Surely the stuff about gay marriage causing floods and stopping aid to 'bongo bongo land' will put many off voting UKIP, even if they want to vote against the main parties.
Surely the stuff about gay marriage causing floods and stopping aid to 'bongo bongo land' will put many off voting UKIP, even if they want to vote against the main parties.
Agreed, now that Farage has gone, the party really is as described by David Cameron as a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies...
Dude offed himself about ten years ago? They'll put up a couple of candidates, usually in central London
Johnny Disco of the Official Monster Raving Loony party is standing in the Manchester Gorton by-election on 9 May. His pre-ecletion statement includes:
In the event of the by-election in Gorton going ahead I promise that the Loony Party will fix all issues and problems in Gorton and surrounding area within my three weeks in Parliament.
Whether you are Conservative, Labour or Liberal by inclination, a vote for May is a vote for a hard Brexit. Corbyn and Farron haven't got a hope in hell of becoming Prime Minister, but we need to ensure MPs get into parliament who don't want to cut this country adrift.
Somebody has to do the research and work out who is the biggest challenger advocating a soft Brexit in every seat and people who feel the future of our country and our kids are at stake need to vote for them. After we have done our bit we can argue about politics, blue, red or yellow - but this is not important in this election!
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Well it depends if he has been abroad for 15 years or more. That is the cut off point at which you apparently become a second class citizen who can't actually vote any more. And it doesn't matter if you continue to pay income tax, NI contributions, have family back home who might need your support because of lousy government policies, etc, etc.
Other more civilised countries believe that if you are a citizen you have a right to vote. Period.
Dude offed himself about ten years ago? They'll put up a couple of candidates, usually in central London
Johnny Disco of the Official Monster Raving Loony party is standing in the Manchester Gorton by-election on 9 May. His pre-ecletion statement includes:
In the event of the by-election in Gorton going ahead I promise that the Loony Party will fix all issues and problems in Gorton and surrounding area within my three weeks in Parliament.
...adn they're using the hashtag #mpforaweek
Think I read that's not going ahead.
You're right. I had heard that it was "too late" to cancel it. I guess it's back to the drawing board for the OMRLP.
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Surely the stuff about gay marriage causing floods and stopping aid to 'bongo bongo land' will put many off voting UKIP, even if they want to vote against the main parties.
Agreed, now that Farage has gone, the party really is as described by David Cameron as a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies...
I think Aaron Banks is a fruitcake and a loony, and a lot of more sinister things, but he is going to stand for UKIP against Carswell, who always had far too much integrity for that lot.
Sensitive soul, aren't you, for one who is a self confessed wind-up merchant.
The point I am making, and was making in the Brexit thread this time last year, is that good ordinary people were (are) being used as pawns in pseudo-Brexit debate by extreme right wingers like Banks to gain power and influence. When they have that power they will make life far worse for these good ordinary people than any fictitious EU bureaucrat has ever done.
Sensitive soul, aren't you, for one who is a self confessed wind-up merchant.
The point I am making, and was making in the Brexit thread this time last year, is that good ordinary people were (are) being used as pawns in pseudo-Brexit debate by extreme right wingers like Banks to gain power and influence. When they have that power they will make life far worse for these good ordinary people than any fictitious EU bureaucrat has ever done.
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
I remember the benefits of remaining in the EU been stressed endlessly during the referendum. I think you are suffering some false memory syndrome there.
This election is not a normal one. It has nothing to do with anything other than should the country give May a mandate for a hard Brexit or not. No other issue matters.
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
I remember the benefits of remaining in the EU been stressed endlessly during the referendum. I think you are suffering some false memory syndrome there.
This election is not a normal one. It has nothing to do with anything other than should the country give May a mandate for a hard Brexit or not. No other issue matters.
Nope. I made the same posts at negative campaigning at the time. It's not just my observation either, it was pretty widely covered.
Most people are seperating this election from Brexit apparently, although I must say that I actually agree with you on that point to be honest.
Surely the stuff about gay marriage causing floods and stopping aid to 'bongo bongo land' will put many off voting UKIP, even if they want to vote against the main parties.
You'd think
Up there with Red Ken's recent outburst and subsequent expulsion from the Labour Party
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
Just as a matter of interest, can I get a bye ball for having a vote in the West Tyrone constituency (where a non-attending SF MP is routinely returned)?
The candidates here are almost entirely bonkers, representing a range of political views that does cause me to worry about the validity of the Darwinian theory of natural selection...
Trust me when I say that the finding of something to say for, rather than against, either is beyond my capacity.
The best I can manage is to vote for the one that offends me the least
Problem is that it's not possible to argue for a party unless you are voting Tory. This election is all about how many gains or losses they get. You either vote for them or another. Labour will not win this, we all know that and in private they all know that. The result will be judged on the size of the Tories winning margin. Less than now it's a failure, a significant increase it's a success.
I don't think most people have ever felt they can advocate a party and its entire manifesto. A tiny minority of the population belongs to a party. Most people probably vote for the party they disagree with least, and then get on with their lives. And I think that has always been the case
Police are investigating their campaigns in relation to expenses reporting, not electoral fraud (completely different offence). Assuming they are corrupt is assuming they are guilty even before anyone has been formally charged. I want the Tories to lose as much as anyone but lying to discredit your opponent makes him and others peddling this nonsense just as bad as those who do cheat in elections. Focus on the issues, not negative campaigning and libel.
Comments
Somebody has to do the research and work out who is the biggest challenger advocating a soft Brexit in every seat and people who feel the future of our country and our kids are at stake need to vote for them. After we have done our bit we can argue about politics, blue, red or yellow - but this is not important in this election!
Other more civilised countries believe that if you are a citizen you have a right to vote. Period.
Mr Banks, the hedge fund manager with the Russian wife, who is sick to death of hearing about Hillsborough, who "doesn't give a monkey's what the Electoral Commission says" is going to claim he will transform the lives of people like @Chippycafc . On this, at least, I make him right.
Christ almighty. I thought Corbyn was bad enough!
Everyone will be voting for the empty chair.
The point I am making, and was making in the Brexit thread this time last year, is that good ordinary people were (are) being used as pawns in pseudo-Brexit debate by extreme right wingers like Banks to gain power and influence. When they have that power they will make life far worse for these good ordinary people than any fictitious EU bureaucrat has ever done.
But hey, you vote as you think fit.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
Grammar Nazis and Spelling Aficionados WILL be upset. Sorry
This election is not a normal one. It has nothing to do with anything other than should the country give May a mandate for a hard Brexit or not. No other issue matters.
Most people are seperating this election from Brexit apparently, although I must say that I actually agree with you on that point to be honest.
I'm not sure how you can seperate the two.
The candidates here are almost entirely bonkers, representing a range of political views that does cause me to worry about the validity of the Darwinian theory of natural selection...
Trust me when I say that the finding of something to say for, rather than against, either is beyond my capacity.
The best I can manage is to vote for the one that offends me the least
I don't think most people have ever felt they can advocate a party and its entire manifesto. A tiny minority of the population belongs to a party. Most people probably vote for the party they disagree with least, and then get on with their lives. And I think that has always been the case