Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So the war criminal and the turncoat party get together.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
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.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
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.
Instead, he gives May a free pass until 2022.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
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! )
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
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
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
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)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/19 17:10:15
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
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/19 18:21:38
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/19 19:12:10
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.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
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
that...is truly beautiful.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
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.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
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!
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to 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.
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.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Trans atlantic relationship's still working.
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
