highlight hot spots etc. It takes time for the data to accumulate because it doesn't all happen on one day.
What is more likely is that:-
Developments near the road results in increased traffic; this data takes time to gather as it is not an immediate effect and they need to ensure that it's not just a statistical anomaly.
But the evidence points to that the greater traffic movements increase the risk of accidents.
This goes on the highways authority's register and their systems start flagging it as a hot spot (assuming it isn't just a statistical aberration)
This initiates a (likely internal) consultation procedure as the best method of reducing accidents on this road
At the same time people get more vocal about the issues
The new MP picks up on this
The highways authority applies the consultation result
The MP takes the glory
People mistakenly believe the MP was responsible for changing the speed limit.
You are taking two events and assuming they are linked without any appropriate evidence. It is more likely that your new MP is just more savvy than the old one in how to influence the populace because they don't fully understand the process.
For example if you state that this MP is responsible for improving this road then conversely he must also be responsible about every other accident 'hot spot' or where the speed is too high because they have done nothing about them, however these are being ignored because they are not on the radar. What happens if by changing the speed limit on this road more vehicles went used an alternative road and that caused more and greater accidents on this other road but you are just not aware of it? Does that make the MP responsible for increasing the number of accidents overall? Have you checked this isn't happening?
Always be careful about MPs or anyone else claiming they are responsible for making changes without understanding the actual process that had to be followed to implement the changes. I could easily claim that because I've moved into an area and the number of accidents have reduced then I am responsible for reducing accidents. It's a load of tosh, but it's the same linking of two non causal events.
Sure the SNP have a lot of voters and a zeitgeist for independence, but at the same time they are making a pigs ear of the Scottish economy, its getting worse and 'indyref' is at least in part a smokescreen.
Gross economic mismanagement?
We've had 300 years of Westminster doing just that, so are you calling for the end of the UK on that logic?
Frazzled wrote: Do parliament members ever vote against their party's stance? In the US the party members can be counted on to vote for whatever the party says at any given time now. Is it the same in your system?
Voting against your party is actually very common. So common that the leaders of the parties have to play a brilliant game of politics just to keep them all aligned.
In recent years Conservative ministers have defected to UKIP when they were ignored. Half of the Labour party disagree with much of their front bench. For example, even though the leader of Labour is very opposed to the renewal of our nuclear deterrent, the rest of the party is guaranteed to vote to support it.
The whole Brexit debacle was bought about because the Prime Minister at the time had to placate his rebellious back benchers (and when you've got a small majority in parliament it only takes a handful of rebels to knock the government off course). MPs that have personal issues that they feel are not being addressed can use this political leverage to make personal political gains that they would not normally get a chance to. (for more info read up on the 1922 committee, a union of Tory back benchers that attempt to influence government policy)
The whole reason for this election being called is because the current Prime Minister has a weak majority and a very rowdy set of back benchers. She needs a stronger majority to force through her policies with less of a challenge from the opposition. It's purely for internal party interests and nothing to do with benefiting the country.
It is important to be aware that this vote is being called because at least two thirds of the house supported a movement to call a general election. This is allowed by the parliamentary fixed term rules and is very different from a motion of no confidence. The last motion of no confidence to be passed in parliament was in 1979, where the motion passed by a single vote. 311 for, 310 against.
Sure the SNP have a lot of voters and a zeitgeist for independence, but at the same time they are making a pigs ear of the Scottish economy, its getting worse and 'indyref' is at least in part a smokescreen.
They do not however have full control of their finances/rules, so it would be difficult to determine how big any deficit would actually be. Remember that the UK government has given North sea oil massive tax breaks over the last 4/5 years. Hence it is unreasonable to assume that Scotland could not generate more income by a more appropriate tax method. It also produces a surplus of energy which gets shifted to England but this isn't taken into account. Scotland could easily charge England the costs for this.
If Scotland went independent then it would need to make it's own choices, but calling them financially incompetent because they don't have control of all their finances is a bit farcical. To be fair on SNP they did provide the most detailed economic assessment for indyref that we have seen for a number of years which shows a level of financial competency. Yes there are always assumptions. But compare this to the Brexiters for the referendum that produced nothing of the sort and things haven't improved since then as they still haven't got a clue (noting David Davis has admitted in parliamentary scrutiny that he hasn't even looked at the costs of a hard Brexit). SNP are therefore way more financially responsible than those we have in the Westminster government who seem to take the approach of the show "It will be all right on the night" with the laughing audience being the rest of the world.
PM May giving a campaign talk at a factory in her constituency. Workers say they're not allowed to ask questions.
Nigel Farage not running for MP. If he does, he has to resign as MEP, and would lose big chunk of MEP pension... from an institution he says he hates...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: PM May giving a campaign talk at a factory in her constituency. Workers say they're not allowed to ask questions.
Didn't you read what she said the other day
I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters
It's just no one heard he mumble under her breath "who aren't allowed to ask questions"
this really isn't democracy when the populace starts to become barred from challenging the people who are meant to represent them.
Nigel Farage not running for MP. If he does, he has to resign as MEP, and would lose big chunk of MEP pension... from an institution he says he hates...
I might despise May, but I loathe NF. He's quite happy to claim the EU is sucking the UK dry is quite happy to carry on exploiting the system for his own gain. To be fair Corbyn is just as bad at shutting out anyone that is not fanatically loyal and getting them to boo awkward questions from journalists. At least SNP/LDs/Greens don't seem to be resorting to this tactic (yet).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: PM May giving a campaign talk at a factory in her constituency. Workers say they're not allowed to ask questions.
Didn't you read what she said the other day
I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters
It's just no one heard he mumble under her breath "who aren't allowed to ask questions"
this really isn't democracy when the populace starts to become barred from challenging the people who are meant to represent them.
Nigel Farage not running for MP. If he does, he has to resign as MEP, and would lose big chunk of MEP pension... from an institution he says he hates...
I might despise May, but I loathe NF. He's quite happy to claim the EU is sucking the UK dry is quite happy to carry on exploiting the system for his own gain. To be fair Corbyn is just as bad at shutting out anyone that is not fanatically loyal and getting them to boo awkward questions from journalists. At least SNP/LDs/Greens don't seem to be resorting to this tactic (yet).
Yeah, it's a grim state of affairs, and we've got 7 more weeks of this nonsense.
And I say that as somebody who counts following politics as a hobby.
As I've said before, I often wonder how the Americans survive 2 year presidential campaigns.
I'm 2 days into a 7 week campaign, and already, I'm heading for the lifeboats.
No it's not. You have every opportunity to organize a party and push for reform to remove them. Whether something is democratic or not is a really lousy measure of whether it's good or not.
It has influence on laws generated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Nobody gets to elect these lords. It is undemocratic by any measure.
Just because the current parties, many of whom treat as a care home for retired MPs and dodgy donors, haven't scrapped it, doesn't give it a respectable air.
In which case the UK is undemocratic since not everyone effected by decisions made by Parliament gets to vote in British elections.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: PM May giving a campaign talk at a factory in her constituency. Workers say they're not allowed to ask questions.
Didn't you read what she said the other day
I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters
It's just no one heard he mumble under her breath "who aren't allowed to ask questions"
this really isn't democracy when the populace starts to become barred from challenging the people who are meant to represent them.
Nigel Farage not running for MP. If he does, he has to resign as MEP, and would lose big chunk of MEP pension... from an institution he says he hates...
I might despise May, but I loathe NF. He's quite happy to claim the EU is sucking the UK dry is quite happy to carry on exploiting the system for his own gain. To be fair Corbyn is just as bad at shutting out anyone that is not fanatically loyal and getting them to boo awkward questions from journalists. At least SNP/LDs/Greens don't seem to be resorting to this tactic (yet).
Yeah, it's a grim state of affairs, and we've got 7 more weeks of this nonsense.
And I say that as somebody who counts following politics as a hobby.
As I've said before, I often wonder how the Americans survive 2 year presidential campaigns.
I'm 2 days into a 7 week campaign, and already, I'm heading for the lifeboats.
Either that or she didn't check the March budget very well (or at all) because from the 2016 to 2017 budget they reduced the proposed international development budget from £10.4 billion to £9.1 billion (that's a 12.5% decrease before you factor in inflation). I suppose allowing someone asking questions might just have asked how she intends not to cut UK aid when the departments budget is to be slashed considerably?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: PM May giving a campaign talk at a factory in her constituency. Workers say they're not allowed to ask questions.
Didn't you read what she said the other day
I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters
It's just no one heard he mumble under her breath "who aren't allowed to ask questions"
this really isn't democracy when the populace starts to become barred from challenging the people who are meant to represent them.
Nigel Farage not running for MP. If he does, he has to resign as MEP, and would lose big chunk of MEP pension... from an institution he says he hates...
I might despise May, but I loathe NF. He's quite happy to claim the EU is sucking the UK dry is quite happy to carry on exploiting the system for his own gain. To be fair Corbyn is just as bad at shutting out anyone that is not fanatically loyal and getting them to boo awkward questions from journalists. At least SNP/LDs/Greens don't seem to be resorting to this tactic (yet).
Yeah, it's a grim state of affairs, and we've got 7 more weeks of this nonsense.
And I say that as somebody who counts following politics as a hobby.
As I've said before, I often wonder how the Americans survive 2 year presidential campaigns.
I'm 2 days into a 7 week campaign, and already, I'm heading for the lifeboats.
How do the Americans do it?
Mostly by ignoring it. If you look at US voter turnout, it's abysmal, and your vote only really matters in about a dozen out of fifty states anyway for Presidential elections.
May has a big majority in her constituency, she's in a factory in her constituency, so it stands to reason that some of those factory workers voted for her, and yet, she won't take questions from her own supporters?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: PM May giving a campaign talk at a factory in her constituency. Workers say they're not allowed to ask questions.
Didn't you read what she said the other day
I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters
It's just no one heard he mumble under her breath "who aren't allowed to ask questions"
this really isn't democracy when the populace starts to become barred from challenging the people who are meant to represent them.
Nigel Farage not running for MP. If he does, he has to resign as MEP, and would lose big chunk of MEP pension... from an institution he says he hates...
I might despise May, but I loathe NF. He's quite happy to claim the EU is sucking the UK dry is quite happy to carry on exploiting the system for his own gain. To be fair Corbyn is just as bad at shutting out anyone that is not fanatically loyal and getting them to boo awkward questions from journalists. At least SNP/LDs/Greens don't seem to be resorting to this tactic (yet).
Yeah, it's a grim state of affairs, and we've got 7 more weeks of this nonsense.
And I say that as somebody who counts following politics as a hobby.
As I've said before, I often wonder how the Americans survive 2 year presidential campaigns.
I'm 2 days into a 7 week campaign, and already, I'm heading for the lifeboats.
How do the Americans do it?
Mostly by ignoring it. If you look at US voter turnout, it's abysmal, and your vote only really matters in about a dozen out of fifty states anyway for Presidential elections.
None the less, you have my admiration at handling so much bullgak that a presidential campaign brings. .
There at times when I do feel sorry for Corbyn, and today is one of them.
Len McCluskey has just won his election and is promising to help Corbyn in this GE...
So with McCluskey on one side, Ken Livingstone on the other, and back up by Abbott and McDonnell, what could go wrong for Corbyn?
Without a shadow of a doubt, this has to be the most feeble opposition party in living memory.
For all the talk of Michael Foot's 1983 debacle, he got more seats than Hague or Howard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I don't know if it's worth voting. Sinn Fein will win in my area, and they'll continue to not take their seats whilst milking it for all it's worth.
You have my sympathies. I often overlook NI politics, and have no real knowledge of it (as it rarely influences a GE) but I would still go out and vote or spoil your ballot.
Len McCluskey has just won his election and is promising to help Corbyn in this GE...
So with McCluskey on one side, Ken Livingstone on the other, and back up by Abbott and McDonnell, what could go wrong for Corbyn?
Without a shadow of a doubt, this has to be the most feeble opposition party in living memory.
For all the talk of Michael Foot's 1983 debacle, he got more seats than Hague or Howard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I don't know if it's worth voting. Sinn Fein will win in my area, and they'll continue to not take their seats whilst milking it for all it's worth.
You have my sympathies. I often overlook NI politics, and have no real knowledge of it (as it rarely influences a GE) but I would still go out and vote or spoil your ballot.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May has a big majority in her constituency, she's in a factory in her constituency, so it stands to reason that some of those factory workers voted for her, and yet, she won't take questions from her own supporters?
I often wonder at this nation...
This is not in any way uncommon actually. Theresa May is being singled out here for what all politicians do in election time. Those that don't normally have a seeded audience. Q&A's are handled with great care, as activists and hecklers bee-line for them. To minimise this actual public Q&A are taken during walkabouts to minimise the chances of a politcal ambush and as the meeting is mobile the politicans can move on.
When a politician, of any stripe and any party has a hostile activist on them they have to terminate the dislogue as the activist will be loud and persistent and the politician will look bad no matter the respective merits of argument.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May has a big majority in her constituency, she's in a factory in her constituency, so it stands to reason that some of those factory workers voted for her, and yet, she won't take questions from her own supporters?
I often wonder at this nation...
This is not in any way uncommon actually. Theresa May is being singled out here for what all politicians do in election time. Those that don't normally have a seeded audience. Q&A's are handled with great care, as activists and hecklers bee-line for them. To minimise this actual public Q&A are taken during walkabouts to minimise the chances of a politcal ambush and as the meeting is mobile the politicans can move on.
When a politician, of any stripe and any party has a hostile activist on them they have to terminate the dislogue as the activist will be loud and persistent and the politician will look bad no matter the respective merits of argument.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May has a big majority in her constituency, she's in a factory in her constituency, so it stands to reason that some of those factory workers voted for her, and yet, she won't take questions from her own supporters?
I often wonder at this nation...
This is not in any way uncommon actually. Theresa May is being singled out here for what all politicians do in election time. Those that don't normally have a seeded audience. Q&A's are handled with great care, as activists and hecklers bee-line for them. To minimise this actual public Q&A are taken during walkabouts to minimise the chances of a politcal ambush and as the meeting is mobile the politicans can move on.
When a politician, of any stripe and any party has a hostile activist on them they have to terminate the dislogue as the activist will be loud and persistent and the politician will look bad no matter the respective merits of argument.
They seemed to cope years ago.
Don't be fooled, its how professional political campaigns have been run in the UK in the television age, and is now universally true in the age of the selfie.
If the disenfranchised as motivated to vote, and there are a lot of them, and he is otherwise underestimated he might well increase Labours seats in th house.
Sticking to his hard left guns in the current climate is not as stupid as it looks, there are a lot of have nots, and even while most will not see Corbyn as an actual solution to the nations problems many may well vote for him to throw a shoe in the machine.
The chancellor has given a major hint that he is no fan of the 2015 Tory manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT.
After the embarrassing U-turn on the attempt to raise taxes for the self-employed, Philip Hammond told me the government needed "flexibility" on taxes.
The manifesto is not yet final, so no irreversible decisions have been taken.
The chancellor said he didn't come into politics to "increase taxes".
But it is the clearest hint yet that Mr Hammond would like to see the 2015 manifesto promise on taxes significantly amended if not abandoned all together.
"We do need flexibility to manage the system and we do need to make sure that Theresa May and her government have a clear mandate to execute our plan," he told me.
"All chancellors would prefer to have more flexibility in how they manage the economy and how they manage the overall tax burden down [rather] than having to have their hands constrained.
"But what we put in the manifesto will be decided in the next few days and we will publish that.
Theresa May has ruled out cuts to the UK foreign aid budget if she wins the election but doubts have been cast on other existing Conservative pledges.
The prime minister said the commitment to spending 0.7% of national income on aid "will remain" although it must be spent "in the most effective way".
It follows speculation she was ready to drop it from the Tory manifesto.
But she declined to guarantee existing spending on state pensions which ensures a minimum 2.5% annual increase.
.. so the Tories are saying they'll raise taxes, maintain foreign aid and give pensioners less money...?
meanwhile :
Conservatives are attacking Corbyn for second referendum "Brexit disruption" ...whilst the LibDems attack Corbyn for second ref Remain "betrayal"
..best of luck there then Jezza
..not sure there's any truth to the story/idea going around that Corbyn plans/wants to parachute his son into a (safe) Labour seat..... doesn't strike me as being quite his MO but strange days indeed eh ?
An ugly March meant retailers suffered their worst quarter for seven years, with sales down 1.4% in the first three months of 2017. The extent of the sales decline in the first quarter is the clearest indication yet from the official data as to how rising prices are hitting consumer spending and hurting economic growth.
Retail sales fell 1.8% in March, according to the Office for National Statistics, the fourth fall in the past five months. The retail data follow news that consumer prices rose 2.3% in March, the joint-highest rate of increase since September 2013
The March sales downturn means the retail sector acted as a drag on the economy in the first quarter (shaving 0.1% off GDP growth, according to the ONS). The quarterly decline in sales was the first since the closing quarter 2013 and the largest since the opening quarter of 2010.
Business surveys have already indicated that the pace of economic growth looks to have waned to 0.4% in the first quarter, warning that the slowdown was being caused mainly by weaker consumer spending.
The consumer is clearly coming under increasing pressure to rein in spending amid rising prices and weak pay growth, a trend which looks to have continued into the second quarter. Latest survey data showed the amount of cash that households had available to spend fell in April to the greatest extent for two-and-a-half years, blamed on rising living costs as inflation accelerates, as well as stubbornly subdued pay growth.
The survey showed spending was supported by households eating further into their savings and taking on more debt. Official data have already shown the household savings ratio to have fallen to a record low of 3.3% in the fourth quarter of 2016. Such spending is clearly unsustainable in the long run, and it’s looking likely that the economy has lost one of its main pillars of growth as households pull back on their spending.
and prices aren't going down anytime soon either...
..still BLUE passports eh ?!111
...
...all in all one keeps thinking of an episode of the New Statesman ..
Alan is summoned to the office of Sir Greville, who gives him terrible news: Professor Eugene Quail, the Government's leading oil expert, has rechecked his figures and discovered that the North Sea oil, the foundation of all of the Tories' fiscal policies, will run out any day now, triggering a depression. A snap election is called in the hopes that it will occur before the oil runs out, and Alan is put in charge of the Tory campaign. His strategy of offering free lottery tickets to all Tory voters and putting scantily-clad women in the party's ads is a massive success, and soon the Tories have a 15-point lead. Once again, Sir Greville summons Alan, and explains that the Tory leadership had actually hoped that appointing Alan would be an electoral disaster, as whichever party is in power when the oil runs out will take the blame for the consequences. Alan suggests appointing Piers to run the campaign, which results in the total collapse of Tory support. Alan then sells the information about oil supplies to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and they too begin running deliberately awful campaigns, causing support for all parties to crater
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: May has a big majority in her constituency, she's in a factory in her constituency, so it stands to reason that some of those factory workers voted for her, and yet, she won't take questions from her own supporters?
I often wonder at this nation...
This is not in any way uncommon actually. Theresa May is being singled out here for what all politicians do in election time. Those that don't normally have a seeded audience. Q&A's are handled with great care, as activists and hecklers bee-line for them. To minimise this actual public Q&A are taken during walkabouts to minimise the chances of a politcal ambush and as the meeting is mobile the politicans can move on.
When a politician, of any stripe and any party has a hostile activist on them they have to terminate the dislogue as the activist will be loud and persistent and the politician will look bad no matter the respective merits of argument.
They seemed to cope years ago.
Before all the online digital media and such alot of events could of happened that never left the local area.
News was pretty much national and local papers and radio etc only.
58,000 people under 25 registered to vote on Tuesday
Interesting, however it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a surge of support for the Lib Dems, although itd be nice if it was. Quite a few under 25s I work with are conservative leaning.
Could be an upswell of young conservatives rallying behind Brexit and May? Who knows in today's political climate.
Murdoch - utterly despicable, utterly predictable. Desmond did the same thing with the lottery - the Express and Star (and Channel 5 when he owned it) slag off the National Lottery on a daily basis, whilst he launches his own 'Health Lottery', which gives around half as much of every pound spent to charity, and he makes another fortune to add to that from his media and pornography empires. These are the people leading much of the political discussion in this country, which explains rather a lot.
58,000 people under 25 registered to vote on Tuesday
Interesting, however it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a surge of support for the Lib Dems, although itd be nice if it was. Quite a few under 25s I work with are conservative leaning.
Could be an upswell of young conservatives rallying behind Brexit and May? Who knows in today's political climate.
Younger voters are good though. Gives a wider view of the population.
58,000 people under 25 registered to vote on Tuesday
Interesting, however it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a surge of support for the Lib Dems, although itd be nice if it was. Quite a few under 25s I work with are conservative leaning.
Could be an upswell of young conservatives rallying behind Brexit and May? Who knows in today's political climate.
Younger voters are good though. Gives a wider view of the population.
I absolutely agree, it's frustrating that only the interests of the elderly voters are consistently represented in Govt. Politicians should be trying to appeal to a broad swathe of society, it should stop them being polarising dicks.
I genuinely cannot understand how pensions are untouched, yet education is being hammered. It's time to genuinely take back control, and not in a UKIP way.
Future War Cultist wrote: I don't know if it's worth voting. Sinn Fein will win in my area, and they'll continue to not take their seats whilst milking it for all it's worth.
What do Sinn fein MPs actually do for their constituencies then, if theyre always boycotting parliament? What good is an mp, if they don't participate in and represent their constituency in Parliament?
58,000 people under 25 registered to vote on Tuesday
Interesting, however it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a surge of support for the Lib Dems, although itd be nice if it was. Quite a few under 25s I work with are conservative leaning.
Could be an upswell of young conservatives rallying behind Brexit and May? Who knows in today's political climate.
Younger voters are good though. Gives a wider view of the population.
I absolutely agree, it's frustrating that only the interests of the elderly voters are consistently represented in Govt. Politicians should be trying to appeal to a broad swathe of society, it should stop them being polarising dicks.
I genuinely cannot understand how pensions are untouched, yet education is being hammered. It's time to genuinely take back control, and not in a UKIP way.
I think there might be a pretty even mix of opinions among the newly registered.
If they're forming their opinions based on what they hear from other young people who already vote, they're probably pro soft-Brexit, as a reasonable majority of young people voted Remain. If they've been speaking to their parents, or older people at work, it's probably 50/50, as is the country (more or less). If it's based on the media, particularly the print media, then probably hard-Brexit. And if they've registered today because they went on The Express online looking for wardrobe malfunctions and like (which they will find in abundance on that 'family newspaper' website), and have been reading the news comments, they probably want T May H U N G as a T R A I T O R for giving all our sovereignties to forrins. Or something.
Future War Cultist wrote: I don't know if it's worth voting. Sinn Fein will win in my area, and they'll continue to not take their seats whilst milking it for all it's worth.
What do Sinn fein MPs actually do for their constituencies then, if theyre always boycotting parliament? What good is an mp, if they don't participate in and represent their constituency in Parliament?
I'm trying to work that out myself too. At the council and MLA level Sinn Fein are pretty active, but they're big into what our American friends would call pork barrel spending. Greviance mongering too. They're always demanding Irish language programmes and signposts, or inquiries into historical shootings (but only ones involving the police or army. Republican shootings are not to be investigated at all, ever). But when it comes to real issues like setting budgets or creating jobs, they just start demanding independence. Just like the SNP. Meanwhile, Sinn Fein MPs refuse to take their seats but somehow still need to travel to London and back whilst claiming all they can in expenses. It's a puzzle.
58,000 people under 25 registered to vote on Tuesday
Interesting, however it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a surge of support for the Lib Dems, although itd be nice if it was. Quite a few under 25s I work with are conservative leaning.
Could be an upswell of young conservatives rallying behind Brexit and May? Who knows in today's political climate.
Younger voters are good though. Gives a wider view of the population.
I absolutely agree, it's frustrating that only the interests of the elderly voters are consistently represented in Govt. Politicians should be trying to appeal to a broad swathe of society, it should stop them being polarising dicks.
I genuinely cannot understand how pensions are untouched, yet education is being hammered. It's time to genuinely take back control, and not in a UKIP way.
I think there might be a pretty even mix of opinions among the newly registered.
If they're forming their opinions based on what they hear from other young people who already vote, they're probably pro soft-Brexit, as a reasonable majority of young people voted Remain. If they've been speaking to their parents, or older people at work, it's probably 50/50, as is the country (more or less). If it's based on the media, particularly the print media, then probably hard-Brexit. And if they've registered today because they went on The Express online looking for wardrobe malfunctions and like (which they will find in abundance on that 'family newspaper' website), and have been reading the news comments, they probably want T May H U N G as a T R A I T O R for giving all our sovereignties to forrins. Or something.
I think a pretty even mix though US /UK shows a odd trend that newer generations seem to have slid slightly more conservative than proceeding.
Not sure why. I'm at a loss to explain the social science.
I think a pretty even mix though US /UK shows a odd trend that newer generations seem to have slid slightly more conservative than proceeding.
Not sure why. I'm at a loss to explain the social science.
Fear. And/or despair.
Ever since the financial crisis politics has been going through the same journey as it did in 1930's Europe. Whilst I don't think living conditions have got to the absolute low they did following the 1928 depression (for most people), there is an awful lot of uncertainty and struggle in the world. Wages are stagnant, or falling. Long-term jobs prospects are poor, particularly if you want a rewarding career rather than just a means to pay bills and don't have high levels of academic qualification. Living costs are rising and our social support structures are being eroded by massive public debt and the stagnant economy. Pensions and old age healthcare are looking increasingly poor, particularly given how long you might need to depend on them with our increasing average age.
All of this has the inevitable reaction that people close ranks and try to protect the little chunk of what they already have, to the exclusion of everyone else. And no one wants to admit that we, collectively, screwed up by under regulating banks, over using credit and not proactively managing the loss of employment caused by offshoring and, increasingly, automation. So they turn to political parties that offer them an easy "it's all their fault, them over there." answer. Sometimes that's a left-wing "them" of the top 1%, etc., but more often it's the right-wing "them" of immigrants/minorities/"undeserving" poor.
Ironically said right-wing parties then tend to cut social services even further, reinforcing the whole damn thing.
And all of that is without the presence of a very real existential threat that supports the right wing message, i.e. Islamic fundamentalism. And whilst that represents a very small minority and, IMHO, the scale and organisation of the threat frequently gets overstated, it is very real. Having a group of actual foreigners who genuinely do want to kill us all and destroy our way of life is absolute gold for right wing media and politicians.
I hope that the working age people, and pensionable Tory supporters who read that finally start to see what she's all about. Potentially increased taxes, potential cuts to pensions, potential increases in foreign aid, has she accidentally spilt coffee on her notes, and got her speeches back to front in the confusion?
Coupled with the first day without coal that we celebrated, it's the first bit of good news i've had for a while.
I think a pretty even mix though US /UK shows a odd trend that newer generations seem to have slid slightly more conservative than proceeding.
Not sure why. I'm at a loss to explain the social science.
Fear. And/or despair.
Ever since the financial crisis politics has been going through the same journey as it did in 1930's Europe. Whilst I don't think living conditions have got to the absolute low they did following the 1928 depression (for most people), there is an awful lot of uncertainty and struggle in the world. Wages are stagnant, or falling. Long-term jobs prospects are poor, particularly if you want a rewarding career rather than just a means to pay bills and don't have high levels of academic qualification. Living costs are rising and our social support structures are being eroded by massive public debt and the stagnant economy. Pensions and old age healthcare are looking increasingly poor, particularly given how long you might need to depend on them with our increasing average age.
All of this has the inevitable reaction that people close ranks and try to protect the little chunk of what they already have, to the exclusion of everyone else. And no one wants to admit that we, collectively, screwed up by under regulating banks, over using credit and not proactively managing the loss of employment caused by offshoring and, increasingly, automation. So they turn to political parties that offer them an easy "it's all their fault, them over there." answer. Sometimes that's a left-wing "them" of the top 1%, etc., but more often it's the right-wing "them" of immigrants/minorities/"undeserving" poor.
Ironically said right-wing parties then tend to cut social services even further, reinforcing the whole damn thing.
And all of that is without the presence of a very real existential threat that supports the right wing message, i.e. Islamic fundamentalism. And whilst that represents a very small minority and, IMHO, the scale and organisation of the threat frequently gets overstated, it is very real. Having a group of actual foreigners who genuinely do want to kill us all and destroy our way of life is absolute gold for right wing media and politicians.
/cynicism :(
I was working in office last year when the whole Brexit was kicking off and the vote.
Fairly large. Most of the worker bee or above where remain, but a good majorityof lower staff went leave, and not much left wing views.
A few foreign names, UK citizens, even used assumed names on phone to sound more English.
But yeah your points seem to have truth to them thinking about it.
And the terror point... Yeah, there's a real enemy they don t even have to make one up! It does all work for them.
I hope that the working age people, and pensionable Tory supporters who read that finally start to see what she's all about. Potentially increased taxes, potential cuts to pensions, potential increases in foreign aid, has she accidentally spilt coffee on her notes, and got her speeches back to front in the confusion?
Coupled with the first day without coal that we celebrated, it's the first bit of good news i've had for a while.
Well the Times headlines, if true, made me laugh. What was this about Trump favouring the UK in trade deals? Oh no wait they want one with the EU first. Guess we'll end up with the scraps then. Still we have our cakes, biscuits and tea (that we would like to sell to India).
The first day without Coal is good news but I would note a word of caution. Co2 emissions are still increasing. We have to be careful to ensure that we look at this holistically. Our heavy industry (steel etc) has been declining considerably over the last few decades and they use a lot of energy. However we are now using more of these resources than ever before, its just they are manufactured elsewhere (such as the far east) where there are still huge amounts of coal fire plants in operation. All we have done is shifted these carbon emissions to other parts of the world. We may locally be reducing CO2 but our overall global impact is almost certainly still increasing its just its difficult to determine precisely.
are just some of that quiet cultural backlash, it's very dignified. Good spelling too.
What ae you trying to say? That Trump was talking out of his rear and making it up as he went along?
Well, knock me down with a feather.
Personally, I blame American dakka members for not warning us about Trump
Automatically Appended Next Post: And another thing, we've all bemoaned the gak poor state of British politics, well, British journalism is fast going to hell in a hand cart as well.
This latest puff piece from the Guardian, devoid of any critical analysis, was probably spoon fed to it from No.10
Automatically Appended Next Post: And another thing, we've all bemoaned the gak poor state of British politics, well, British journalism is fast going to hell in a hand cart as well.
This latest puff piece from the Guardian, devoid of any critical analysis, was probably spoon fed to it from No.10
If I was to hazard a guess it's similar to the suggestions we heard about businesses publically criticising the ongoing Brexit negotiations
i.e. "Fall in line otherwise you'll be excluded from the conversation"
It's the same strategy Trump is using to ensure that he looks a lot better than he actually is (deny/exclude negative criticism, positively support those who give you an easy ride).
It doesn't help that papers are no longer anything but party political broadcasts (depending on which side the owner supports) apart from the more niche ones like Private Eye where there is a more independent and critical analysis.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And another thing, we've all bemoaned the gak poor state of British politics, well, British journalism is fast going to hell in a hand cart as well.
This latest puff piece from the Guardian, devoid of any critical analysis, was probably spoon fed to it from No.10
If I was to hazard a guess it's similar to the suggestions we heard about businesses publically criticising the ongoing Brexit negotiations
i.e. "Fall in line otherwise you'll be excluded from the conversation"
It's the same strategy Trump is using to ensure that he looks a lot better than he actually is (deny/exclude negative criticism, positively support those who give you an easy ride).
It doesn't help that papers are no longer anything but party political broadcasts (depending on which side the owner supports) apart from the more niche ones like Private Eye where there is a more independent and critical analysis.
In my personal pseudo-liberal totalitarian utopia, anyone who reads any newspaper would also have to read Private Eye. All of it mind, not just the funny bits. Maybe not the really tortuous stuff about fraud trials that almost invariably result in nothing whatsoever. That way, everyone would know what an essential free press say, but also, crucially, why they say it. I have no idea how it would change the political landscape, but everyone would be a lot better informed.
Edit - more on (a moron from) our Great British press -
In my personal pseudo-liberal totalitarian utopia, anyone who reads any newspaper would also have to read Private Eye. All of it mind, not just the funny bits. Maybe not the really tortuous stuff about fraud trials that almost invariably result in nothing whatsoever. That way, everyone would know what an essential free press say, but also, crucially, why they say it. I have no idea how it would change the political landscape, but everyone would be a lot better informed.
I think you are asking quite a lot, after all this means a good fraction of the UK populace would have to start thinking about the world they live in whereas they can otherwise live in a strange fantasy land where they can occasionally scream at someone randomly for the world not doing what they want it to do. It's a strange thing but if you suggested to these people that they go and have a lobotomy they would be opposed yet they happily only read the Daily Fail and Scum papers which in reality are just doing exactly the same thing to them.
In my personal pseudo-liberal totalitarian utopia, anyone who reads any newspaper would also have to read Private Eye. All of it mind, not just the funny bits. Maybe not the really tortuous stuff about fraud trials that almost invariably result in nothing whatsoever. That way, everyone would know what an essential free press say, but also, crucially, why they say it. I have no idea how it would change the political landscape, but everyone would be a lot better informed.
I think you are asking quite a lot, after all this means a good fraction of the UK populace would have to start thinking about the world they live in whereas they can otherwise live in a strange fantasy land where they can occasionally scream at someone randomly for the world not doing what they want it to do. It's a strange thing but if you suggested to these people that they go and have a lobotomy they would be opposed yet they happily only read the Daily Fail and Scum papers which in reality are just doing exactly the same thing to them.
It's a good point, but in my own personal pseudo-liberal totalitarian utopia, everyone would think precisely the way I do, so it wouldn't be a problem
Well the Times headlines, if true, made me laugh. What was this about Trump favouring the UK in trade deals? Oh no wait they want one with the EU first. Guess we'll end up with the scraps then. Still we have our cakes, biscuits and tea (that we would like to sell to India).
If only someone, say a POTUS or someone, had said something about this prior to the referendum ?
Future War Cultist wrote: A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.
Also... doesn't a US-to-UK trade deal have to happen at, or right after the brexit?
Future War Cultist wrote: A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.
We have to please 4 states in effect at most.
EU has 26.
It's a good point, but in my own personal pseudo-liberal totalitarian utopia, everyone would think precisely the way I do, so it wouldn't be a problem
. Well the only way you could achieve that would be to lobotomise everyone else. But I think we should be careful Tories might steal the idea for their election manifesto... (probably by making it law to read the Daily Fail and/or Scum at least three times a day).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.
if they were going to do that, they would say that but they didn't. The UK might get some concessions early on (free trade deal for tea, because they seriously need to know what decent tea is!) but to have a wide range free trade deal will still take years.
For the EU there is almost one ready. Trump will probably do the same thing as he did with Obamacare, read it, get bored 10% the way down so bin the rest; cross off Obama's name off the top and put his name on it instead and advertise it as the TTIP agreement (or Trump's Trade and Investment Partnership) .
Something weird has happened, I'm seeing people who have never given 2 gaks about politics, getting interested and riled up, at least where I live there seems to have been a very noticeable shift toward labour ??? Personally I can't stand Corbyn, even as a labour supporter normally.
Formosa wrote: Something weird has happened, I'm seeing people who have never given 2 gaks about politics, getting interested and riled up, at least where I live there seems to have been a very noticeable shift toward labour ??? Personally I can't stand Corbyn, even as a labour supporter normally.
Has anyone else noticed this ?
The divisions are getting more noticeable. At the rate we are going we won't need terrorists as we'll be throttling each other... Seriously though the last GE, the referendum and now this GE are seriously dividing the country. I suppose they have been growing for years. Politicians of all sides have failed to communicate with the public and are acting more in their own best interest. So it's not a surprise people are getting more involved. There's a lot of people that don't want a hard right government and will head towards any party that might stop that happening.
I wonder if that's anything to do with people treating others who have different political focuses and beliefs to oneself as idiotic minions of some sort of evil Galactic Empire.
Compel wrote: I wonder if that's anything to do with people treating others who have different political focuses and beliefs to oneself as idiotic minions of some sort of evil Galactic Empire.
Only the ones who say idiotic things.
I don't think that anything earth shattering is going to happen, the Torys will likely be returned with a majority, Brexit will happen, and hopefully at the next GE we will have a reformed and stronger opposition, the Conservatives will have fractured into bitter infighting as they always do, people will review what has actually happened and vote the conservatives out.
Time will have passed sufficiently for us to be able to actually assess Brexit, and how the EU is doing, and a future Give will take us back into it again and we'll all breathe a sigh of relief that this ridiculous state of affairs is finally over and the eurosceptics have had their chance, and fethed it up good and proper.
Compel wrote: I wonder if that's anything to do with people treating others who have different political focuses and beliefs to oneself as idiotic minions of some sort of evil Galactic Empire.
Only the ones who say idiotic things.
I don't think that anything earth shattering is going to happen, the Torys will likely be returned with a majority, Brexit will happen, and hopefully at the next GE we will have a reformed and stronger opposition, the Conservatives will have fractured into bitter infighting as they always do, people will review what has actually happened and vote the conservatives out.
Time will have passed sufficiently for us to be able to actually assess Brexit, and how the EU is doing, and a future Give will take us back into it again and we'll all breathe a sigh of relief that this ridiculous state of affairs is finally over and the eurosceptics have had their chance, and fethed it up good and proper.
That's all assuming Trump hasn't started WWIII in the mean time, but then the UK will just be a smouldering hole with a few super mutants and ghouls running around so at least it will look better than 3am on a Sunday morning in the middle of a city...
Compel wrote: I wonder if that's anything to do with people treating others who have different political focuses and beliefs to oneself as idiotic minions of some sort of evil Galactic Empire.
It is because the EU Referendum pushed a highly divisive issue to the front of the social/political consciousness and had an un-decisive result.
Don't talk about 51.8% being decisive. It isn't in psychology terms. The referendum act should have called for a 2/3rd majority to be binding. The fact that the result has been treated as supremely binding, when in law it wasn't, simply makes things worse.
I can't believe May believes the splits are beginning to heal. They won't heal for a generation at least, unless the post-Brexit UK becomes a splendid utopia of health, wealth, optimism, and no foreigners. It is obvious to everyone that this will not happen, because it can't.
The best we can hope for is that eventually things may improve a bit compared to now, but Remainers still will have lost their freedom of movement, while Leavers will not find there is a large reduction in immigration, so both sides will still have significant disgruntles to mull on for decades to come.
Compel wrote: I wonder if that's anything to do with people treating others who have different political focuses and beliefs to oneself as idiotic minions of some sort of evil Galactic Empire.
It is because the EU Referendum pushed a highly divisive issue to the front of the social/political consciousness and had an un-decisive result.
Don't talk about 51.8% being decisive. It isn't in psychology terms. The referendum act should have called for a 2/3rd majority to be binding. The fact that the result has been treated as supremely binding, when in law it wasn't, simply makes things worse.
This is what I cannot understand about this whole thing. Basically because the vote came down one way close enough to be basically within the margin of error, essentially whatever side of the bed 1% of the population woke up on that morning, and the government took a nonbinding vote and treated it like an iron mandate with the full backing of the united masses and pushed it to the front of the agenda...then promptly pooped itself with no plan and no real idea of what to do or really why they're even doing it...but they're gonna insist on doing whatever "it" is...
Like...seriously?
There's no plan here, there's no clear core concept of what people want out of Brexit or what the goals should be or what the UK's relationship with the Europe should look like, much less how to actually accomplish those, internal tensions with the various constituent parts of the UK are now inflamed and offers the SNP a golden opportunity for a potential IndyRef2 coup...then doubling down with a snap election, and yet inexorably it all goes on..."just because"
Formosa wrote: Something weird has happened, I'm seeing people who have never given 2 gaks about politics, getting interested and riled up, at least where I live there seems to have been a very noticeable shift toward labour ??? Personally I can't stand Corbyn, even as a labour supporter normally.
Has anyone else noticed this ?
The divisions are getting more noticeable. At the rate we are going we won't need terrorists as we'll be throttling each other... Seriously though the last GE, the referendum and now this GE are seriously dividing the country. I suppose they have been growing for years. Politicians of all sides have failed to communicate with the public and are acting more in their own best interest. So it's not a surprise people are getting more involved. There's a lot of people that don't want a hard right government and will head towards any party that might stop that happening.
The reality is that all current UK political parties are indistinguishable in day to day operation. This is exacerbating divisions that have long been held.
Looking at what is on offer for this upcoming election its more of the same. Corbyn has taken a leaf out of Trumps play book, not playing by the rules etc. Tories are promising lots but will still be on the side of the rich and Farron and the lib dems can only win if 16-17 year olds are allowed to vote.
UKIP wants face veil bans....
The Greens.....have ideology vs real politik yet again.
The SNP will control Scotland.
Call me a crank but the appetite for real change evaporates when it may involve hard times.
Formosa wrote: Something weird has happened, I'm seeing people who have never given 2 gaks about politics, getting interested and riled up, at least where I live there seems to have been a very noticeable shift toward labour ??? Personally I can't stand Corbyn, even as a labour supporter normally.
Has anyone else noticed this ?
The divisions are getting more noticeable. At the rate we are going we won't need terrorists as we'll be throttling each other... Seriously though the last GE, the referendum and now this GE are seriously dividing the country. I suppose they have been growing for years. Politicians of all sides have failed to communicate with the public and are acting more in their own best interest. So it's not a surprise people are getting more involved. There's a lot of people that don't want a hard right government and will head towards any party that might stop that happening.
The reality is that all current UK political parties are indistinguishable in day to day operation. This is exacerbating divisions that have long been held.
Looking at what is on offer for this upcoming election its more of the same. Corbyn has taken a leaf out of Trumps play book, not playing by the rules etc. Tories are promising lots but will still be on the side of the rich and Farron and the lib dems can only win if 16-17 year olds are allowed to vote.
UKIP wants face veil bans....
The Greens.....have ideology vs real politik yet again.
The SNP will control Scotland.
Call me a crank but the appetite for real change evaporates when it may involve hard times.
I'd generally agree with this, though I think it's harsh on the Greens. I don't think they ever expect to get into power, but the more seats they get the more they can have an influence on long term environmental issues and hopefully offset some of the more short term thinking that usually means environmental issues are the last thing thought about. I'd like to vote Greens but that results in one vote less for the next party that might remove the Tory MP in the area which what frustrates me about the whole FPTP system.
However you are right, for a vast proportion of the population they think it's terrible that NHS is failing, education is in tatters and social care is imploding, but ask many in the £30k + crowd (which is a reasonable wage and at least allows things to be reasonably comfortable) to pay an extra £500 in taxes a year and the response is "but it makes me worse off immediately" (one of my brothers definitely falls into this category). This attitude favours the Tories and hence we go round the same issues again and again whilst the people really suffering are those on the very low pay grades that generally rely on the state more than others to help them (so subsidised bus services etc).
Compel wrote: I wonder if that's anything to do with people treating others who have different political focuses and beliefs to oneself as idiotic minions of some sort of evil Galactic Empire.
It is because the EU Referendum pushed a highly divisive issue to the front of the social/political consciousness and had an un-decisive result.
Don't talk about 51.8% being decisive. It isn't in psychology terms. The referendum act should have called for a 2/3rd majority to be binding. The fact that the result has been treated as supremely binding, when in law it wasn't, simply makes things worse.
This is what I cannot understand about this whole thing. Basically because the vote came down one way close enough to be basically within the margin of error, essentially whatever side of the bed 1% of the population woke up on that morning, and the government took a nonbinding vote and treated it like an iron mandate with the full backing of the united masses and pushed it to the front of the agenda...then promptly pooped itself with no plan and no real idea of what to do or really why they're even doing it...but they're gonna insist on doing whatever "it" is...
Like...seriously?
And it's even worse when you think that 30% of the population didn't actually vote which could have had a major impact on the outcome (but no one really seems interested in what they want despite still being part of the population). The worrying thing is that in GEs the turnout is even lower so if one day the 40% that don't usually vote suddenly got up and all voted Monster Raving Looney Party then they would suddenly become the incumbent party. The only advantage of the referendum is that it does appear to have engaged more people in politics, but conversely some are getting tired of it (think the BBC interview last week).
I can't believe May believes the splits are beginning to heal. They won't heal for a generation at least, unless the post-Brexit UK becomes a splendid utopia of health, wealth, optimism, and no foreigners. It is obvious to everyone that this will not happen, because it can't.
I don't think she does that's why she keeps saying it. If there were no splits and ongoing divisions you wouldn't even mention it. The reason it is mentioned because the divides are there and she is trying to persuade people that the divides are healing and people feel obligated to fall in line (we are after all a social group species and none like feeling they are on the outside).
The big risk is that the divides won't heal and whatever things go wrong will be blamed on Brexit (whether real or imagined) and one side get angry about what is lost and will say "See, we told you so" and the other will get angry that what they were told doesn't come to pass and that they are being 'blamed' for the issues. This could just further divide the country. It's really a failing of the government because if they wanted a referendum then there should have been agreed document explaining all the pro's and con's of leaving or remaining. Instead we ended up will all sorts of nonsense soundbites (WWIII vs £350m) etc that meant many were ill informed from both sides about the decision they were making.
Admittedly, I'm only providing anecdotal evidence, but I personally think this talk of a divided nation is pure horsegak.
In the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, the country was supposed to be 'divided' in the aftermath. And yet, I'm still friends with people who voted to stay in the UK, ditto the EU referendum.
Just because some idiots have a war of words on twitter, and just because our gak poor newspapers think the nation is on the brink of civil war, doesn't make it so.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Admittedly, I'm only providing anecdotal evidence, but I personally think this talk of a divided nation is pure horsegak.
In the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, the country was supposed to be 'divided' in the aftermath. And yet, I'm still friends with people who voted to stay in the UK, ditto the EU referendum.
Just because some idiots have a war of words on twitter, and just because our gak poor newspapers think the nation is on the brink of civil war, doesn't make it so.
I remain unconvinced.
From an SNP supporter looking to divide the UK? I think you're talking out of your arse sunshine.
I suppose it depends on how you define divided, one way to look at it is how cooperative we are as a nation. This GE will give us an indication of that. However the referendum highlighted the divide between the city and the country, between the supposed geographical haves, and have-nots. It has also highlighted ideological differences between friends and families, and the horrible and confrontational nature of the "debates" has lead to us labelling people and categorising them. Continuing to label people as remoaners in the national press nearly a year after the referendum hardly helps.
The divisions are there, and tbh, if you can't seem them you're being disingenuous.
From an SNP supporter looking to divide the UK? I think you're talking out of your arse sunshine.
I suppose it depends on how you define divided, one way to look at it is how cooperative we are as a nation. This GE will give us an indication of that. However the referendum highlighted the divide between the city and the country, between the supposed geographical haves, and have-nots. It has also highlighted ideological differences between friends and families, and the horrible and confrontational nature of the "debates" has lead to us labelling people and categorising them. Continuing to label people as remoaners in the national press nearly a year after the referendum hardly helps.
Or indeed saboteurs, enemies of the states, quitlers and so on.
It's more social divides than anything. You only have to peruse BBC comments section (despite in theory being moderated). You have issues like G. Miller (sp?) having death threats against her and so on to see that there are deep divisions over these issues and the political parties don't help with soundbites that aren't really helpful and antagonise another part of the electorate - it all becomes verbal 'punch and judy' with "you're not competent, no your aren't" which really doesn't help the electorate make any rational decision.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Admittedly, I'm only providing anecdotal evidence, but I personally think this talk of a divided nation is pure horsegak.
In the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, the country was supposed to be 'divided' in the aftermath. And yet, I'm still friends with people who voted to stay in the UK, ditto the EU referendum.
Just because some idiots have a war of words on twitter, and just because our gak poor newspapers think the nation is on the brink of civil war, doesn't make it so.
I remain unconvinced.
From an SNP supporter looking to divide the UK? I think you're talking out of your arse sunshine.
I suppose it depends on how you define divided, one way to look at it is how cooperative we are as a nation. This GE will give us an indication of that. However the referendum highlighted the divide between the city and the country, between the supposed geographical haves, and have-nots. It has also highlighted ideological differences between friends and families, and the horrible and confrontational nature of the "debates" has lead to us labelling people and categorising them. Continuing to label people as remoaners in the national press nearly a year after the referendum hardly helps.
The divisions are there, and tbh, if you can't seem them you're being disingenuous.
You know what I mean
The newspapers would have us believe that roaming gangs of Brexit supporters are trawling the streets for remain supporters and anybody who looks foreign, ready to send them back to Calais or wherever.
And at any rate, there's always a divide between the urban and the rural. That goes back centuries.
Future War Cultist wrote: A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.
We have to please 4 states in effect at most.
EU has 26.
Future War Cultist wrote: A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.
We have to please 4 states in effect at most.
EU has 26.
Umm I know which is easier to negotiate with.
The one that doesn't have Trump, I'd assume.
Or are you wanting a good deal?
If we are smart ernough to use similar terms to the older trade deals and edit them abit, that saves quite abit of negotiations, agreeable already and cut alot of trouble.
On the flip side, the UK has a fraction of the EU's clout in negotiating these trade deals. The US and the EU negotiating are two rougly equal entities. The US and the UK notsomuch.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the flip side, the UK has a fraction of the EU's clout in negotiating these trade deals. The US and the EU negotiating are two rougly equal entities. The US and the UK notsomuch.
Yeah, but we can offer trump literal gold played carriages.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the flip side, the UK has a fraction of the EU's clout in negotiating these trade deals. The US and the EU negotiating are two rougly equal entities. The US and the UK notsomuch.
Yeah, but we can offer trump literal gold played carriages.
He'd probably only mistake it for something to take a golden shower in though....
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the flip side, the UK has a fraction of the EU's clout in negotiating these trade deals. The US and the EU negotiating are two rougly equal entities. The US and the UK notsomuch.
Yeah, but we can offer trump literal gold played carriages.
He'd probably only mistake it for something to take a golden shower in though....
True we can offer him bling. Gold plated carriages, we have a gold crowns for the queen and plenty of pomp and ceramony.
Wr can have marching perfect red coats and gun salutes.
Compel wrote: I wonder if that's anything to do with people treating others who have different political focuses and beliefs to oneself as idiotic minions of some sort of evil Galactic Empire.
It is because the EU Referendum pushed a highly divisive issue to the front of the social/political consciousness and had an un-decisive result.
Don't talk about 51.8% being decisive. It isn't in psychology terms. The referendum act should have called for a 2/3rd majority to be binding. The fact that the result has been treated as supremely binding, when in law it wasn't, simply makes things worse.
This is what I cannot understand about this whole thing. Basically because the vote came down one way close enough to be basically within the margin of error, essentially whatever side of the bed 1% of the population woke up on that morning, and the government took a nonbinding vote and treated it like an iron mandate with the full backing of the united masses and pushed it to the front of the agenda...then promptly pooped itself with no plan and no real idea of what to do or really why they're even doing it...but they're gonna insist on doing whatever "it" is...
Like...seriously?
There's no plan here, there's no clear core concept of what people want out of Brexit or what the goals should be or what the UK's relationship with the Europe should look like, much less how to actually accomplish those, internal tensions with the various constituent parts of the UK are now inflamed and offers the SNP a golden opportunity for a potential IndyRef2 coup...then doubling down with a snap election, and yet inexorably it all goes on..."just because"
just because ... the press would incite national disorder if anyone tried to stop it. Not saying they'd achieve it, but they'd do their damnedest.
Excellent summary and yes, at this point we just have to go through with it. We might one day want back in - whether there is an EU to want back into is another matter. Perhaps there will just be a Europe full of proud, nationalistic nations, living peacefully side by side for hundreds of years, like it used to be.
Certain elements of the "press" already tried to incite national disorder. "Enemies of the people" -- the judges upholding citizens' constitutional rights against the unfettered power of the prime minister.
In some sense the best argument against Brexit is some of the irretrievable gaks like the Daily Mail who have fought so long and hard for it.
From an SNP supporter looking to divide the UK? I think you're talking out of your arse sunshine.
I suppose it depends on how you define divided, one way to look at it is how cooperative we are as a nation. This GE will give us an indication of that. However the referendum highlighted the divide between the city and the country, between the supposed geographical haves, and have-nots. It has also highlighted ideological differences between friends and families, and the horrible and confrontational nature of the "debates" has lead to us labelling people and categorising them. Continuing to label people as remoaners in the national press nearly a year after the referendum hardly helps.
Or indeed saboteurs, enemies of the states, quitlers and so on.
It's more social divides than anything. You only have to peruse BBC comments section (despite in theory being moderated). You have issues like G. Miller (sp?) having death threats against her and so on to see that there are deep divisions over these issues and the political parties don't help with soundbites that aren't really helpful and antagonise another part of the electorate - it all becomes verbal 'punch and judy' with "you're not competent, no your aren't" which really doesn't help the electorate make any rational decision.
Indeed, if any newspaper was likely to promote a groundswell of support for the left, then you can rely on the DM.
I mean that black front page with that weird staring, portrait of May, what is that all about? Are they trying to intimidate people? because if anything it's going to have the absolute opposite effect. No one is intimidated by the DM, but anyone who sees that front page is going to be motivated to tell them to shove their Brexit up their arse.
I know it's the daily mail and they are the lowest form of journalistic fuckwits chasing sales, but ffs, everytime someone whinges about being thought of as a stupid for voting Leave, I'm going to post that front page up.
I'm sick to death of being called a remoaner, I'm sick to death of seeing the right wing press publish rubbish like this yet have to endure people whinging about left wing bias in the media, I'm sick to death of having to endure this low-level, passive aggressive bs from a puerile, insecure, media driven, right wing who seem to think that because some things have gone their way recently they have the god given right to silence all opposition and debate.
If it wasn't for a robust sense of humour, and a healthy interest in beer, and fast motorbikes, I feel like I may have popped a vein already.
Just going back to Vaktathis question about going through with, the other reason we can't go back on it is a sense of fair-play, British or otherwise.
If T May turned round tomorrow (after a moment of clarity during a stroll to the shops) and said 'sorry, I've though it through and it really is daft, let's call the whole thing off', then why would those who voted for Brexit ever take part in politics again. Sadly the fact it wasn't legally binding both wasn't pushed (or even mentioned, I don't think) by anyone in a position of authority beforehand, and has been so roundly ignored since that it may as well not be a fact at all at this point.
So, stiff upper lip, disengage higher cognitive functions, and forwards!
I mean that black front page with that weird staring, portrait of May, what is that all about? Are they trying to intimidate people? because if anything it's going to have the absolute opposite effect. No one is intimidated by the DM, but anyone who sees that front page is going to be motivated to tell them to shove their Brexit up their arse.
They aren't going to intimidate people that don't read the Daily Mail and realise what they are up to. However those that are already reading it could be swayed by such headlines and be intimidated by the fear it implies. Rather than have a rational discussion those that don't know they are being influenced will start believing that the people opposed are Saboteurs or enemies of the state and so on. The image of an overbearing May will then frighten them into thinking they are not doing their part and that May is watching. The problem is the words and language might lead people to, rather than vote,l take more extreme action against those they are being told are betraying the country and so forth. It's a type of brainwashing that has similarities (not exactly the same, but the psychological pressure being applied has the same basis) to propaganda used by terrorists to get people to do what they want.
On this Corbyn is correct, media should be taken to account to be more critical and neutral. We've already had one murdered MP, how long until a member of the public gets stabbed in the street because someone thought they were a saboteur because they support Remain.
On an aside I see Corbyn wants to give 4 more bank holidays. That's great, pity they are at carp times of the year. However I'm not sure we'll get much. The legislation currently means there is a minimum number of days off each year but that minimum includes bank holidays. If he ups the bank holidays and doesn't change anything else all that is likely to happen is we lose 4 days off our annual leave entitlement if you are employed.
Just going back to Vaktathis question about going through with, the other reason we can't go back on it is a sense of fair-play, British or otherwise.
If T May turned round tomorrow (after a moment of clarity during a stroll to the shops) and said 'sorry, I've though it through and it really is daft, let's call the whole thing off', then why would those who voted for Brexit ever take part in politics again. Sadly the fact it wasn't legally binding both wasn't pushed (or even mentioned, I don't think) by anyone in a position of authority beforehand, and has been so roundly ignored since that it may as well not be a fact at all at this point.
So, stiff upper lip, disengage higher cognitive functions, and forwards!
I don't think you could just call it off, that would be possibly worse. I think you'd have to go back the populace and state categorically that none of us were provided sufficient information to determine whether leaving or remaining was a good idea. I think they'd have to say look we'll negotiate in good faith and then come back to everyone so the populace can know exactly what they are voting for with (as I've stated before) three options (Remain, Leave and take the deal, Leave and go WTO). That way there could at least be an informed choice.
Future War Cultist wrote: A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.
Also... doesn't a US-to-UK trade deal have to happen at, or right after the brexit?
Trade with the Uk will be quick to finalise, because its in both parties interest to do so. ThUK civil service is labyrinthine and backward, but it can move quickly and efficiently when it needs to, and the senior civil servants are motivated to do what they can.
Trade deals are still very lengthy things, but there is lengthy and there is EU lengthy. The EU is known for taking literal decades longer than just about anyone else when it comes to provision of agreements. Brexit itself is a sole exception because there is an internal clock and a dangerous situation.
Uk trade negotiations should technically begin after the UK leaves the EU, however much of the behind doors talks from the EU has long begun and the Uk is likely to consider what is good for them is good for us too. Talks will occur on an unofficial level to triggers after the Uk leaves the EU, and as we now have a timetable date this that it can be achieved.
Future War Cultist wrote: A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.
Also... doesn't a US-to-UK trade deal have to happen at, or right after the brexit?
Trade with the Uk will be quick to finalise, because its in both parties interest to do so. ThUK civil service is labyrinthine and backward, but it can move quickly and efficiently when it needs to, and the senior civil servants are motivated to do what they can.
Trade deals are still very lengthy things, but there is lengthy and there is EU lengthy. The EU is known for taking literal decades longer than just about anyone else when it comes to provision of agreements. Brexit itself is a sole exception because there is an internal clock and a dangerous situation.
Uk trade negotiations should technically begin after the UK leaves the EU, however much of the behind doors talks from the EU has long begun and the Uk is likely to consider what is good for them is good for us too. Talks will occur on an unofficial level to triggers after the Uk leaves the EU, and as we now have a timetable date this that it can be achieved.
There will have been quiet internal contingency and prior talks provably before the vote and ones before article 50 activated.
Nothing solid but just working out the what if, and steps people take if x action happens, making sure each side is ready to and able to act when or if required..
There will have been enormous amounts of private discussions supporting thr big showly public events that are gonna happen.
There has to be to even arange the public talks in the very first place.
Darkjim wrote: ... Perhaps there will just be a Europe full of proud, nationalistic nations, living peacefully side by side for hundreds of years, like it used to be.
It's interesting to note the drop off in conflict in the latter half of the 20th century upto the present day. Almost as if something had changed, like a supra-national organisation, created to quell conflict had been created.
Jadenim wrote: I think Darkjim may have been using sarcasm.
At least I hope so.
I was, and I shouldn't, sorry. It would be a logical fallacy (I think) to say the EU is the reason there have been very few wars in Europe since the EU appeared, but equally - lots and lots and lots of wars prior to the EU, then very few wars after it appeared - is certainly a factor I think worth at least considering when trying to decide whether to ditch the whole thing. Proud, nationalistic countries seem to have a pretty consistent record when it comes to warfare - they like it. And the press love it.
I've been reflecting on the whole GE AND Brexit phenomenon and tbf TM has actually played a blinder.
Firstly, gone are the consequences of those Tory MPS embroiled in the election funding scandal with the possible further loss of majority.
Secondly, if the Tories win a solid majority again,and trounce all opposition, she will have 5 years to sort things out and a huge mandate and support.
Thirdly if the Lib Dems or Labour do somehow manage to surprise us and take a few seats, or even for a coalition, she, and the political right, will have the perfect whipping boy for everything that goes wrong.
I'm now minded to maybe vote for the Tories to let them sort out the mess they've started. It's not likely to be a pretty economy over the next few years, and they would be carrying the can the whole way.
As has been mentioned before, the right wing need to see their policies and ideology fail, and tbh, Brexit is the perfect opportunity to watch their world view collapse.
Hmm, decisions decisions. (Made slightly easier by living in the safest of Tory seats, so in reality as long as I don't pop an X next to UKIP, I'm grand)
I may even put a few bets on to spice things up and console me when eventually, out of nowhere, Farage becomes PM.
Imagine the G7 talks with Farage, Trump and Le Pen.
r_squared wrote: I've been reflecting on the whole GE AND Brexit phenomenon and tbf TM has actually played a blinder.
Firstly, gone are the consequences of those Tory MPS embroiled in the election funding scandal with the possible further loss of majority.
Secondly, if the Tories win a solid majority again,and trounce all opposition, she will have 5 years to sort things out and a huge mandate and support.
Thirdly if the Lib Dems or Labour do somehow manage to surprise us and take a few seats, or even for a coalition, she, and the political right, will have the perfect whipping boy for everything that goes wrong.
I'm now minded to maybe vote for the Tories to let them sort out the mess they've started. It's not likely to be a pretty economy over the next few years, and they would be carrying the can the whole way.
As has been mentioned before, the right wing need to see their policies and ideology fail, and tbh, Brexit is the perfect opportunity to watch their world view collapse.
Hmm, decisions decisions. (Made slightly easier by living in the safest of Tory seats, so in reality as long as I don't pop an X next to UKIP, I'm grand)
I may even put a few bets on to spice things up and console me when eventually, out of nowhere, Farage becomes PM.
Imagine the G7 talks with Farage, Trump and Le Pen.
Lok that would be funny or the G20 as all 3 would be big economies and have fairly heavy say!
I think British politics is entering the realms of fantasy again.
As people know, I don't rate Corbyn, and yet, Corbyn, a man who is reluctant to push the red button and wipe of millions of people is deemed 'mad,' whilst Michael Fallon, on the radio, and justifying a pre-emptive first strike, is deemed to be the 'normal' guy...
It's a strange world we live in...
And to make clear on that, Fallon was arguing for Britain to have first strike rights.
It's all very well to have trident to deter aggressors, and to fire back, if God forbid, nuclear war break outs, but pre-emptive attacks?
Who is a threat to Britain these days? Nobody. Absolutely nobody...
Who is a threat to Britain these days? Nobody. Absolutely nobody...
I know! It's Britain, Britain is the greatest threat to Britain. The first strike is there in case we do something really stupid and then the government can just nuke ourselves and get the misery over and done with.
Alternatively they'll first strike if Scotland leaves the UK; Fallon: "See we told Scotland there would be consequences"
That's foolish and short sighted. We can't predict what the threats to Britain will be in 50 years, 25 years or even just in the next 10 years. People like to hype up Russia and Putin as a big bad bogeyman, and yet you think now is the right time to ditch our nuclear weapons? Once we ditch our nuclear arsenal, we can't easily replace it should the need arise. Its better to have it and not need it, I say.
And its idiotic to hamstring ourselves by ruling out pre-emptive strikes. Waiting until we've been nuked ourselves will be too late, the damage will be done. What if Russia begins nuking eastern European NATO members? Are we going to wait for a nuke to hit Britain before we launch?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That's foolish and short sighted. We can't predict what the threats to Britain will be in 50 years, 25 years or even just in the next 10 years. People like to hype up Russia and Putin as a big bad bogeyman, and yet you think now is the right time to ditch our nuclear weapons? Once we ditch our nuclear arsenal, we can't easily replace it should the need arise. Its better to have it and not need it, I say.
And its idiotic to hamstring ourselves by ruling out pre-emptive strikes. Waiting until we've been nuked ourselves will be too late, the damage will be done. What if Russia begins nuking eastern European NATO members? Are we going to wait for a nuke to hit Britain before we launch?
What he said, you don't know when a crazy mad hatter is going to get in charge.
Heck, last month Turkey was a democracy. Who knows what will happen next month?
If a NATO country gets nuked "nuking back", as it were, isn't a preemptive strike. Who are you going to launch at first (you know, what the "first use" doctrine is about in nuclear warfare theory) without ending civilization? The sheer arrogance it would take to gamble with billions of lives like that is astounding.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That's foolish and short sighted. We can't predict what the threats to Britain will be in 50 years, 25 years or even just in the next 10 years. People like to hype up Russia and Putin as a big bad bogeyman, and yet you think now is the right time to ditch our nuclear weapons? Once we ditch our nuclear arsenal, we can't easily replace it should the need arise. Its better to have it and not need it, I say.
That's true, but at the same time you can't also predict what the threats will be either. What happens if it is self replicating nanobots viruses that can slice you up from the inside or self made viruses if we discover how to start life ourselves. What happens if space defence lasers become reality and can vaporise a ballistic missile before it gets back into the atmosphere? We could find we are just sitting on an expensive piece of scrap.
And its idiotic to hamstring ourselves by ruling out pre-emptive strikes. Waiting until we've been nuked ourselves will be too late, the damage will be done. What if Russia begins nuking eastern European NATO members? Are we going to wait for a nuke to hit Britain before we launch?
This is already a retaliatory strike. It's acting because allies are being attacked. First strike means you attack because you *think* someone is going to get up to something naughty. It means killing potentially tens of thousands or millions of people (that's before you consider the retaliatory attacks) because of, in the end, a hunch.
There is an advantage of not having nukes, you just aren't a primary target. If anything should teach us about the world is that the more weapons you have the more people get killed.
Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.
But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.
Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.
Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?
I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?
Yeah but that's not likely to result in the end of the whole world - even if the apocalypse does rain down on you locally...
I dunno.. You might think the end of the world came down upon you. That and you may end up on the sofa..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.
But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.
Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.
Aye.. Its a win win move for UK to offer that in effect.
If EU agree its secured our peoples status.
If NO. The EU looks bad as UK dis offer a fair and logical deal.
labour are looking out for EU citzens before there own people... Might I remind you who make up this countries voters....
Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?
I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?
Yeah but that's not likely to result in the end of the whole world - even if the apocalypse does rain down on you locally...
I dunno.. You might think the end of the world came down upon you. That and you may end up on the sofa..
I might take that if it meant I could avoid the obligatory (and boring) shopping trips....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.
But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.
Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.
Aye.. Its a win win move for UK to offer that in effect.
If EU agree its secured our peoples status.
If NO. The EU looks bad as UK dis offer a fair and logical deal.
labour are looking out for EU citzens before there own people... Might I remind you who make up this countries voters....
The EU have already stated they want to guarantee the rights of EU/UK citizens living abroad. It's already in their strategy for the negotiations.
The right for every EU citizen, and of his or her family members, to live, to work or to study in any EU Member State is a fundamental aspect of the European Union. Along with other rights provided under EU law, it has shaped the lives and choices of millions of people. Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to settle the status and situations at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be a matter of priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be enforceable and non-discriminatory.
The point about offering a guarantee to current EU residents is that we need them in various areas of the economy. For instance, in the past couple of days, UK universities have warned that 18% of their academic staff and EU citizens they don't want to lose, and the Federation of Small Businesses has warned that 21% of their members are reliant on what are called medium skilled workers (bookkeepers, office managers, and so on) from the EU.
Without a guarantee, some of these people are going to up sticks, leaving two important sectors in the crap.
I agree with the head of Migrant Watch that the UK ought to be training and educating its own people to fill these jobs, but that doesn't happen overnight. Not to mention that universities and academia rely on cross-fertilisation of academics between different countries, it's part of how the system works.
The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point about offering a guarantee to current EU residents is that we need them in various areas of the economy. For instance, in the past couple of days, UK universities have warned that 18% of their academic staff and EU citizens they don't want to lose, and the Federation of Small Businesses has warned that 21% of their members are reliant on what are called medium skilled workers (bookkeepers, office managers, and so on) from the EU.
It's not just that for Universities. Most people will get a Visas or whatever to work in the UK. The big issue for science is that, excluding medicine, 50% of the funding now comes from the EU. A lot of the science is undertaken by postdocs and these are criminally underfunded by the UK, because in effect the EU provides so much money to fund such positions. Problem is that it's roughly a two/three year cycle, people now don't know whether they will be able to access this money. That's encouraging both EU and UK postdocs abroad so they can access these resources without fear. Additionally UK institutions are starting to be frozen out of being major players in EU bid proposals, in case in a couple of years it blows up because of the negotiations. This is all driving the temporary staff in the majority to look elsewhere for certainty and the most successful are leaving first.
Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?
I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?
Yeah but that's not likely to result in the end of the whole world - even if the apocalypse does rain down on you locally...
I dunno.. You might think the end of the world came down upon you. That and you may end up on the sofa..
I might take that if it meant I could avoid the obligatory (and boring) shopping trips....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.
But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.
Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.
Aye.. Its a win win move for UK to offer that in effect.
If EU agree its secured our peoples status.
If NO. The EU looks bad as UK dis offer a fair and logical deal.
labour are looking out for EU citzens before there own people... Might I remind you who make up this countries voters....
The EU have already stated they want to guarantee the rights of EU/UK citizens living abroad. It's already in their strategy for the negotiations.
The right for every EU citizen, and of his or her family members, to live, to work or to study in any EU Member State is a fundamental aspect of the European Union. Along with other rights provided under EU law, it has shaped the lives and choices of millions of people. Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to settle the status and situations at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be a matter of priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be enforceable and non-discriminatory.
It's our country that is dallying on the issue.
Its a public game of blink first.
The real agreement on it was probbly made in private ages ago.
Kilkrazy wrote: The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.
Britain will remain a migration destination for the foreseeable future, regardless of what the nationalists hope for. It is the only economy in Western Europe that is both modern and labour intensive. The mix of migrants is likely to change though. Without easy access to East European workers and free movement, low wage workers from Africa and Asia will become more attractive for employers.
Kilkrazy wrote: The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.
Britain will remain a migration destination for the foreseeable future, regardless of what the nationalists hope for. It is the only economy in Western Europe that is both modern and labour intensive. The mix of migrants is likely to change though. Without easy access to East European workers and free movement, low wage workers from Africa and Asia will become more attractive for employers.
Which is one of the (many) things that has always bemused/annoyed me about the Brexit campaign; for all of this talk of "getting immigration down to 10s of thousands", ~50% of our immigration comes from outside of the EU and is entirely within our control. Yet we still have c.150,000 people coming in from the rest of the world because, funnily enough, our economy and social services need them!
Brexit is not the problem IMO. It was never the problem.
As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.
The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.
And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.
We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...
I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.
But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...
As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.
The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.
And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.
We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...
I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.
But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...
And here lies why I will forever be frustrated with the Brexit campaign, why is it necessary to leave the EU to fix these problems?
As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.
The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.
And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.
We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...
I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.
But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...
And here lies why I will forever be frustrated with the Brexit campaign, why is it necessary to leave the EU to fix these problems?
Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.
And as I said last year, if the vote had been yes, the EU with a lot of justification, could have said to Britain: you've voted twice now to stay in. Put up or shut up and get on board with full integration.
Our political class would have been reduced to a parliament of rubber-stampers.
Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.
I think I can predict the outcome of this for the UK though given the general level of competence. It goes something like this...
As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.
The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.
And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.
We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...
I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.
But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...
And here lies why I will forever be frustrated with the Brexit campaign, why is it necessary to leave the EU to fix these problems?
You don't and that's why the whole affair has been driven by a few people wanting to benefit over the majority.
On an aside I'm slightly confused about May's statement today...
Theresa May said an "unstable coalition of divisive nationalists" was causing "uncertainty and instability".
I'm now confused is she supporting or against the Tory party???
"Nationalist", "Divisive" and "Enemy of the People" are new political buzzwords that if shouted loudly and often enough by one group hopefully will stick to another and make them sound too ad to vote for.
Historically, the Tory Party is the most nationalistic (after UKIP) and also the most divided on the issue of the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Nationalist", "Divisive" and "Enemy of the People" are new political buzzwords that if shouted loudly and often enough by one group hopefully will stick to another and make them sound too ad to vote for.
Historically, the Tory Party is the most nationalistic (after UKIP) and also the most divided on the issue of the EU.
That's the thing. They are promoting the most nationalistic agenda possible with a hard Brexit over the last 9 months. Anyone with any sense will realise that.
So who is she attacking. Labour, no they want to guarantee EU citizens rights, LD - don't be ridiculous. That just leaves UKIP (in tatters) and SNP who quite rightly will point out that nationalism is fine for Westminster but not for Scotland.
I think most people would think this comment is an ...erh...what's she talking about?
Kilkrazy wrote: "Nationalist", "Divisive" and "Enemy of the People" are new political buzzwords that if shouted loudly and often enough by one group hopefully will stick to another and make them sound too ad to vote for.
Historically, the Tory Party is the most nationalistic (after UKIP) and also the most divided on the issue of the EU.
That's the thing. They are promoting the most nationalistic agenda possible with a hard Brexit over the last 9 months. Anyone with any sense will realise that.
So who is she attacking. Labour, no they want to guarantee EU citizens rights, LD - don't be ridiculous. That just leaves UKIP (in tatters) and SNP who quite rightly will point out that nationalism is fine for Westminster but not for Scotland.
I think most people would think this comment is an ...erh...what's she talking about?
It's May - there should be a picture of her in the dictionary under U-turn.
Only a few weeks ago, she was saying that now is not the time for another independence referendum
This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.
Agreed. The law of averages says that some of those MPs under investigation have to be guilty.
If the Tories gained no advantage from the battle bus touring the Shires, then why bother with it?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.
That and historically bad showing by Labour in the polls meaning that the Tories see the chance for a big majority. Corbyn, I am sorry to say, may have principles but he is a terrible leader.
To be fair, there is a practical point that we don't want to be in the late stages of Brexit negotiation with a general election looming. It is a circumstance where national interest and party interest (for the Tories) march happily hand in hand.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.
That and historically bad showing by Labour in the polls meaning that the Tories see the chance for a big majority. Corbyn, I am sorry to say, may have principles but he is a terrible leader.
To be fair, there is a practical point that we don't want to be in the late stages of Brexit negotiation with a general election looming. It is a circumstance where national interest and party interest (for the Tories) march happily hand in hand.
It hasn't dawned on the Tories yet that Brussels doesn't give two hoots whatever May's majority is, Greece being a prime example of that.
The Tories have been out-manoeuvred by Brussels at every turn. It hasn't surprised me in the least, but the fact that is has surprised the Tories speaks volumes.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This snap election has nothing to do with democracy or Brexit, and everything to do with trying to pre-empt several dozen potential by-elections that might be triggered by the Tory election spending scandal.
That and historically bad showing by Labour in the polls meaning that the Tories see the chance for a big majority. Corbyn, I am sorry to say, may have principles but he is a terrible leader...
I don't know if you've heard of the principal of followership, it's a buzz word used in the military and I believe industry which describes the ability of individuals to support and follow a leader. The labour party is suffering from poor followership. The days of the Blairites is over, and they need to either step aside, or demonstrate good followership and support their leader who has been democratically selected, twice.
I've been following a bit more of Corbyn, and I've been surprised at the pretty shoddy treatment he's getting from the media, including the BBC. I'm more inclined to support the man, not his party, as I feel that he is showing principle and grit despite all that is being flung at him.
I studied leadership in my organizational psychology module in my management degree. One theory of leadership is that rather than the leader mobilising the mass, it is the mass that mobilises and creates the leader (in terms of support, etc.) From that angle, the Labour Party has a serious split between the 'old guard' Blairites, and the XXXtreme Couponing members who support Corbyn.
As far as the BBC goes, I am listening to a lot of Radio 4 ATM. They aren't giving Corbyn a hard time. The Labour Party genuinely is in a bad situation for this election. They don't have clear policy statements, and if they do, they seem to fudge them up. Worst of all was Corbyn not being able to say if he personally as the leader of the party followed the party line on Trident. Comared to that, the Tories are leading with "We will deliver Brexit" and "Look at those Labour clowns." It is a striking message.
FWIW I actually do believe Corbyn has genuine convictions and ideas that are worth listening too. It's just that he presents in a way that doesn't work in the modern era of 24 hour news, social media, and soundbite politics.
If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.
Back to Do I Not Like That. If the EU ran rings around the Tories, why did the EU let the Tories have the stupid referendum that got us into this fething mess. /rhetorical
Kilkrazy wrote: If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.
From what I have seen it is also mostly him trying to avoid answering a question that was clearly a loaded question with no right answer. Whatever he said it was going to go badly for him and now the media is attacking him for being evasive.
Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.
Our political class is a group of professional blame dodgers, and we'll still have some involvement with the EU (what with it being over there). I'm under no illusion that the politicians will never stop blaming the EU, and tabloid readers will keep lapping it up.
Brexit was and still could be, the catalyst to take a long hard look at this nation's problems and fix them. For as long as we remained in the EU, our political class would abdicate responsibility to Brussels, and predictably, blame the EU when things went wrong. That option is going out the window. We will have to sink or swim now.
Our political class is a group of professional blame dodgers, and we'll still have some involvement with the EU (what with it being over there). I'm under no illusion that the politicians will never stop blaming the EU, and tabloid readers will keep lapping it up.
It's easy to blame but both the public at large and populations. It divests them of their own responsibilities of the world (e.g. they are taking our jobs - but did the individual go out and retrain to get a better one or just expect it to fall in their lap? etc).
It is however hard to take real responsibility and look inwards at our flaws (except me I'm perfect... )
Automatically Appended Next Post: As something of an aside there was a discussion the other day as to where tax liabilities lies in the UK and the argument that the poorest pay more proportionally than the wealthiest.
Well the ONS has published results on this and it is rather staggering. The poor indeed pay a larger proportion of their salary in taxes (42%) compared to the richest (34.3%).
Who says the Tory party doesn't benefit the rich of over the poor
Kilkrazy wrote: If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.
From what I have seen it is also mostly him trying to avoid answering a question that was clearly a loaded question with no right answer. Whatever he said it was going to go badly for him and now the media is attacking him for being evasive.
Exactly.
I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't. He has been very supportive of LGBT rights like gay marriage. I also agree with him that we are all sinners in one way or another.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are several examples of Tory policy benefitting the well-off over the poor:
Reduction in inheritance tax by raising the limit disproportionately benefits people with substantial estates over ordinary working class people with small estates.
The Financial Compensation scheme that automatically replaces £75,000 of cash savings if your bank goes bankrupt clearly benefits the well off.
The introduction of the new top-up ISA massively benefits people whose children are capable of saving £3,000 a year by giving them an extra £1,000.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you want to see unfair media treatment, look at the concentration on Farron's view on the sinfulness of gay sex. WTF has that got to do with anything? Nothing. It's clearly just a point where the media think they can give him a hard time.
From what I have seen it is also mostly him trying to avoid answering a question that was clearly a loaded question with no right answer. Whatever he said it was going to go badly for him and now the media is attacking him for being evasive.
Exactly.
I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't. He has been very supportive of LGBT rights like gay marriage. I also agree with him that we are all sinners in one way or another.
People tend to ignore the fact that it is in the same category as lying, pornography, blasphemy and missing mass. It is not the belief that these matters are a sin or not, but the action taken by the person, whatever they believe. I won't go any further down this path as I fear to say any more would be to get in to a discussion about religion and draw us off topic.
There are several examples of Tory policy benefitting the well-off over the poor:
Reduction in inheritance tax by raising the limit disproportionately benefits people with substantial estates over ordinary working class people with small estates.
The Financial Compensation scheme that automatically replaces £75,000 of cash savings if your bank goes bankrupt clearly benefits the well off.
The introduction of the new top-up ISA massively benefits people whose children are capable of saving £3,000 a year by giving them an extra £1,000.
I have to question the use of the term "ordinary working class people". I would argue that those have also effected most of the middle classes too. The majority of the middle classes are not "£100k plus, two weeks in Tuscany and minor public school for the children", but people who are comfortable enough, with 9-5 jobs, two cars and a week away in Spain. What they don't have is £250 per month to spare for every child, large savings or substantial estates, at least until they are close to retirement, once the children have left home and their mortgage has been paid off, but the funding would be much better spent helping low and middle income families when they need support, not once the middle income ones have become well off.
I think Farron is suffering from the American take - my values trump yours, BAN EVERYTHING I FIND OBJECTIONABLE!!
Like others, I don't think Farron is about to foist his morals. Distasteful a sound bite as I find it, he's doing 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' thing right.
He and anyone can believe anything they want, provided they don't insist on making it policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The FSCS does protect everyone though.
For some, their life savings might be a few hundred quid at most - but they're still protected.
My Mum and Dad have done well for themselves (sodding baby boomers ), and have various savings and investments here and there - and as they've divested those savings into a variety of accounts, they're well covered by FSCS protections.
Lefty as I am, I don't think the FSCS is there to help keep people rich, but to provide a buffer for the economy should a bank go under - and remember, that very incredibly nearly happened in 2007 with HBoS.
The FSCS also pays compensation for mis-selling of financial products should the original seller go under.
Let's consider some of the companies offering dodgy loans to people who really shouldn't have had them. I won't name names, but there were companies that offered high interest rate loans to let people re-finance. And they took a heavy hit during the economic crash. But they also sold expensive and on occasion useless PPI - an example would be a 25 year loan, where the policy was lumped in with the credit, attracting interest. But that policy itself might only offer 5 years of cover. But because it's cost is lumped in with the main product, it attracts interest for the full 25 years.
Clearly, that wasn't a good product, and had things been properly explained, no-one in their right mind would've agreed to it. So that's a PPI refund right there - and often a substantial one.
If that company is no longer solvent, the FSCS will consider the complaint, and if upheld, pay out that refund.
That's a massive benefit to some of the most desperate in society.
Interesting polling results here. May is only favourable to the older, 40+, population. For the <30 year olds they massively favour Labour. Election could then be about who actually turns out to vote overall. I suppose from a future political perspective the question is whether these people will become more conservative over time or whether they will continue to favour Labour. If it is the latter then Conservatives could be facing real support issues over the next generation.
Well, there we have it. Labour's grand vision for 21st century Britain is...well...a pay rise for NHS staff....
Nothing wrong with that, unless you're reading a book about Labour in 1945 and their vision for creating the new Jerusalem in Britain and the birth of the welfare state...
Labour were giants back in 1945. Now they are reduced to being paper clip counters...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, there we have it. Labour's grand vision for 21st century Britain is...well...a pay rise for NHS staff....
Nothing wrong with that, unless you're reading a book about Labour in 1945 and their vision for creating the new Jerusalem in Britain and the birth of the welfare state...
Labour were giants back in 1945. Now they are reduced to being paper clip counters...
Have they released their manifesto then and that is all that is in it? Otherwise it's just articles from newspapers from one announcement and you are being overly critical.
There isn't anything wrong with ensuring you can keep the staff you need by paying them a larger salary. You have ro remember these people have been limited to pay rises of 0-1% generally which is much less than the cost of living has increased. Hence the attractiveness of working in the field is less (so less applicants) and if you drive a shortage then the private suppliers will pay more for such staff driving shortages even further. If people stop seeing at as good career (and we aren't just talking brain surgeons here) then they will look elsewhere for other jobs and that could already be happening. UCAS nursing applications were down 27% compared the previous year. How long do you think the NHS will be able to cope with such reductions (especially if you limit immigration as well)?
I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do and defend Libdem leader Tim Farron. The way the media is bombarding him with questions about his faith is disgusting. They're hypocritical bullies too because they'd never ask a Muslim these sort of questions, the
Radio 4 was giving Jeremy Hunt a pretty hard time this morning. He could only come back with typical politico-bollocks like "the NHS has an extra £6 billion of funding", "We've added 12,000 nurses" and things like that.
It made a startling contrast with the veteran doctor saying that solving the problem was the government's job and he needed more people and more space.
Kilkrazy wrote: Radio 4 was giving Jeremy Hunt a pretty hard time this morning. He could only come back with typical politico-bollocks like "the NHS has an extra £6 billion of funding", "We've added 12,000 nurses" and things like that.
It made a startling contrast with the veteran doctor saying that solving the problem was the government's job and he needed more people and more space.
The problem is that's all well and good if you have no inflation and no weighted increase per person using the NHS, but that simply isn't the case. The number of people accessing the NHS is going up substantially more than the increase in funding. Top this off with increasing recruitment difficulties leading to the use of more expensive private agencies/employees then the funding is nowhere near enough.
Nor does it help that the GPs are overstretched and the local councils have had their budgets gutted to the point that to provide adequate social care would mean cutting about everything else they provide. This hence then puts more pressure on the NHS as the GPs only resort is to prescribe them a visit to hospital because the elderly simply can't afford or are unable to look after themselves. By cutting council budgets to the bone they have effectively compounded the issue on the NHS.
This article on the BBC has a discussion on the issues the NHS face.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do and defend Libdem leader Tim Farron. The way the media is bombarding him with questions about his faith is disgusting. They're hypocritical bullies too because they'd never ask a Muslim these sort of questions, the
The only reason to attack him like they are doing is to make people question voting for him. Corbyn is weak already but likely to hold onto safe seats. It's only the marginal ones at risk. But comparatively Tories could be at risk in pro-Remain LD/Tory marginal seats. If LDs gain a good fraction of the seats they lost last time then any gains made by the Tories are likely to be wiped out (and in some ways that is even worse because they are definitely pro-EU rather than Corbyn who doesn't seem to know where he sits on the issue).
To be honest if I were Farron I'd turn the questioning on it's head.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, there we have it. Labour's grand vision for 21st century Britain is...well...a pay rise for NHS staff....
Nothing wrong with that, unless you're reading a book about Labour in 1945 and their vision for creating the new Jerusalem in Britain and the birth of the welfare state...
Labour were giants back in 1945. Now they are reduced to being paper clip counters...
Have they released their manifesto then and that is all that is in it? Otherwise it's just articles from newspapers from one announcement and you are being overly critical.
There isn't anything wrong with ensuring you can keep the staff you need by paying them a larger salary. You have ro remember these people have been limited to pay rises of 0-1% generally which is much less than the cost of living has increased. Hence the attractiveness of working in the field is less (so less applicants) and if you drive a shortage then the private suppliers will pay more for such staff driving shortages even further. If people stop seeing at as good career (and we aren't just talking brain surgeons here) then they will look elsewhere for other jobs and that could already be happening. UCAS nursing applications were down 27% compared the previous year. How long do you think the NHS will be able to cope with such reductions (especially if you limit immigration as well)?
I'm not being overly critical - this is feeble stuff from Labour. Setting out an agenda to tackle the root causes of problems blighting the NHS and planning for future problems e.g the rise of diabetes and an ageing population, is what is need. Not a pay rise here, a pay rise there.
Having listened to PMQs at lunch, I think I would vote for anyone who would suggest some way to stop our elected representatives sounding like a braying bunch of schoolchildren when discussing the future of the country.
At the very least, if the Qs could receive some As, rather than the PM just trotting out whichever key phrase their advisors have told them to push that day, that would be great.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't.
Except the time he voted No on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which is a blemish upon his voting record I don't believe he's ever chosen to explain, and thus makes me incredibly wary of his apparent change of heart.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't care if Farron thinks gay sex is a sin due to his religion, so long as that doesn't affect the way he votes or governs, and the evidence from his voting record shows that it doesn't.
Except the time he voted No on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which is a blemish upon his voting record I don't believe he's ever chosen to explain, and thus makes me incredibly wary of his apparent change of heart.
I've banged this drum before, but Farron's continued support of Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem MP for Orkney and Shetland) during and after the Frenchgate affair, is also a black mark against him in my book.
Carmichael was branded a liar in court by two high court judges, lied to an inquiry about Frenchgate, which cost the taxpayer about a million quid, almost caused a diplomatic incident with France when he essentially accused a French diplomat of lying, and tried to bankrupt his constituents who took him to court to try and force a by election. The constituents being none to happy about their MP's actions during Frenchgate.
Farron defended this, whilst banging on about integrity in politics. He's a two faced git!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darkjim wrote: Having listened to PMQs at lunch, I think I would vote for anyone who would suggest some way to stop our elected representatives sounding like a braying bunch of schoolchildren when discussing the future of the country.
At the very least, if the Qs could receive some As, rather than the PM just trotting out whichever key phrase their advisors have told them to push that day, that would be great.
Kilkrazy wrote: Radio 4 was giving Jeremy Hunt a pretty hard time this morning. He could only come back with typical politico-bollocks like "the NHS has an extra £6 billion of funding", "We've added 12,000 nurses" and things like that.
It made a startling contrast with the veteran doctor saying that solving the problem was the government's job and he needed more people and more space.
The problem is that's all well and good if you have no inflation and no weighted increase per person using the NHS, but that simply isn't the case. The number of people accessing the NHS is going up substantially more than the increase in funding. Top this off with increasing recruitment difficulties leading to the use of more expensive private agencies/employees then the funding is nowhere near enough.
Nor does it help that the GPs are overstretched and the local councils have had their budgets gutted to the point that to provide adequate social care would mean cutting about everything else they provide. This hence then puts more pressure on the NHS as the GPs only resort is to prescribe them a visit to hospital because the elderly simply can't afford or are unable to look after themselves. By cutting council budgets to the bone they have effectively compounded the issue on the NHS.
This article on the BBC has a discussion on the issues the NHS face.
Education is facing exactly the same problem. The government continuously trots out the same statement about record levels of funding, but it's just not enough. Costs have risen, the pupil population has risen and all schools are facing massive deficits in their budgets.
I'm luck in that I work in a popular, over subscribed secondary school. My school has been able to avoid making any teachers redundant by not replacing staff lost to natural wastage and increasing our pupil intake by an extra 30 pupils per year group. The result is bigger class sizes, less marking and preparation time for teachers and many subjects being dropped from the curriculum.
The make matters worse, this government has messed about with the curriculum to the point where everybody is confused about the new GCSE grades in Maths and English. Pupils are stressed out and we can't reassure them it'll be okay, because we don't know if it will be. At a time when the school is on its knees financially, the change to the Maths A level coming in next year has just invalidated all of our text books and we can't afford new ones.
The government has said we need more students studying STEM subjects, but their messing with the maths curriculum and exam system has started to have the effect that fewer students are opting for Maths at A level ( because the new GCSE has totally put them off the subject).
I've been a teacher for 20 years now and I've never before had to put up with a government with such a monumental combination of incompetence and callous indifference when it comes to education policy.
I'm not being overly critical - this is feeble stuff from Labour. Setting out an agenda to tackle the root causes of problems blighting the NHS and planning for future problems e.g the rise of diabetes and an ageing population, is what is need. Not a pay rise here, a pay rise there.
It is overly critical though if you haven't read their proposals in full (which we don't yet have). It may just be part of the strategy for improving the NHS and that this is just a soundbite (as it speaks at a personal level) which every politician uses because you can't read a manifesto to the public as it would take hours. At least they are stating something as to what they are going to do. The sum of the Tories responses have been look what we've done; look how badly they did (over 7 years ago); everyone else will just a be a nationalistic nightmare for the country (despite the fact we ourselves are a nationalistic nightmare)....As per the last election they are playing on fears again rather than anything positive.
I'm all for being critical but only when we have the relevant information.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I'm waiting for the interview where May is questioned relentlessly about her position on gay sex.
Lol, now that would be funny. Instead we're more likely to get drivel about how she spent Easter wandering lost around Wales.
I'm not being overly critical - this is feeble stuff from Labour. Setting out an agenda to tackle the root causes of problems blighting the NHS and planning for future problems e.g the rise of diabetes and an ageing population, is what is need. Not a pay rise here, a pay rise there.
It is overly critical though if you haven't read their proposals in full (which we don't yet have). It may just be part of the strategy for improving the NHS and that this is just a soundbite (as it speaks at a personal level) which every politician uses because you can't read a manifesto to the public as it would take hours. At least they are stating something as to what they are going to do. The sum of the Tories responses have been look what we've done; look how badly they did (over 7 years ago); everyone else will just a be a nationalistic nightmare for the country (despite the fact we ourselves are a nationalistic nightmare)....As per the last election they are playing on fears again rather than anything positive.
I'm all for being critical but only when we have the relevant information.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I'm waiting for the interview where May is questioned relentlessly about her position on gay sex.
Lol, now that would be funny. Instead we're more likely to get drivel about how she spent Easter wandering lost around Wales.
No offence Whirlwind, but manifestos these days could probably be written on the back of a beer mat. If you're expecting detail from any party, then you've come to the wrong place.
No offence Whirlwind, but manifestos these days could probably be written on the back of a beer mat. If you're expecting detail from any party, then you've come to the wrong place.
Well Corbyn did say he would rip up the rulebook, maybe this is how he would start.
However even if it wasn't they could still list a number of actions with the pay rises being just one of them. For example they could suggest they set Daleks on anyone over the age of 66.... . That benefits them both in voter representation and reduces NHS expenditure.
r_squared wrote: I'm waiting for the interview where May is questioned relentlessly about her position on gay sex.
69, presumably?
Back to normal service. I have noticed an worrying pattern of phraseology used by Tory minister/spokespeople when questioned about funding of the NHS, schools, etc.
It goes something like this:
"You don't need to worry about the [lack of] money going into the XXX because IF [emphasis mine] we get a good result at the Brexit negotiations [thanks to a thumping Tory majority for Our Glorious Leader May] then the economy will grow [faster than it would have done without all the complications of Brexit] and there will be plenty of money for everybody."
This glosses over the current lack of funding, appeals for a strong vote for the Tories, punts the real question of funding three or four years down the road, and prepares the ground for a bad result which will of course be blamed on someone else, such as those invidious Europeans, or Remainers, or anyone but the government who have got the country into this dangerous situation.
I might be paranoid, or I might have been around the block a few times.
r_squared wrote: I'm waiting for the interview where May is questioned relentlessly about her position on gay sex.
69, presumably?
Back to normal service. I have noticed an worrying pattern of phraseology used by Tory minister/spokespeople when questioned about funding of the NHS, schools, etc.
It goes something like this:
"You don't need to worry about the [lack of] money going into the XXX because IF [emphasis mine] we get a good result at the Brexit negotiations [thanks to a thumping Tory majority for Our Glorious Leader May] then the economy will grow [faster than it would have done without all the complications of Brexit] and there will be plenty of money for everybody."
This glosses over the current lack of funding, appeals for a strong vote for the Tories, punts the real question of funding three or four years down the road, and prepares the ground for a bad result which will of course be blamed on someone else, such as those invidious Europeans, or Remainers, or anyone but the government who have got the country into this dangerous situation.
I might be paranoid, or I might have been around the block a few times.
Back to normal service. I have noticed an worrying pattern of phraseology used by Tory minister/spokespeople when questioned about funding of the NHS, schools, etc.
It goes something like this:
"You don't need to worry about the [lack of] money going into the XXX because IF [emphasis mine] we get a good result at the Brexit negotiations [thanks to a thumping Tory majority for Our Glorious Leader May] then the economy will grow [faster than it would have done without all the complications of Brexit] and there will be plenty of money for everybody."
This glosses over the current lack of funding, appeals for a strong vote for the Tories, punts the real question of funding three or four years down the road, and prepares the ground for a bad result which will of course be blamed on someone else, such as those invidious Europeans, or Remainers, or anyone but the government who have got the country into this dangerous situation.
I might be paranoid, or I might have been around the block a few times.
That's the whole point of a referendum isn't it? So government can abdicate all responsibility and if it all goes tits up, can shrug and say, "well that's what you wanted wasn't it?"
Naturally. A Jewish student was elected "vice-president for welfare" after all. Clearly she's going to be the true power behind the throne and the new President is nought but a puppet.
It would be nice if someone would take the opportunity to question BoJo about morality, the same sort of thing Tim Farron has faced in every interview he does.
"Mr. Johnson - precisely how many children have you fathered with other women whilst married, humiliating your wife in the process each time? We know about one, there are rumours of others. And how many affairs have you had during your marriage? The public have a right to know old chap."
We are one week in and have already got down to the level of inane name calling. Shows something about the quality of journalism in the Scum though.
Heaven knows where we will be in 6 weeks time, they will all be throwing mud pies at each other.
To be fair to Bojo, and I don't like being fair to that , that was an opinion piece.
Its called a (news)paper, though I talk about news lightly when it comes to the Scum. An opinion piece is meant to be an opinion on the ongoing news - it's not meant to be an excuse for throwing verbal insults at other people.
If he wants to do that then he should just go and work for a trashy weekly magazine (and do us all a favour).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I see the conservatives are ramping up the project fear, Corbyn is a "dire threat" and will lead a "coalition of chaos".
Most of the Conservative supporters I know are lapping it up, and getting ready to vote to "save" the country.
A bit like sheep going to the slaughterhouse then.
Truck turns up - "Baaa- Tories will save us"
Unload at the abattoir (called Meat for the Rich) - "Baaa, they are just showing us around - Tories will save us"
Now Next to the compression gun - "Baaaa - Tories will save us....oh" shortly followed by a thud.
In other news apparently now we will start attacking Syria without a vote if the US asked us to, no vote in parliament or anything like that inconvenience....
Obviously what they took from the Iraq fiasco was not to let anyone know what you are doing and avoid any awkward questions. I suppose at least it means you avoid having a dodgy dossier people can pick over.
And apparently the backlash against Brexit has begun. Now more people think Brexit is a mistake than the correct decision...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And apparently there was another (failed) attack at Westminster today when someone was arrested with a bag full of knives.
No points for guessing the demographic of the suspect.
Well, at least they stopped it. That's something. Until the next one that is.
I've got to wonder how Bozo the clown actually got to be FS. He appears to have less intelligence (or acts that way) than my one year nephew has in his little finger (and that's probably being harsh on my nephew).
In other news apparently now we will start attacking Syria without a vote if the US asked us to, no vote in parliament or anything like that inconvenience....
This'll be the taking back control we heard so much about right ?
At least seven international banks based in London have taken the decision to open offices in Frankfurt to beat trading restrictions in the wake of Brexit, the German city said yesterday.
A further 20 banks were in advanced talks on relocating some staff, Frankfurt officials said, as Deutsche Bank warned it might have to move up to 4,000 of its 9,000 UK employees.
The US giants Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and Swiss banks Credit Suisse and UBS were all understood to be considering a relocation of London staff, German media reported.
More than 250 foreign banks operate in the UK while Frankfurt hosts about 60, including small outposts for the four floated as candidates for relocation yesterday. Frankfurt is keen to position itself as the EU base of choice once Britain leaves the single market and loses its right to authorise UK-based banks to offer services across the 27 member nations.
Banking industry sources believe Goldman Sachs has already decided to move some staff to Frankfurt despite hot competition from Paris and Dublin. Goldman Sachs did not respond to questions yesterday.
“A Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Swiss, Indian and a Russian bank have already opted for Frankfurt,” Hubertus Väth, managing director of Frankfurt Main Finance, the city’s business promotion association, told Handelsblatt yesterday.
“In three of the five US banks, decisions have been made in favour of Frankfurt, or are in the offing,” he said. “With more than 20 banks, the talks are getting more and more concrete.”
None of the banks confirmed a move and talk of decisions being made may be part of Frankfurt’s attempt to build momentum for its self-promotion campaign. Sources at Credit Suisse and UBS told The Times that Frankfurt was on the table but no decisions had been made.
Credit Suisse is understood to be looking at various EU cities to send staff to perform functions complicated by Brexit, with Dublin also a possibility.
UBS has said that Frankfurt and Madrid were being looked at but managers were waiting to see the final Brexit deal before deciding. City sources said Russian bank VTB could be lining up a Frankfurt move after saying last year it would leave the UK.
Sylvie Matherat, chief of compliance for Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank, said it could move 4,000 jobs away from Britain. “For front office people who want to deal with a European Union client, you need to be based in continental Europe, and we are speaking of 2,000 people,” Ms Matherat said.
Deutsche would also have to book all trades for clients based on the continent in the EU, meaning moving large parts of its IT capacity to its home base in Frankfurt, she added. “Then local supervisors say, you must have your risk management here. That means another 2,000 people, other IT capabilities,” Ms Matherat said.
A senior Wall Street banking executive told The Times: “The absolute priority for us is that there is no client we cannot do business with as a result of Brexit. We will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that our service to our clients is not interrupted.”
Handelsblatt reported that “Brexit could cost 30,000 to 75,000 jobs on the island” from 2.2 million working in the financial sector.
The Times reported this week that Wall Street banks were considering creating “pop-up” branches in European countries after Brexit while keeping most of their work for continental clients in London. This could put them at odds with EU regulators who fear “brass plate” offices with no proper presence.
JPMorgan Chase was also said to be focusing on Warsaw as a destination for its new back office operations centre.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And apparently there was another (failed) attack at Westminster today when someone was arrested with a bag full of knives.
No points for guessing the demographic of the suspect.
At this point thats not much of a challenge.
How many more of these damned crazies are there out there?
I am starting to wonder if this is some attempt by the Torys to get out of government. They have seen that Brexit is going to go spectacularly wrong and is loosing support so now they are making all sorts of statements to get voted out. BoJo with this Syria and his personal attack on Corbyn, the whole "well, we might raise taxes and cut pensions".
r_squared wrote: I see the conservatives are ramping up the project fear, Corbyn is a "dire threat" and will lead a "coalition of chaos".
Most of the Conservative supporters I know are lapping it up, and getting ready to vote to "save" the country.
If you want change, make sure you actually vote rather than just give up because its pointless.
Unless you vote for UKIP, then dont worry about it, your vote is a waste of time.
Given the chaos the Conservatives unleashed with their stupid referendum that was supported by less than 1/3rd of the population, it's a bit hypocritical.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And apparently there was another (failed) attack at Westminster today when someone was arrested with a bag full of knives.
No points for guessing the demographic of the suspect.
At this point thats not much of a challenge.
How many more of these damned crazies are there out there?
Worryingly there's thousands of the bastards up and down the country. Any day of the week any one of them could just decide that's it's jihad time and go on a car and knifing spree. Not to mention the likes of the Rottherham sex rings and other similar set ups.
Still, it's a small price to pay to be 'diverse' now, isn't it?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And apparently there was another (failed) attack at Westminster today when someone was arrested with a bag full of knives.
No points for guessing the demographic of the suspect.
At this point thats not much of a challenge.
How many more of these damned crazies are there out there?
(I mean that as a sincere compliment)
bizarre. Why are they doing this? Why? Why? 
Trans atlantic relationship's still working.
