snap general election?

FocusZing

Johnson looked on the ropes this morning, Brexit, Dementia tax, May MIA. This looks closer than when it was initially called.

rick_chasey

They'll still win with more than they had before the election.

mamba80

If the media and surprisingly the BBC, carry on their pro tory bias, then yes.

FocusZing

Who forecasted Brexit and Trump? The worst case scenario would be a coalition of covfefe.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

They'll still win with more than they had before the election.

is that based upon the assumption that their core vote will hold and they will pick up seats in the target marginals?

sorry that is a very leading question

surrey_commuter

FocusZing wrote:

Johnson looked on the ropes this morning, Brexit, Dementia tax, May MIA. This looks closer than when it was initially called.

they must be getting worried if they are letting Boris into the light

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They'll still win with more than they had before the election.

is that based upon the assumption that their core vote will hold and they will pick up seats in the target marginals?

sorry that is a very leading question

Yup.

I'm suspicious of the polls that are calling it tight for the reasons listed previously.

The generation gap in voting intentions is stark and young people are crap at voting.

rick_chasey

Thought Farron was sh!t last night and that was borne out in anecdotal evidence in the office.

Pro business Thatcherite Tories should be at least tempted by lib Dems just on the economics and liberalism.

Quotes from the office from the politically unengaged.

"He sounded like a whiney loser who obviously doesn't get it."

"What a dweeb. What was that "turn off to bake off" sh!t? Does he know none of us know who the hell he is and he tells me to turn off?"

"What a moany tw@t. I have no idea what they stand for other than moaning."

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Thought Farron was sh!t last night and that was borne out in anecdotal evidence in the office.

Pro business Thatcherite Tories should be at least tempted by lib Dems just on the economics and liberalism.

Quotes from the office from the politically unengaged.

"He sounded like a whiney loser who obviously doesn't get it."

"What a dweeb. What was that "turn off to bake off" sh!t? Does he know none of us know who the hell he is and he tells me to turn off?"

"What a moany tw@t. I have no idea what they stand for other than moaning."

When the two main parties are so far apart on the main issues, and seem to be tending to the extremes on either side, a centralist party that fundamentally just seems to come up with what are sensible policies should be able to mop up lots of support.

But our voting system doesn't really lend itself to that.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Thought Farron was sh!t last night and that was borne out in anecdotal evidence in the office.

Pro business Thatcherite Tories should be at least tempted by lib Dems just on the economics and liberalism.

Quotes from the office from the politically unengaged.

"He sounded like a whiney loser who obviously doesn't get it."

"What a dweeb. What was that "turn off to bake off" sh!t? Does he know none of us know who the hell he is and he tells me to turn off?"

"What a moany tw@t. I have no idea what they stand for other than moaning."

When the two main parties are so far apart on the main issues, and seem to be tending to the extremes on either side, a centralist party that fundamentally just seems to come up with what are sensible policies should be able to mop up lots of support.

But our voting system doesn't really lend itself to that.

I think many people would vote for a party that believed in the free market whilst being socially liberal

dinyull

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/three-m ... story.html

Just what the actual f*ck was the point of her or her advisers giving the interview in the first place?

Two visits in six weeks to one of the country's most marginal constituencies – is she getting worried?

"I'm very clear that this is a crucial election for this country."

Plymouth is feeling the effects of military cuts. Will she guarantee to protect the city from further pain?

"I'm very clear that Plymouth has a proud record of connection with the armed forces."

How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth better off?

"I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK."

Will you promise to sort out our transport links?

"I'm very clear that connectivity is hugely important for Plymouth and the South West generally."

She gives an excuse of thinking about Brexit and visiting the people up and down the country for missing last night debate. Everywhere she goes is stage managed where the people aren't allowed in and in interviews like this she is very clear that she hasn't got anything to offer anyone.

She's sh*tting herself.

rick_chasey

Oh come on guys.

What do you expect?

She became PM by default when everyone else ahead of her fell on their own sword.

She became Head of the Home office because she doesn't rock the boat apart from hating on minority of foreigners who she'll happily give a sh!t time to, 'cos they don't sit in middle England seats.

She's a parochial little Englander who got her role in the home office to placate the little Englanders in the otherwise relatively metropolitan cabinet.

Jez mon

Still,

At least it isn't Gove

dinyull

Again though, what was the point in giving that interview? It wasn't even hard pressing asking for figures for eg. She'd have been better off refusing, claiming too busy.

surrey_commuter

Dinyull wrote:

Again though, what was the point in giving that interview? It wasn't even hard pressing asking for figures for eg. She'd have been better off refusing, claiming too busy.

but she has never said anything.
Brexit means Brexit
She is the best person for the job
She will get Britain the best possible deal

There is never any explanation of how or why

bendertherobot

There was never any merit in the explanation that 50 more seats (to put words into the mouth) would make the 27 bow down to us.

But, if we ascribe a charitable positivity to that claim, if we end up where we were before or worse, then the end result must be, on May's own statement, that our position is now weaker than before.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

There was never any merit in the explanation that 50 more seats (to put words into the mouth) would make the 27 bow down to us.

But, if we ascribe a charitable positivity to that claim, if we end up where we were before or worse, then the end result must be, on May's own statement, that our position is now weaker than before.

I don't see your point! she has repeatedly told you that she is the best person for the job and will get the best possible deal for the UK. This used to be as good as or better than what we had before but now you can be assured that it is the best possible.

what more do you need to know?
immigration? - it will be reduced to the tens of thousands with no economic impact

I am tempted to go and vote against her just because she is mugging us off with no attempt to hide it

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Again though, what was the point in giving that interview? It wasn't even hard pressing asking for figures for eg. She'd have been better off refusing, claiming too busy.

but she has never said anything.
Brexit means Brexit
She is the best person for the job
She will get Britain the best possible deal

There is never any explanation of how or why

That is JC's major problem.
He makes the mistake of actually trying to answer the questions that he is asked. Newbie.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm suspicious of the polls that are calling it tight for the reasons listed previously.

Ditto.

There seems to be a a reasonable amount of false hope on here that the Tories won't win this. Aside from the question of what we would end up with trying to run the country if they don't win, has everyone else forgotten what happened in 2010 when every single poll was going for a minority govt or a hung parliament? The 'shy tories' are still out there.

Anyway, I've already voted. Just got to remind the OH to do so as well.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There was never any merit in the explanation that 50 more seats (to put words into the mouth) would make the 27 bow down to us.

But, if we ascribe a charitable positivity to that claim, if we end up where we were before or worse, then the end result must be, on May's own statement, that our position is now weaker than before.

I don't see your point! she has repeatedly told you that she is the best person for the job and will get the best possible deal for the UK. This used to be as good as or better than what we had before but now you can be assured that it is the best possible.

what more do you need to know?
immigration? - it will be reduced to the tens of thousands with no economic impact

I am tempted to go and vote against her just because she is mugging us off with no attempt to hide it

I sort of feel like both the main parties are mugging us off, but that at least the labour party are putting a positive angle on it.

In other news, our latest economic figures are the worst of the G7 countries

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 66286.html

Random prediction time; Anyone up for Tory's winning a narrow majority and start infighting. I mean, surely TM is embarrassing now?

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

Random prediction time; Anyone up for Tory's winning a narrow majority and start infighting. I mean, surely TM is embarrassing now?

Unlike Labour and Corbyn who will lose and do exactly the same.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Random prediction time; Anyone up for Tory's winning a narrow majority and start infighting. I mean, surely TM is embarrassing now?

Unlike Labour and Corbyn who will lose and do exactly the same.

The "You're just as bad as me" argument has never washed with anyone.

BelgianBeerGeek

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Random prediction time; Anyone up for Tory's winning a narrow majority and start infighting. I mean, surely TM is embarrassing now?

Unlike Labour and Corbyn who will lose and do exactly the same.

I think I gave TM until Easter :twisted: So far I have learnt that in calling a GE TM displays both a terrible lack of judgement and grip. The Tories will sense she is weakened, and if she does not buck up she will be on borrowed time.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Random prediction time; Anyone up for Tory's winning a narrow majority and start infighting. I mean, surely TM is embarrassing now?

Unlike Labour and Corbyn who will lose and do exactly the same.

The "You're just as bad as me" argument has never washed with anyone.

Hardly - given that one will win and one will lose. Big difference.

Stevo_666

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Random prediction time; Anyone up for Tory's winning a narrow majority and start infighting. I mean, surely TM is embarrassing now?

Unlike Labour and Corbyn who will lose and do exactly the same.

I think I gave TM until Easter :twisted: So far I have learnt that in calling a GE TM displays both a terrible lack of judgement and grip. The Tories will sense she is weakened, and if she does not buck up she will be on borrowed time.

As I said above, careful what you wish for...

rjsterry

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There was never any merit in the explanation that 50 more seats (to put words into the mouth) would make the 27 bow down to us.

But, if we ascribe a charitable positivity to that claim, if we end up where we were before or worse, then the end result must be, on May's own statement, that our position is now weaker than before.

I don't see your point! she has repeatedly told you that she is the best person for the job and will get the best possible deal for the UK. This used to be as good as or better than what we had before but now you can be assured that it is the best possible.

what more do you need to know?
immigration? - it will be reduced to the tens of thousands with no economic impact

I am tempted to go and vote against her just because she is mugging us off with no attempt to hide it

I sort of feel like both the main parties are mugging us off, but that at least the labour party are putting a positive angle on it.

In other news, our latest economic figures are the worst of the G7 countries

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 66286.html

Random prediction time; Anyone up for Tory's winning a narrow majority and start infighting. I mean, surely TM is embarrassing now?

It does seem to be a choice between unaffordable (Labour - free lunches for all) and unachievable (Conservatives - reduce immigration without damaging the economy, a great trade deal with the EU immediately after we've told them to p*ss off).

Jez mon

rjsterry wrote:

It does seem to be a choice between unaffordable (Labour - free lunches for all) and unachievable (Conservatives - reduce immigration without damaging the economy, a great trade deal with the EU immediately after we've told them to p*ss off).

Then there's the Lib dems. Who despite everything seem to have the most sensible plans. Yet I feel like I'm better off using my vote to try and unseat a Tory MP than to add to what will be a dismal total for the party I agree with the most.

rick_chasey

FFS, democracy is not representative if people vote tactically.

Lookyhere

We ve not got a representative democracy, millions voted UKIP and the Greens and got no MP's well, one Green...wow!

So of course people have to vote tactically, i will, i ll be voting Libdem, in the hope off keeping out the Tory candidate.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

FFS, democracy is not representative if people vote tactically.

Meh, if it's a choice between a labour candidate who has views that have some overlap with mine, or a Tory candidate who has views that do not overlap mine at all, then surely a labour candidate is more representative.