Jesus :D
That's actually quite funny. Not so offensive as their usual.
Printable View
Jesus :D
That's actually quite funny. Not so offensive as their usual.
The Guardian have reached peak seethe over this. Some of the hand-wringing in the articles is absolutely belting. Their position boils down to the people shouldn't be consulted because they'll vote for her.
:harold:
It's not even about the Labour Party. They remember 1997-2005, and now they're on the wrong end of it.
Well looks like my only option are the Greens. That said, Norwich South is one of their target seats, they finished third behind Labour (Clive Lewis) and Norwich South is peak lefty territory.
Reckon the Greens might get 3 seats overall. Brighton Pavilion, Norwich South and Bristol West.
Why are Greens your only option?
The idea that Remain voters are all going to cross over to the Lib Dems en masse is going to be one of many disappointments to an already disappointed Twitter.
Some will go but we're talking parliamentary seats here, they can't win more than 60-80 even if they had a stormer.
If they recover to about 30 seats, that would be a great effort. They'll be hampered by significantly less TV time than they would have had last time out and a leader who nobody knows.
Meanwhile, the meltdown continues:
"Theresa May is a disgrace-she called an election because she rejects the idea of an opposition on our democracy. We are not some dictatorship."
Chuka Umunna, there.
What with Dictators being famous for their love of elections.
Most of the good dictators (as in good at being dictators, not benevolent ones) hold elections, they just fix them.
Parliament has to vote it through, on a two thirds majority no less. Good old Parliament, with its sovereignty. Bloody dictator Theresa May.
ITV confirm they're going to have a leaders debate whether May says yes or not.
With Corbyn, Farron et al on stage, May would look significantly more heavyweight just by not turning up.
I disagree with that. I think the majority of people would be pissed off at her not turning up.
Leader debates should be outlawed. They are utterly awful. It's not a presidential system.
At best there could be issue specific debates involving the relevant party spokesmen.
Exactly. Nobody is going to think Jez is worth a vote after watching him screech his way through a debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
So I might have a vote again by the time this happens. It will be for the Greens if they're running, and probably SDLP otherwise.
As regards the UK generally and the apparent impending Tory mudslide, one must unfortunately recognise Corbyn's lack of competency as a big problem. Any left-winger who attains a prominent position is going to have everything stacked against him, and needs to be able to manage his message and the media very well, in addition to coming across as personally charismatic. Whatever about his wider philosophy, Corbyn fails in those areas badly. One looks at someone like Bernie Sanders (who still didn't win, but made a better go at it) as an example of what Labour should aspire to. If/when they're beaten and if/when Corbyn quits, they aren't going to achieve anything if they return to being Tory-lite in a bunch of empty suits.
I've developed a theory that voters don't actually give a shit about ideology or policy, and just vote in whoever comes across as least useless, regardless of policy platform.
This also explains incumbency advantage.
I reckon if 2001 Hague and 2001 Blair swapped their rosettes and manifestos, then Blair still pisses it.
Yeah but then Trump blows your theory out the water with 59 tomahawk missiles.
I'm not talking about Americans, Christ knows they are a rule unto themselves.
I think it holds up over here.
Does he?Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
I'd say Shillary appeared even more useless.
Hilary was boringly competent. They voted for Trump because he was a loose cannon.
:cab:Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
At what?
Hillary and Trump are both liars and both extremely fake people, but Trump had the bravado and confidence that made it all a bit of a joke so he was likeable. Hilary was just weird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q29F1jPvNkQuote:
Originally Posted by Magic
Governance. In CV terms she was just about the most qualified person ever to run for the office, and the only person in the country who could run with a better CV would be Colin Powell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
To be in jail, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
There's another piece on the news about the old lady who didn't want an election.
Get back that lady Brown called a bigot.
She's probably dead. Shame, she'd have loved Bexit. 'Kickemaat! Ooo yoo callin racist?'
That MP moaning that Theresa May ruined her mum's funeral only won her seat through a by-election because the last bloke died. You think she'd have more respect for out of step elections.
https://www.gofundme.com/whats-best-for-britain
Give it up, love.
'We need to prevent the people being given the thing they voted for.'
In that analogy Corbyn gets cut in half while May wins in a big way for many, many years.
And presumably Boris then overthrows May and defects to the Labour party?
I just don't think it suits them to admit that a bigger Tory majority = softer Brexit because she doesn't have to worry about Peter Bone torpedoing her Commons votes anymore.
She won't row back from her commitments to come out of the single market / customs union, as she shouldn't, but I suspect there'll be a longer transition period than the hardcore leaver will be comfortable with. That and some sort of deal on immigration, no doubt, which she'll pass off as "control, lads".
Gina Miller really thinks she's some sort of modern-day revolutionary, like Che Guevara with a Twitter feed. The level of self-importance is startling.
She's worth millions as well, if it's really as desperately important as she says what's she doing trying to crowdsource fifty grand to fund it?
Like many on the left, she's firmly decided that she wants something but has decided even more firmly that other people should pay for it.
Stop confusing liberals with the left.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist...
Aye, your vote is at a local level. It just happens that the party with the most seats gets to plug a government together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Given ITV put Farage up in the "debates", irrespective of Leave.EU not being the designated group for the campaign, you have to wonder what shite they'll get up to this time. They'll probably bring out Ken Clarke as a 'representative of the Conservative party'.
That has raised about ten grand since I posted it, even though you would think that anybody liable to vote solely on the issue would have done so anyway. Still, it keeps her in the news.
https://s9.postimg.org/b2drdj0zz/Untitled.png
I would actually like to talk to somebody of this mindset. Even if you like the European Union, how do you get to that sort of point?
:|
Tough shit, sir. Your kids are studying in Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
If they play their cards right (which they probably won't) I wouldn't rule out a 300 majority.
It depends on how brutal the Crosby campaign is going to be, as you'd imagine it might annoy tentative Tory voters. Then again, what other option do most of them really have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
It's why I don't get this "unelected leader" thing. The people didn't elect David Cameron to be leader either, they just happened to vote for his party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
Actually that's being fairly obtuse, but I'm curious (because it's so different here) - when you guys vote, are you voting more for the party, the leader of that party, or the local representative?
The 'unelected PM' thing is horseshit. No PM has been 'elected' in the history of the British Isles nor will one ever be.
It's just a convenient thing to beat your political opponent with without having to actually use reasoned argument.
In a general election I think you're voting for the party really, unless you have a particularly strong view on your local candidates (if there was a great local MP for Labour/LDs I'd consider voting for them, even though I'm generally a Tory supporter).
Voting some way because you love Corbyn, David Cameron or Paddy Ashdown would be a bit weird.
Myriad of different reasons why people vote they want they do (e.g. Douglas Carswell could stand for the Nazi Party in Clacton and still win because he's (apparently) a top class local MP, some people will vote Labour because they always have and always will etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
As an indicator of which party is going to do well, the two key metrics are generally 'leadership' and 'economic competence'. People do vote for a party based on who the best PM would be, but that's irrelevant once the parliament is elected. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential one.
As Floyd eludes to, it's politically convenient to have a moan about it because you know the new leader almost certainly won't call an election in their first month. The last four Prime Ministers 'elected' all handed over power mid-parliament (Blair to Brown, Thatcher to Major, Wilson to Callaghan) and they didn't bother going to the country. The only time it's happened in recent memory was 1955 when Churchill handed over to Eden, but then the last election was in 1951 and they were due one anyway.
That line of attack, plus this TV debate nonsense, is an attempt to push things into some sort of bizarre middle ground between our system and the American one. It's fucking stupid, really. We should blame Tony Blair, with his "Supreme Court" bollocks and his ignorance of cabinet government as starting it all.