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.

Interesting.

 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.

 jhe90 wrote:
My area is conservative.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Darkjim wrote:
https://www.gofundme.com/whats-best-for-britain

Well, I chucked £20 in. I am vividly aware

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.

Then of course we have the House of Lords.

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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


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).

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...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Interesting.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

and some would argue undemocratic

Some would argue?

No argument is needed. It is undemocratic!

And yet everyone was singing their praises when they tried to stop Brexit.


And yes, I was screaming hypocrites from my Ivory tower when that was occurring.

 welshhoppo wrote:
And yet everyone was singing their praises when they tried to stop Brexit.


And yes, I was screaming hypocrites from my Ivory tower when that was occurring.

I agree with you 100%.

If it were up the me, the lords would be exiled to British Antarctic territory for evermore.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
My area is conservative.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Darkjim wrote:
https://www.gofundme.com/whats-best-for-britain

Well, I chucked £20 in. I am vividly aware

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.

so... seems he did do right by his constuants.

 welshhoppo wrote:
And yet everyone was singing their praises when they tried to stop Brexit.


And yes, I was screaming hypocrites from my Ivory tower when that was occurring.

Did they actually try to stop Brexit, or shut down a load of Tory BS wrapped in it, which they considered to be damaging to the country?

Such as this 'no deal is better than a deal' tripe that keeps getting trotted out?

I just saw Farage on the news?

Why is Farage still getting airtime?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


No argument is needed. It is undemocratic!

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


No argument is needed. It is undemocratic!

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

However the SNP has made many critical mistakes over the last few years

After the Gibraltar debacle, the NI U-turn from Hammond, and now May's massive U-turn on a GE,

how can anybody criticise the SNP for their mistakes? And that's before we even mention Corbyn?

I'm struggling to contain my laughter here.

So you find gross economic mismangement funny then?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15063936.Union_leaders_warn_Scottish_economy_teetering_on_brink_of___39_economic_and_employment_crisis__39_/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/02/scotland-is-far-better-off-staying-in-the-uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37167975

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.

 jhe90 wrote:
[

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

However the SNP has made many critical mistakes over the last few years

After the Gibraltar debacle, the NI U-turn from Hammond, and now May's massive U-turn on a GE,

how can anybody criticise the SNP for their mistakes? And that's before we even mention Corbyn?

I'm struggling to contain my laughter here.

So you find gross economic mismangement funny then?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15063936.Union_leaders_warn_Scottish_economy_teetering_on_brink_of___39_economic_and_employment_crisis__39_/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/02/scotland-is-far-better-off-staying-in-the-uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37167975

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

However the SNP has made many critical mistakes over the last few years

After the Gibraltar debacle, the NI U-turn from Hammond, and now May's massive U-turn on a GE,

how can anybody criticise the SNP for their mistakes? And that's before we even mention Corbyn?

I'm struggling to contain my laughter here.

So you find gross economic mismangement funny then?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15063936.Union_leaders_warn_Scottish_economy_teetering_on_brink_of___39_economic_and_employment_crisis__39_/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/02/scotland-is-far-better-off-staying-in-the-uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37167975

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...

Ladies and Gentlemen, our political leaders...

 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).

 Whirlwind wrote:

 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?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


No argument is needed. It is undemocratic!

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:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 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?

Drink greatly?

Here's a good lie from May at the same event;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39670703

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:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 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?

I often wonder at this nation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 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. .

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.

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

The the left to the left.
Leftly left left!

So much left.

 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.