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
Just out of interest @NornIrishAddick, for us uninitiated, could you provide a synopsis of the differences between the DUP and the UUP? Are they so diverse that they could not consider amalgamating?
Well, off the top of my head....
The UUP is the historical Unionist political party in Northern Ireland. It's been in existence for over a hundred years, from the days of a wider Irish Unionist movement from which the likes of Edward Carson came to prominence (and was closely associated with things like the Solemn League and Covenant, the foundation of the UVF and the threat of armed resistance to Home Rule, etc.). In many ways the UUP was the party of the establishment, led by wealthy landowners and industrialists, until the 1970s-1980s. The party was (and is) closely linked with the Orange Order, but had an arm's length relationship (at best) with working class Unionism.
It was closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of the last 100 years, and was the Government of Northern Ireland until the outbreak of the Troubles, when it was generally quite happy to entrench gerrymandering and a restricted franchise to ensure continuing Unionist rule. The party leadership did try to reform at least some of the discriminatory policies that led to the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s (under O'Neill and Chichester-Clark), but that was not popular with some, and there was a split within Unionism.
The hardliners were led by Ian Paisley, first in the Protestant Unionist Part, in what became the Democratic Unionist Party. For much of the 1970s-1990s, the UUP were the moderate voice of Unionism, with the DUP employing more extreme language and making use of large rallies (reminiscent of the sort of thing that Carson did in the run up to the First World War). The DUP was closely associated with both the Paisley family and the Free Presbyterian Church; unlike the UUP, it did not have an establishment-based leadership - the party was popular with farmers and the urban working class.
Right up until becoming First Minister, few would have expected that Ian Paisley would have any interest in moderating either his language or political views. The DUP, however, entered into government with Sinn Fein (leading to a further split and the creation of Traditional Unionist Voice).
I don't think that amalgamation is on the cards (partly because this would not be a merger, but a collapse of the UUP into the DUP, which would not be palatable to many in the UUP). In fact, if the Conservatives, rather than just paying the lip service they do to having candidates stand in all parts of the UK, were to make a concerted effort in Northern Ireland, following any such merger, I'd expect a significant proportion of UUP voters to change allegiance to them instead.
The UUP is going through a process of reinvention (though this may be amended by the recent change of leadership), where its role in opposition in Stormont, alongside the SDLP, was changing its image. However, the old guard are all but gone from the UUP, and it takes some time for a new vision to emerge and be accepted as viable by the electrate (the SDLP are further along the same path).
Both the UUP and SDLP have suffered in recent years in the face of the, previously, seemingly unstoppable DUP/SF partnership, but I think this is unravelling (which is a cause for concern). I don't think that Arlene Foster can manage to unite Unionists (she will manage to wreck any pact, or suggestion of same, by being triumphalist or failing to moderate her views), there are slim, but important differences in policies between the two parties, and they are sufficiently alike for the dislike of the other to be both deep and meaningful among numbers of their party members.
PS. Lazy generalisations are taken as read - there are clearly exceptions to my broad brush approach.
Thanks for that.
An interesting read 'from the horse's mouth' so to speak.
Corbyn has surprised a few people by taking questions from the media directly after speeches. And Labour have jumped on the anti-establishment rhetoric that Farage tried to win on.
Meanwhile, Theresa May has refused to answer any media questions since declaring the election. And she's stubbornly refusing to debate head-to-head with other leaders on tv. This is a big mistake in my view. The more she distances herself, the more she plays into Labour's "establishment" rhetoric. But, if she finally concedes and agrees to a leaders debate, all parties will be able to throw yet more accusations of "u-turns".
So far, it's more interesting than I feared. And, with momentum (small "m") being key, might the Tories actually be returned with a smaller majority?
Corbyn has surprised a few people by taking questions from the media directly after speeches. And Labour have jumped on the anti-establishment rhetoric that Farage tried to win on.
Meanwhile, Theresa May has refused to answer any media questions since dexlaring the election. And she's stubbornly refusing to debate head-to-head with other leaders on tv. This is a big mistake in my view. The more she distances herself, the more she plays into Labour's "establishment" rhetoric. But, if she finally concedes and agrees to a leaders debate, all parties will be able to throw yet more accusations of "u-turns".
So far, it's more interesting than I feared. And, with momentum (small "m") being key, might the Tories actually be returned with a smaller majority?
Agreed, I personally like things like shifting the minimum wage up to £10 (as long as it is once immigration is curtailed). I think it is a disgrace that companies get away with paying people next to nothing (which stops people bothering to work in the first place), and then topping up people's pay with tax credits. Instead, they should be paid more by the companies, and then income tax (much harder to avoid than corporation tax) will be paid on their wages...
I think it is an outrage that companies don't pay tax, and this is something I feel like every government in the World should crack down on, as this is the only way it can be done properly, through something like a treaty, much like we have on emissions, laws governing human rights and war etc, but no one will do it...
I believe that companies should pay staff fairly, and that companies should pay their tax... As many do, unfortunately for Jeremy Corbyn, that is where a lot of people's similar thinking with him comes to an end, and it's a shame, because there is a lot of opportunity to exploit the fact the Tories haven't been doing enough to get companies to pay tax, although they are trying to shift the onus onto companies rather than taxpayers with the "living wage"
Reading Corbyn's speech and exchanges with the press, for the first time in my life I am seriously impressed with what a Labour leader is saying. Needs to get these messages out so everyone can see them, not let the alt-right hijack the election and print yet more propaganda on the side of buses.
The numbers have always suggested a lot of people like what he says, rather than a conspiracy of the far left to hijack the party. It has seemed to me this fallacy has been propergated by divisions within the party mostly.
Maybe by just focusing on his leadership credentials, as is already evident at PMQs, they will not be answering his policies and will give him a platform that cuts through the same old stuff people have been reading about him for a few years already.
I can't believe that the majority are happy, I've even heard nostalgia for the coalition. I can believe the majority are worried about the opposition more though and question it's competency. Especially, after the way the Labour Party has behaved after the last few years. How can you form an effective opposition if you are focused on tearing yourself apart? At least this will put talk of leadership elections to be for the next seven weeks and hear some other topic.
Maybe the answer is to look at the individual candidates in your constituency in the whites of their eyes, and vote according to your personal judgement regarding their character. Always bearing in mind that your judgement may be wrong, and they might be a lying bastard like Theresa May.
When I lived in London, I voted Labour for the most part, which was always a wasted vote as my area (Beckenham constituency) was always a Tory win, they haven't returned a different party since 1950. I now vote in the Gloucester constituency which Tories have a slender 4000 or so majority and Stroud before that which is also a marginal. Whilst it feels that my vote counts more when it comes to an election (as it flip flops between Tory and Labour), what I enjoy the most is that I can vote predominantly on local issues and can effect the way things function in my own area.
As the years have gone by I've become more and more disillusioned with Westminster politics so feeling that my vote can make a difference in my local area means I actually feel engaged with politics still. If I still lived in the Beckenham area, I'm not sure what motivation I would have to vote.
Corbyn has surprised a few people by taking questions from the media directly after speeches. And Labour have jumped on the anti-establishment rhetoric that Farage tried to win on.
Meanwhile, Theresa May has refused to answer any media questions since declaring the election. And she's stubbornly refusing to debate head-to-head with other leaders on tv. This is a big mistake in my view. The more she distances herself, the more she plays into Labour's "establishment" rhetoric. But, if she finally concedes and agrees to a leaders debate, all parties will be able to throw yet more accusations of "u-turns".
So far, it's more interesting than I feared. And, with momentum (small "m") being key, might the Tories actually be returned with a smaller majority?
Some chap called Trump didn't too bad on the anti establishment ticket.
Corbyn is likely to benefit from the same effect which gave a huge boost to Clegg in 2010. That is, in the years leading up to the election, we were force-fed the "fact" that we should vote for a Tory Government because the alternative was invisible (Clegg). Then the election started, debates were held, policies were heard and the leaders were given (roughly) equal airtime. And, for the first time, people started to think that Clegg genuinely was an alternative and someone people could vote for.
This year, we have Corbyn, who is castigated by all media and presented as a hopeless, shambling, irrelevancy. And now the campaigns have started, again, we will see a fairly equal split (at least among broadcast media). And people can make up their own minds about him.
The interesting point is this. Corbyn may well be utterly hopeless. But, since the public has been told for years that he's far worse than that, the public may see him in a far more positive light. And, since Theresa May has been "bigged up" so much and so often since she took office (and, frankly, before then), unless she secures a dramatically enlarged majority, she'll be in a pretty poor position.
Corbyn has a mountain to climb to change the publics opinion of him. It's shallow and trite but lots of people vote with their eyes as much as their ears and brains. Corbyn might have some good things to say. I believe he does have some policies that I would vote for and might appeal to a wider electorate too. But :
Jeremy has as much chance of making that change as my dear old mum had of getting my dad back from the pub at two o'clock on a Sunday.
I don't really see the issue with her stance to be quite honest.
Those who oppose Brexit are indeed "Brexit opponents". I sincerely doubt that she was talking about the public anyway, as it's far more likely that shes talking about those MPs who have said they will impede the process wherever possible.
This is exactly how the sentiment she used to respond to Yvette Cooper in the clip you shared this morning.
As someone who voted Remain, I will absolutely not be voting for someone who is completely ignoring my views and concerns, or anyone who is pushing through a Brexit that is manifestly far more extreme than the one promised by the Leave campaign.
That's entirely fair, and I think it's patently obvious that you should vote for those who represent your concerns and feelings.
However, my response was aimed at a disingenuous comment about the caption that the BBC decided to give Theresa May on BBC News. A comment that seemed to completely miss the point of what's actually been said. Whilst I fully agree that you should vote against those who don't represent your views, I still do not think it's fair to claim that Theresa May has declared 56% of her constituents are opponents.. simply because she didn't.
True, can't disagree with that. Plenty of Remain voters have said that the vote has happened and we should leave the EU accordingly. Honouring the result, regardless of how surreptitiously it was obtained, is more important to them than carrying on the fight to remain in the EU.
My concern is that a lot of people who voted Remain have switched off and are not taking notice of what is actually happening on the Brexit front though. None of the visions or promises made by the Leave campaign, beyond actually withdrawing from the EU, are materialising. As such no person who voted Remain should be voting for Theresa May or any politician who is supporting her or giving her carte blanche to proceed with her vision of Brexit.
Your bias is a little unsettling.
These visions and promises made by the leave campaign, why did you believe they were in any position to give them? The leave campaign, as was the case with the remain campaign, were a bunch of MP's and celebrities banging on about something they couldn't even deliver!!
BOTH sides made forecasts & promises they could not forsee or hope to keep. Neither had a mandate to deliver on anything.
The whole election from BOTH sides was mis-informed and lacked any clarity.
The biggest mistake made was not enough time being given for some sort of body to consult and set out the preferred positions for either side and actually produce some facts rather than the constant scare mongering, which would've driven people to vote either way.
The lies and misrepresentations came from one side only. It has been demonstrated again and again. No matter how many times you and other Brexit supporters say otherwise it will not change that fact.
The only Leave politician with any kind of power is David Davis, who is leading the Brexit department. So the only one in a position to implement anything is doing what he promised to do.
Meanwhile, the Remainers-who make up most of Theresa May's cabinet, are only able to call an election because the economy has not collapsed, despite their dire predictions.
Theresa May is the only one worth voting for because, so far, she is carrying out the democratic will of the people. The other parties want to undermine it.
I don't really see the issue with her stance to be quite honest.
Those who oppose Brexit are indeed "Brexit opponents". I sincerely doubt that she was talking about the public anyway, as it's far more likely that shes talking about those MPs who have said they will impede the process wherever possible.
This is exactly how the sentiment she used to respond to Yvette Cooper in the clip you shared this morning.
As someone who voted Remain, I will absolutely not be voting for someone who is completely ignoring my views and concerns, or anyone who is pushing through a Brexit that is manifestly far more extreme than the one promised by the Leave campaign.
That's entirely fair, and I think it's patently obvious that you should vote for those who represent your concerns and feelings.
However, my response was aimed at a disingenuous comment about the caption that the BBC decided to give Theresa May on BBC News. A comment that seemed to completely miss the point of what's actually been said. Whilst I fully agree that you should vote against those who don't represent your views, I still do not think it's fair to claim that Theresa May has declared 56% of her constituents are opponents.. simply because she didn't.
True, can't disagree with that. Plenty of Remain voters have said that the vote has happened and we should leave the EU accordingly. Honouring the result, regardless of how surreptitiously it was obtained, is more important to them than carrying on the fight to remain in the EU.
My concern is that a lot of people who voted Remain have switched off and are not taking notice of what is actually happening on the Brexit front though. None of the visions or promises made by the Leave campaign, beyond actually withdrawing from the EU, are materialising. As such no person who voted Remain should be voting for Theresa May or any politician who is supporting her or giving her carte blanche to proceed with her vision of Brexit.
Your bias is a little unsettling.
These visions and promises made by the leave campaign, why did you believe they were in any position to give them? The leave campaign, as was the case with the remain campaign, were a bunch of MP's and celebrities banging on about something they couldn't even deliver!!
BOTH sides made forecasts & promises they could not forsee or hope to keep. Neither had a mandate to deliver on anything.
The whole election from BOTH sides was mis-informed and lacked any clarity.
The biggest mistake made was not enough time being given for some sort of body to consult and set out the preferred positions for either side and actually produce some facts rather than the constant scare mongering, which would've driven people to vote either way.
The lies and misrepresentations came from one side only. It has been demonstrated again and again. No matter how many times you and other Brexit supporters say otherwise it will not change that fact.
The only Leave politician with any kind of power is David Davis, who is leading the Brexit department. So the only one in a position to implement anything is doing what he promised to do.
Meanwhile, the Remainers-who make up most of Theresa May's cabinet, are only able to call an election because the economy has not collapsed, despite their dire predictions.
Theresa May is the only one worth voting for because, so far, she is carrying out the democratic will of the people. The other parties want to undermine it.
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.
But hey, you vote as you think fit.
Dear Prague, your contempt for ordinary people is quite beneath you, surely? By your own argument would it not also be true that the power and money hungry Remain supporting bankers and businessmen (who are be way more numerous, powerful and influential, like Gina Miller ) must have exercised the same evil control over people who voted Remain? The only conclusion one could draw is that you think the whole of our democracy is a sham, and we are all easily manipulated. However, the lesson of the referendum was quite the opposite-that despite having most of the UK and global establishment weighing in for Remain, people decided they would do what they thought right rather than what they were being told to do. I am sure you are a good democrat at heart, especially living where you do and knowing people who could not vote for whom they wanted to. (By the way, it is good to hear that the EU bureaucrats are fictitious. Surely that must mean we do not have to pay for their huge pensions after we have left the EU)
nope, i think he just feels that its unfair to vote and for muslim political activists its long days of campaigning etc when fasting, the mans a complete knob and to even put it out there should know better. some are actually saying that its a deliberate ploy by may. which i think is quite laughable personally
not wanting to steer this thread onto electoral reform but I really feel a top up system would be beneficial to make votes count more, there would need to be a minimum threshold, of course, to stop certain loony elements, although UKIP would still get some seats I expect, but seats in the house could be allocated to on a list basis, perhaps to the best second place candidates, etc yes it would be a bit more complicated and imperfect but we could have the best of both worlds
Could someone far better informed than me explain the constitutional significance of this? Perhaps @seth plum or @northernirishaddick - or anyone else..?
It seems strange to set about campaigning for a general election while concurrently negotiating for the make-up of the Assembly.
Wouldn't it be better to give them a deadline - say four weeks before 8 June - and, if they haven't agreed a power-share, hold another Assembly election on the same day as the GE?
I don't really see the issue with her stance to be quite honest.
Those who oppose Brexit are indeed "Brexit opponents". I sincerely doubt that she was talking about the public anyway, as it's far more likely that shes talking about those MPs who have said they will impede the process wherever possible.
This is exactly how the sentiment she used to respond to Yvette Cooper in the clip you shared this morning.
As someone who voted Remain, I will absolutely not be voting for someone who is completely ignoring my views and concerns, or anyone who is pushing through a Brexit that is manifestly far more extreme than the one promised by the Leave campaign.
That's entirely fair, and I think it's patently obvious that you should vote for those who represent your concerns and feelings.
However, my response was aimed at a disingenuous comment about the caption that the BBC decided to give Theresa May on BBC News. A comment that seemed to completely miss the point of what's actually been said. Whilst I fully agree that you should vote against those who don't represent your views, I still do not think it's fair to claim that Theresa May has declared 56% of her constituents are opponents.. simply because she didn't.
True, can't disagree with that. Plenty of Remain voters have said that the vote has happened and we should leave the EU accordingly. Honouring the result, regardless of how surreptitiously it was obtained, is more important to them than carrying on the fight to remain in the EU.
My concern is that a lot of people who voted Remain have switched off and are not taking notice of what is actually happening on the Brexit front though. None of the visions or promises made by the Leave campaign, beyond actually withdrawing from the EU, are materialising. As such no person who voted Remain should be voting for Theresa May or any politician who is supporting her or giving her carte blanche to proceed with her vision of Brexit.
Your bias is a little unsettling.
These visions and promises made by the leave campaign, why did you believe they were in any position to give them? The leave campaign, as was the case with the remain campaign, were a bunch of MP's and celebrities banging on about something they couldn't even deliver!!
BOTH sides made forecasts & promises they could not forsee or hope to keep. Neither had a mandate to deliver on anything.
The whole election from BOTH sides was mis-informed and lacked any clarity.
The biggest mistake made was not enough time being given for some sort of body to consult and set out the preferred positions for either side and actually produce some facts rather than the constant scare mongering, which would've driven people to vote either way.
The lies and misrepresentations came from one side only. It has been demonstrated again and again. No matter how many times you and other Brexit supporters say otherwise it will not change that fact.
The only Leave politician with any kind of power is David Davis, who is leading the Brexit department. So the only one in a position to implement anything is doing what he promised to do.
Meanwhile, the Remainers-who make up most of Theresa May's cabinet, are only able to call an election because the economy has not collapsed, despite their dire predictions.
Theresa May is the only one worth voting for because, so far, she is carrying out the democratic will of the people. The other parties want to undermine it.
Surely if the majority of people (ie over 50%) vote for a party other than the Tories, then the democratic will of the people is that they do not want the Tories in charge.
not wanting to steer this thread onto electoral reform but I really feel a top up system would be beneficial to make votes count more, there would need to be a minimum threshold, of course, to stop certain loony elements, although UKIP would still get some seats I expect, but seats in the house could be allocated to on a list basis, perhaps to the best second place candidates, etc yes it would be a bit more complicated and imperfect but we could have the best of both worlds
I disagree. The current system works perfectly well. In my opinion the only people that want to change it are probably the Lib Dems and Labour parties who fear a possible wipe out
not wanting to steer this thread onto electoral reform but I really feel a top up system would be beneficial to make votes count more, there would need to be a minimum threshold, of course, to stop certain loony elements, although UKIP would still get some seats I expect, but seats in the house could be allocated to on a list basis, perhaps to the best second place candidates, etc yes it would be a bit more complicated and imperfect but we could have the best of both worlds
I disagree. The current system works perfectly well. In my opinion the only people that want to change it are probably the Lib Dems and Labour parties who fear a possible wipe out
In what way does the current system work well? If you're the SNP maybe but for everyone else it's utter crap. UKIP got 4m votes in 2015 and 1 seat. The SNP got 1.5m votes and 56 seats, How is that working perfectly well?
Not that I want UKIP to get loads of seats but fair's fair!
not wanting to steer this thread onto electoral reform but I really feel a top up system would be beneficial to make votes count more, there would need to be a minimum threshold, of course, to stop certain loony elements, although UKIP would still get some seats I expect, but seats in the house could be allocated to on a list basis, perhaps to the best second place candidates, etc yes it would be a bit more complicated and imperfect but we could have the best of both worlds
I disagree. The current system works perfectly well. In my opinion the only people that want to change it are probably the Lib Dems and Labour parties who fear a possible wipe out
I think proportional representation has to be looked at again at some point. It was rejected quite recently of course but since then there has been a seismic shift in the political landscape.
I am no UKIP supporter but their representation in parliament compared to the number of. Votes they polled is hardly democratic. With the left of centre vote of labour / Lib Dems / Greens split we are very much in danger of having a one party state. Its unhealthy and undemocratic.
Did anyone seen Corbyn's Churchillesque "Fight em on the beaches" speech yesterday in, err, Croydon..?
PMSL What a twerp
I'm probably being thick here but what's wrong with doing it in Croydon which is a Tory swing seat?
It weren't so much that mate, it was more the rentamob standing round him, waving their paper flags from the last erection, as they all stood outside Poundland, with him trying to get all passionate and give a rousing speech.
It didn't really look ike the leader of the opposition, it looked more like a scene from the Brittas Empire if you ask me
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.
But hey, you vote as you think fit.
Dear Prague, your contempt for ordinary people is quite beneath you, surely? By your own argument would it not also be true that the power and money hungry Remain supporting bankers and businessmen (who are be way more numerous, powerful and influential, like Gina Miller ) must have exercised the same evil control over people who voted Remain? The only conclusion one could draw is that you think the whole of our democracy is a sham, and we are all easily manipulated. However, the lesson of the referendum was quite the opposite-that despite having most of the UK and global establishment weighing in for Remain, people decided they would do what they thought right rather than what they were being told to do. I am sure you are a good democrat at heart, especially living where you do and knowing people who could not vote for whom they wanted to. (By the way, it is good to hear that the EU bureaucrats are fictitious. Surely that must mean we do not have to pay for their huge pensions after we have left the EU)
But lots of the public are easily manipulated.
I'm sorry but that's just a fact and when they are subjected to months, in some cases years, of highly dubious claims, dodgy facts, the rewriting of history and yes, 'fake news', stories that only serve to reinforce the recipients confirmation bias it is virtually impossible to overcome those messages. We are hard wired to that effect and even when the likes of Farrage later come out and confirm that what was being said was rubbish, people still believe it because it fits their theories and to do otherwise requires a major shift in thinking and admission we were wrong. Which none of us like to do. Marketeers have been playing on this to sell us stuff since the year dot.
We will see it at work again during the next few weeks. I guarantee the likes of the Sun and Mail will be pushing the Tory line that Labour cannot be trusted not to overspend again.
What they won't publish is the relevant comparisons in historic debt/public spending to GDP figures, a breakdown of whose more likely to run a surplus budget or any other meaningful economic indicators that might show that, in many cases it's the Tories that come out worse in any comparison...because that's not the narrative their readers want to hear and they have papers to shift and don't want to pee off their readership.
There will be people reading this that'll be bristling at the thought that Labour might have just as much chance of running a surplus budget as the Tories but, as we saw two years ago, it doesn't matter how many charts and graphs you post, they will not accept something The Mail has been telling them overtly or by inference for decades is not the case.
For the record I read the i in the week, the Telegraph at the weekend.
Registered for vote from abroad yesterday and will follow the build up with great interest. The media here are portraying it as the next step in the self-inflicted chaos and division going on in the UK, although elections here have been awful the last years - the last one took a year to decide on the government!
Something keeps spooking him or he keeps losing his train of thought; there's quite a few times he seems to trail off mid sentence - look a tad bewildered whilst looking around - before continuing. A bit bizarre to be honest.
I love the guy who randomly wanders in and just stands there looking at the camera and the journo for the final minute or so.
Something keeps spooking him or he keeps losing his train of thought; there's quite a few times he seems to trail off mid sentence - look a tad bewildered whilst looking around - before continuing. A bit bizarre to be honest.
I love the guy who randomly wanders in and just stands there looking at the camera and the journo for the final minute or so.
Best speech I have seen him deliver to be honest! But he can't win the election - we all know that.
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.
But hey, you vote as you think fit.
Dear Prague, your contempt for ordinary people is quite beneath you, surely? By your own argument would it not also be true that the power and money hungry Remain supporting bankers and businessmen (who are be way more numerous, powerful and influential, like Gina Miller ) must have exercised the same evil control over people who voted Remain? The only conclusion one could draw is that you think the whole of our democracy is a sham, and we are all easily manipulated. However, the lesson of the referendum was quite the opposite-that despite having most of the UK and global establishment weighing in for Remain, people decided they would do what they thought right rather than what they were being told to do. I am sure you are a good democrat at heart, especially living where you do and knowing people who could not vote for whom they wanted to. (By the way, it is good to hear that the EU bureaucrats are fictitious. Surely that must mean we do not have to pay for their huge pensions after we have left the EU)
But lots of the public are easily manipulated.
I'm sorry but that's just a fact and when they are subjected to months, in some cases years, of highly dubious claims, facts, the rewriting of history and yes, 'fake news', stories that only serve to reinforce the recipients confirmation bias it is virtually impossible to overcome those messages. We are hard wired to that effect and even when the likes of Farrage later come out and confirm that what was being said was rubbish, people still believe it because it fits their theories and to do otherwise requires a major shift in thinking and admission we were wrong. Which none of us like to do. Marketeers have been playing on this to sell us stuff since the year dot.
We will see it at work again during the next few weeks. I guarantee the likes of the Sun and Mail will be pushing the Tory line that Labour cannot be trusted not to overspend again.
What they won't publish is the relevant comparisons in historic debt/public spending to GDP figures, a breakdown of whose more likely to run a surplus budget or any other meaningful economic indicators that might show that, in many cases it's the Tories that come out worse in any comparison...because that's not the narrative their readers want to hear and they have papers to shift and don't want to pee off their readership.
There will be people reading this that'll be bristling at the thought that Labour might have just as much chance of running a surplus budget as the Tories but, as we saw two years ago, it doesn't matter how many charts and graphs you post, they will not accept something The Mail has been telling them overtly or be inference for decades is not the case.
For the record I read the i in the week, the Telegraph at the weekend.
Completely agree with you. If you examine people's attitudes to the current government's failure to reduce the deficit and an economic policy, where production has stagnated and increased inequality, they still think it is the better alternative. Up until the global financial crisis the stewardship of the economy has been completely forgotten and Brown's legacy rewritten as incompetent bully in No.10 rather than one of our most prosperous Chancellors.
When you break down each policy of labour, most score well, but as soon as you attach Corbyn's name the approval drops. It is a bias that has been deliberately cultivated that his idea's must be idiotic because he photographs manhole covers, wouldn't press a button that doesn't exist or give an order, he legally couldn't, to shoot someone.
Comments
An interesting read 'from the horse's mouth' so to speak.
Meanwhile, Theresa May has refused to answer any media questions since declaring the election. And she's stubbornly refusing to debate head-to-head with other leaders on tv. This is a big mistake in my view. The more she distances herself, the more she plays into Labour's "establishment" rhetoric. But, if she finally concedes and agrees to a leaders debate, all parties will be able to throw yet more accusations of "u-turns".
So far, it's more interesting than I feared. And, with momentum (small "m") being key, might the Tories actually be returned with a smaller majority?
I think it is an outrage that companies don't pay tax, and this is something I feel like every government in the World should crack down on, as this is the only way it can be done properly, through something like a treaty, much like we have on emissions, laws governing human rights and war etc, but no one will do it...
I believe that companies should pay staff fairly, and that companies should pay their tax... As many do, unfortunately for Jeremy Corbyn, that is where a lot of people's similar thinking with him comes to an end, and it's a shame, because there is a lot of opportunity to exploit the fact the Tories haven't been doing enough to get companies to pay tax, although they are trying to shift the onus onto companies rather than taxpayers with the "living wage"
Maybe by just focusing on his leadership credentials, as is already evident at PMQs, they will not be answering his policies and will give him a platform that cuts through the same old stuff people have been reading about him for a few years already.
I can't believe that the majority are happy, I've even heard nostalgia for the coalition. I can believe the majority are worried about the opposition more though and question it's competency. Especially, after the way the Labour Party has behaved after the last few years. How can you form an effective opposition if you are focused on tearing yourself apart? At least this will put talk of leadership elections to be for the next seven weeks and hear some other topic.
This year, we have Corbyn, who is castigated by all media and presented as a hopeless, shambling, irrelevancy. And now the campaigns have started, again, we will see a fairly equal split (at least among broadcast media). And people can make up their own minds about him.
The interesting point is this. Corbyn may well be utterly hopeless. But, since the public has been told for years that he's far worse than that, the public may see him in a far more positive light. And, since Theresa May has been "bigged up" so much and so often since she took office (and, frankly, before then), unless she secures a dramatically enlarged majority, she'll be in a pretty poor position.
I Don't quite know why Councillor Tamoor Tariq, felt the need to tweet the following;
The PM had months to call a general election & she decides to call it during ramadam, disgrace and inconsiderate to 3M muslims!
the guy has since turned his twitter to private.
Jeremy has as much chance of making that change as my dear old mum had of getting my dad back from the pub at two o'clock on a Sunday.
Meanwhile, the Remainers-who make up most of Theresa May's cabinet, are only able to call an election because the economy has not collapsed, despite their dire predictions.
Theresa May is the only one worth voting for because, so far, she is carrying out the democratic will of the people. The other parties want to undermine it.
The only conclusion one could draw is that you think the whole of our democracy is a sham, and we are all easily manipulated. However, the lesson of the referendum was quite the opposite-that despite having most of the UK and global establishment weighing in for Remain, people decided they would do what they thought right rather than what they were being told to do.
I am sure you are a good democrat at heart, especially living where you do and knowing people who could not vote for whom they wanted to.
(By the way, it is good to hear that the EU bureaucrats are fictitious. Surely that must mean we do not have to pay for their huge pensions after we have left the EU)
Could someone far better informed than me explain the constitutional significance of this? Perhaps @seth plum or @northernirishaddick - or anyone else..?
It seems strange to set about campaigning for a general election while concurrently negotiating for the make-up of the Assembly.
Wouldn't it be better to give them a deadline - say four weeks before 8 June - and, if they haven't agreed a power-share, hold another Assembly election on the same day as the GE?
The current system works perfectly well.
In my opinion the only people that want to change it are probably the Lib Dems and Labour parties who fear a possible wipe out
Not that I want UKIP to get loads of seats but fair's fair!
I am no UKIP supporter but their representation in parliament compared to the number of. Votes they polled is hardly democratic. With the left of centre vote of labour / Lib Dems / Greens split we are very much in danger of having a one party state. Its unhealthy and undemocratic.
It didn't really look ike the leader of the opposition, it looked more like a scene from the Brittas Empire if you ask me
the beaches and seafronts bit made me chuckle.
I'm sorry but that's just a fact and when they are subjected to months, in some cases years, of highly dubious claims, dodgy facts, the rewriting of history and yes, 'fake news', stories that only serve to reinforce the recipients confirmation bias it is virtually impossible to overcome those messages. We are hard wired to that effect and even when the likes of Farrage later come out and confirm that what was being said was rubbish, people still believe it because it fits their theories and to do otherwise requires a major shift in thinking and admission we were wrong. Which none of us like to do. Marketeers have been playing on this to sell us stuff since the year dot.
We will see it at work again during the next few weeks. I guarantee the likes of the Sun and Mail will be pushing the Tory line that Labour cannot be trusted not to overspend again.
What they won't publish is the relevant comparisons in historic debt/public spending to GDP figures, a breakdown of whose more likely to run a surplus budget or any other meaningful economic indicators that might show that, in many cases it's the Tories that come out worse in any comparison...because that's not the narrative their readers want to hear and they have papers to shift and don't want to pee off their readership.
There will be people reading this that'll be bristling at the thought that Labour might have just as much chance of running a surplus budget as the Tories but, as we saw two years ago, it doesn't matter how many charts and graphs you post, they will not accept something The Mail has been telling them overtly or by inference for decades is not the case.
For the record I read the i in the week, the Telegraph at the weekend.
I love the guy who randomly wanders in and just stands there looking at the camera and the journo for the final minute or so.
When you break down each policy of labour, most score well, but as soon as you attach Corbyn's name the approval drops. It is a bias that has been deliberately cultivated that his idea's must be idiotic because he photographs manhole covers, wouldn't press a button that doesn't exist or give an order, he legally couldn't, to shoot someone.