snap general election?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Hmm - perhaps this is a Hot Potato General election ...

They all want to make it look like they're trying to win, but drop enough clangers to make the marginal voters doubt them - thus reducing the possibility of winning ...

Then they can blame the outcome of Brexit on the winning party ...

I, like many, live in a tory safe seat area ... I should vote - but you wonder what's the point - and even if I did - the two main parties both having glaring great big holes in their plans - I'm not sure I'd trust either party leader to look after my Stand Pump safely, let alone any of my bicycles - so why should I trust them with the country ?!
Perhaps I should vote for "None of the above because their leader doesn't know what they're doing" ....

Vote is a moral duty... see it this way: if the Nazi invaded Britain, most likely you wouldn't be able to vote, other than that things might not be so dissimilar... so basically a few million folks died so that me and you can live in a democracy.

What you vote is irrelevant, vote nothing if you don't believe any of them, draw a big penis on the ballot if you like, but vote out of respect for democracy

Absolutely. My original thought was to spoil my paper, because I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them. The more I see of Corbyn and his ideals though, the more I'm swinging to vote Labour.

I'm under no illusions that the whole thing could be funded in the way the manifesto sets out, because it can't. rich people will always find a way to hang onto more of their money, and some companies will go elsewhere. But, if Corbyn could deliver even a third of what he's aiming for, the country would be a better place to live. If I had to pay more tax down the line to fund it then I'd be more than willing - the Tories are going to raise tax and NI anyway.

The Tories on the other hand have pledged what? They won't even put figures on anything until after the election, the deficit is now at least 8 years away from being balanced and immigration 'in the 10's of thousands' is a promise they can't possibly deliver - this is the 3rd time they've promised it! At least Corbyn is honest about it instead of saying what people want to hear just to win votes.

'No deal is better for Britain than a poor deal' - who's she trying to kid, we all know there has to be a deal done.

They do seem to cut and paste the deficit reduction and immigration promises from the last manifesto.

The Standard (Osborne knowing where the bodies are buried) asked each member of the cabinet which industries they thought should have immigration quotas. Not one of them replied. Does that mean they have no plan or too embarrassed to share it.

Always the former.

rjsterry

The immigration target is just laughable. The UK has built up its reliance on immigration for 20 years and it's likely to take a similar length of time to wean ourselves off that reliance. Every Tom, Dick and Harry will have a reason why their sector should have a special dispensation and unless there is money in changing, they'll stick to that.

Stevo_666

Still a decent gap:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

meanredspider

The Portuguese nurse here tells me that the UK only trains half the nurses that it needs.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Always the former.

Or rather, the plan is: someone else will be making the necessary cuts.

pblakeney

meanredspider wrote:

The Portuguese nurse here tells me that the UK only trains half the nurses that it needs.

And that was before the burseries being cut takes effect. And the pay freeze...

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

The Portuguese nurse here tells me that the UK only trains half the nurses that it needs.

I posted a similar point on the Brexit thread in relation to the construction industry. We may well have slacked off training enough UK citizens to be nurses, builders, etc. as it was cheaper to import the labour, but that is not the sort of thing that can be turned round in a couple of years.

mamba80

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rather than blame the voters, perhaps we should look at our yah boo politicians, lying, expenses and broken promises... its hardly surprising they are held in such low esteem.
the 2 referendum you mention? in both cases, the electorate was lied to and post vote we can all see it but nothing is done, its condoned.

We're the people who voted them in! And we're the voters that bought the lies! And we should blame the politicians? Too funny. Democracy - we get precisely what we deserve.

you cant have it both ways, you stated that we are not engaging/or voting in our electoral system etc many people are deciding not to vote... inc me, i 'm really struggling to see the point anymore, if our leaders are weak, self serving and lie, then numbers voting will fall, disillusionment continues.

Our voting system is such that in strong lab or tory areas, an opposing vote is meaningless, hang, we ve a gov full steam ahead ignoring 16m voters, 48% of the electorate (who voted)

People did believe Boris's battle bus slogan, an out right lie, yet he is now foreign sec..... who do you think is to blame for lack of trained nurses in the UK ?

you appear to solely blame the electorate but thats just a cop out

rick_chasey

So here is best and worst case for the Tories based on current polls.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

So here is best and worst case for the Tories based on current polls.

I think most politicos thought this election would be far more about Brexit than it has been. For all their ills the labour party have put domestic issues in the forefront of people's minds, and that seems to be working for them.

TM seems to have been trying to put Brexit back in the headlines, it's almost feeling like she was more caught out by the snap election than Labour.

rick_chasey

Some more, this time on Tory internal projections.

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rather than blame the voters, perhaps we should look at our yah boo politicians, lying, expenses and broken promises... its hardly surprising they are held in such low esteem.
the 2 referendum you mention? in both cases, the electorate was lied to and post vote we can all see it but nothing is done, its condoned.

We're the people who voted them in! And we're the voters that bought the lies! And we should blame the politicians? Too funny. Democracy - we get precisely what we deserve.

you cant have it both ways, you stated that we are not engaging/or voting in our electoral system etc many people are deciding not to vote... inc me, i 'm really struggling to see the point anymore, if our leaders are weak, self serving and lie, then numbers voting will fall, disillusionment continues.

Our voting system is such that in strong lab or tory areas, an opposing vote is meaningless, hang, we ve a gov full steam ahead ignoring 16m voters, 48% of the electorate (who voted)

People did believe Boris's battle bus slogan, an out right lie, yet he is now foreign sec..... who do you think is to blame for lack of trained nurses in the UK ?

you appear to solely blame the electorate but thats just a cop out

No - I'm questioning democracy not the electorate (if you read my posts above). It's a subtle difference but it has given us exactly what we've got and it has given the US Trump (no more that it deserves, IMO).

But why do people believe what the politicians say? They do, after all, lie to get into power - always have throughout history. And that's the point Churchill was trying to make in his quote - many can't manage their own lives and finances let alone the ability to decide who should manage the country.

If "democracy" is so important, we have to live with what it gives us. And that's exactly what we've got.

mr_goo

Whilst I like potential PMs and secretaries of state to be scrutinisedone by the likes of Paxman and Co. This election seems more about tripping the candidates up than actually asking them pertinent questions and getting them to engage.
Yesterday's news about Corbyn not remembering a costing figure and having to refer to his iPad and being hung out to dry over it was just rediclous. I'd rather him or anyone else do that, than do an Abbott.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Rather than blame the voters, perhaps we should look at our yah boo politicians, lying, expenses and broken promises... its hardly surprising they are held in such low esteem.
the 2 referendum you mention? in both cases, the electorate was lied to and post vote we can all see it but nothing is done, its condoned.

We're the people who voted them in! And we're the voters that bought the lies! And we should blame the politicians? Too funny. Democracy - we get precisely what we deserve.

you cant have it both ways, you stated that we are not engaging/or voting in our electoral system etc many people are deciding not to vote... inc me, i 'm really struggling to see the point anymore, if our leaders are weak, self serving and lie, then numbers voting will fall, disillusionment continues.

Our voting system is such that in strong lab or tory areas, an opposing vote is meaningless, hang, we ve a gov full steam ahead ignoring 16m voters, 48% of the electorate (who voted)

People did believe Boris's battle bus slogan, an out right lie, yet he is now foreign sec..... who do you think is to blame for lack of trained nurses in the UK ?

you appear to solely blame the electorate but thats just a cop out

No - I'm questioning democracy not the electorate (if you read my posts above). It's a subtle difference but it has given us exactly what we've got and it has given the US Trump (no more that it deserves, IMO).

But why do people believe what the politicians say? They do, after all, lie to get into power - always have throughout history. And that's the point Churchill was trying to make in his quote - many can't manage their own lives and finances let alone the ability to decide who should manage the country.

If "democracy" is so important, we have to live with what it gives us. And that's exactly what we've got.

So what alternative are you offering over democracy?

I don't know of any system where leaders don't lie. At least in a democracy there's a chance to chuck 'em out every 5 years.

norvernrob

This poll doesn't have it looking too rosy for the Tories.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/late ... -02zfwl8lc

meanredspider

So what alternative are you offering over democracy?

I haven't yet spent long enough thinking about it but we cling to the belief that universal democracy is the right thing and I'm no longer convinced that it is - at least certainly not in its current form.

Changing the government every 5 years is part of the problem. We change direction too often. Just ask experienced teachers about the swings in teaching policies and how much effort is wasted just trying to keep up. As I said before, there should be more frequent but far more subtle changes. We currently have a process that has fundamentally not changed for how long? The last big change was giving women the vote. The world is a totally difference place.

bendertherobot

Some signals this morning that Corbyn will turn up tonight..

Jez mon

meanredspider wrote:

So what alternative are you offering over democracy?

I haven't yet spent long enough thinking about it but we cling to the belief that universal democracy is the right thing and I'm no longer convinced that it is - at least certainly not in its current form.

Changing the government every 5 years is part of the problem. We change direction too often. Just ask experienced teachers about the swings in teaching policies and how much effort is wasted just trying to keep up. As I said before, there should be more frequent but far more subtle changes. We currently have a process that has fundamentally not changed for how long? The last big change was giving women the vote. The world is a totally difference place.

On the other hand, we arguably have policy areas where a democratically elected body cannot take action quickly enough.

HS2
Heathrow third runway
Next nuclear power stations
etc

It sometimes seems that we end up spending so much money up front on ground work trying to make sure large projects aren't a waste of money that we end up in the position were we can never recover the initial capital, and end up having to be built anyway as we've already chucked millions of pounds into them...

BelgianBeerGeek

So if TM doesn't get a majority of over 80, will she fall on her sword on June 9th?

surrey_commuter

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

So if TM doesn't get a majority of over 80, will she fall on her sword on June 9th?

she has no shame. She would only go if got no overall majority

graeme_s-2

If she has a majority of 80 then it's a poor show, but I could see her holding on, if her majority is reduced or barely increased (20 seats or fewer) then it's going to be pretty hard to justify calling the election in the first place and I wouldn't be surprised if she goes then.

surrey_commuter

Would JC negotiating Brexit be such a disaster? it would allow us to ditch some of the red lines. TM is adamant that she is the best person but so far has backed herself into various corners and made the process very fractious. Keir Starmer over David Davis would be an upgrade and surely they can find two people no worse than Boris and Fox?

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Would JC negotiating Brexit be such a disaster? it would allow us to ditch some of the red lines. TM is adamant that she is the best person but so far has backed herself into various corners and made the process very fractious. Keir Starmer over David Davis would be an upgrade and surely they can find two people no worse than Boris and Fox?

I think the more liberal leaning JC might actually find it easier to find some friends in the EU? I also think his ability to actually put together a half decent election campaign, when he's suffered from so much party infighting points to him being an acceptable alternative to TM when it comes to navigating the stormy waters of Brexit.

Also it's back to the question of how much negotiation the PM will actually do. Given the shear amount of treaties that need to be looked over, surely this is a job which requires full time attention from a number of candidates, not part time attention from someone who is meant to be the Prime Minister.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Would JC negotiating Brexit be such a disaster? it would allow us to ditch some of the red lines. TM is adamant that she is the best person but so far has backed herself into various corners and made the process very fractious. Keir Starmer over David Davis would be an upgrade and surely they can find two people no worse than Boris and Fox?

Well May's difficult woman bit clearly worked wonders here: https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/8 ... seconds%2F

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Would JC negotiating Brexit be such a disaster? it would allow us to ditch some of the red lines. TM is adamant that she is the best person but so far has backed herself into various corners and made the process very fractious. Keir Starmer over David Davis would be an upgrade and surely they can find two people no worse than Boris and Fox?

Well May's difficult woman bit clearly worked wonders here: https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/8 ... seconds%2F

Yes, that's the point. The PM will still be attending meetings of heads of state for the EU, which will "set the tone" of the negotiations. May has a habit of contradicting her ministers on a day to day basis at the moment - for example when Hammond and Boris said "no megaphone diplomacy" in the morning and May accused the EU of trying to sabotage the election in the evening. Can we trust her to agree a script with Davis and stick to it? Can we trust her to attend a summit without annoying the leaders of countries that could be our allies on key negotiating points? I don't thinks so.

bendertherobot

Corbyn's going to debate..............

fenix

Oh this is excellent news for Labour. He's come over well so far.

How the hell can May say she's the best to negotiate for us if she's afraid to debate with the lame JC ?

I've spent a lot of years in negotiations with work and 'being difficult' is a really crap position to start with. We have everything to lose with May in charge.

rjsterry

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Would JC negotiating Brexit be such a disaster? it would allow us to ditch some of the red lines. TM is adamant that she is the best person but so far has backed herself into various corners and made the process very fractious. Keir Starmer over David Davis would be an upgrade and surely they can find two people no worse than Boris and Fox?

I think the more liberal leaning JC might actually find it easier to find some friends in the EU? I also think his ability to actually put together a half decent election campaign, when he's suffered from so much party infighting points to him being an acceptable alternative to TM when it comes to navigating the stormy waters of Brexit.

Also it's back to the question of how much negotiation the PM will actually do. Given the shear amount of treaties that need to be looked over, surely this is a job which requires full time attention from a number of candidates, not part time attention from someone who is meant to be the Prime Minister.

I didn't ever think I'd get to thinking that, but I am starting to agree. There's still plenty I find problematic in Labour's offering but credit where it is true. I still think he needs to be more selective in choosing his shadow cabinet (ditch DA for starters, I know she's a friend but...). The trouble with banishing a lot of the New Labour crowd to the back benches is that the front bench is now rather lightweight.

rick_chasey

Is it really Jezza doing that well?

Or is it just May going from being so blank everyone projected their own desired leader onto her, and she's now showing who she actually is, which is a medicore to sh!t parochial politician who's best moments have come from her saying SFA.

bendertherobot

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is it really Jezza doing that well?

Or is it just May going from being so blank everyone projected their own desired leader onto her, and she's now showing who she actually is, which is a medicore to sh!t parochial politician who's best moments have come from her saying SFA.

A bit of both, to varying degrees.