The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Sporky

Political parties have little to do with democracy though. They exist to subvert democracy - if you want (a) you have to vote for us and get (b), (c), and (j) to (r) that you don't want....

More democratic to stand as an independent, but the parties have pretty well sewn that up too.

Fretwired

MrBump said:

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

May's ratings are quite high actually. Tim isn't much higher than Corbyn. I bet Clegg wishes he never resigned - he'd do much better than Tim. I really can't stand the bloke - he's an Evangelical Christian .. 

I fully agree with you on Farron - although May's ratings being so high is more to do with Corbyn and Farron than any great appreciation of her leadership, I think. In a field of more than one credible candidate she wouldn't be doing anywhere near as well. I am also deeply suspicious of her, as you know. In my opinion she's devious and dishonest, and entirely motivated by her own ambition.

I don't agree.  At all.  If you're going to base your voting on a single character flaw, there's slim pickings in parliament... Farron is OK. I've seen and heard lots from him, and never once felt that he was beating me over the head with Christianity.

What? A leader who says "Maybe God’s plan is for me to lose a bunch of elections and be humbled" .. doesn't fill you with confidence does it?

Extract from a Guardian interview:

Farron believes that everyone will go to either heaven or hell. “I think the Bible is clear. Everybody has something coming after.” As a non-believer, will I go to hell? “Well, it’s not for me to make that judgement. It’s a real cop-out, this one, but Abraham says: ‘Will not the judge of all things do right?’ And at the end, no one will disagree with the justice of what God has done.”

Asked if he consulted God when considering whether to stand for the party leadership. “Of course you do, of course you do. Obviously you ask for His guidance.” Does he think God has a plan for him? “I think He has a plan for everybody.” I’m not sure what that means. “Well, God is sovereign. Dreadful things happen in this world, but that reminds us that we need a saviour. I don’t go round fixating that God has some major plan for me. Maybe his plan is for me to lose a bunch of elections and be humbled. God’s plan could be that some pretty brutal things happen to you. But the one thing I fall back on is that God’s overall plan is good.”

How does a leader of a pro-liberal party square his illiberal faith?

Sorry, but anyone with that sort of faith in a dodgy book and a friend in the sky won't be getting my vote.

Evilmags

The election will pan out quite simply. In the depths of the ballot booth people wI'll think "would I hire Tim or Jeremy to do anything". Most will conclude no and Teresa gets a whopping majority. 

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

 I'm not a reactionary bigot

U sure bae?

crunchman

quarky said:

DarnWeight said:

Which is to completely overlook the whole concept of tactical voting.  We're not mindless automatons who blindly vote for "our" party, right or wrong.  These kind of pacts are just tactical voting "plus", i.e. a kind of pre-packaged deal for people with a common or overlapping set of goals or ideals.  This kind of phenomenon is, if anything, more of a symptom of a lack of democracy than a cause of it.

In this instance, I think you're making the wrong comparisons RE: China and North Korea.  Look a bit closer to home, at what is happening in Turkey.  May is trying to pull an Erdogan here..."You need to vote for me to make my position/mandate stronger, and simultaneously crush all debate and dissent"  

The difference is, you can *choose* to vote tactically. These parties want to remove the freedom to make choice from you, without your consent, and the are doing it deliberately to suit their own personal interests. That is not democracy, that isn't freedom. That is wrong, and actually, cowardly.

It's not just the choice to vote tactically.  Any one can stand in a constituency and anyone can vote for them.

If I can get 10 registered electors in my constituency to sign their names on a nomination form and put up a £500 deposit I can stand.  If I can convince 20,000 or so people in the constituency to vote for me then I will get elected.

The problem is convincing 20,000 people to vote for you when you don't have the party machinery behind you.  It's possible if you are famous like Martin Bell but otherwise it's difficult.  That doctor in Kidderminster managed it though. 

Bridgehouse

mikeyrob73 said:

you had me nodding in agreement right up till "bass guitar isn't an instrument"

Never let it be said I don't pander to the masses. You and I both know it's really an instrument, but we can convince everyone else it isn't.

Bit like politics really.

Sporky

Evilmags said:

The election will pan out quite simply. In the depths of the ballot booth people wI'll think "would I hire Tim or Jeremy to do anything". Most will conclude no and Teresa gets a whopping majority. 

Doesn't that rely on people having the sort of gaping judgement issues that'd result in them thinking "but I'd hire that deranged lunatic"...?

Drew_TNBD said:

Sporky said:

 I'm not a reactionary bigot

U sure bae?

I am.

I am reactionary, and a bigot, but I keep the two separate. They're just two more things that shouldn't be mixed, y'know, like grape and grain, or toilet cleaner and bleach.

DarnWeight

quarky said:

The difference is, you can *choose* to vote tactically. These parties want to remove the freedom to make choice from you, without your consent, and the are doing it deliberately to suit their own personal interests. That is not democracy, that isn't freedom. That is wrong, and actually, cowardly.

But like so many others in this country, even trying to vote tactically in the constituency I live in, my vote would still be wasted.  How is my democratic choice being served by a system where I get no meaningful input into my political representation?  Is that democracy?

Again, I would rather my actual vote counted in some fashion, but if the system itself cannot serve democracy, I'll happily take the "cowardly" option over the illusion of freedom we're funnelled into by a ludicrously skewed Parliamentary voting system.

Fretwired

DarnWeight said:

quarky said:

The difference is, you can *choose* to vote tactically. These parties want to remove the freedom to make choice from you, without your consent, and the are doing it deliberately to suit their own personal interests. That is not democracy, that isn't freedom. That is wrong, and actually, cowardly.

But like so many others in this country, even trying to vote tactically in the constituency I live in, my vote would still be wasted.  How is my democratic choice being served by a system where I get no meaningful input into my political representation?  Is that democracy?

Again, I would rather my actual vote counted in some fashion, but if the system itself cannot serve democracy, I'll happily take the "cowardly" option over the illusion of freedom we're funnelled into by a ludicrously skewed Parliamentary voting system.

There are some marginal seats where such a strategy could pay off. It could work where I live as a combination of Labour and Lib Dem votes could defeat the sitting Tory. However, getting local activists to agree would be difficult and voters could be upset that they have no choice. Time for us to have a PR-based voting system.

Ravenous

Bridgehouse said:

mikeyrob73 said:

you had me nodding in agreement right up till "bass guitar isn't an instrument"

Never let it be said I don't pander to the masses. You and I both know it's really an instrument, but we can convince everyone else it isn't.

Bit like politics really.

+1, shockingly this is absolutely true. The masses will readily accept a blatant lie that suits their beliefs. (I won't go into examples, but we've seen them in the last year or so.)

Rocker

digitalscream said:i

Personally, I'm just looking forward to needling our local Green Party candidate again. Sure, it's like kicking small children, but I just can't help myself...

They never call now. Not after the bollocking I gave the candidate over the Windfarms issue..

Bridgehouse

Ravenous said:

Bridgehouse said:

mikeyrob73 said:

you had me nodding in agreement right up till "bass guitar isn't an instrument"

Never let it be said I don't pander to the masses. You and I both know it's really an instrument, but we can convince everyone else it isn't.

Bit like politics really.

+1, shockingly this is absolutely true. The masses will readily accept a blatant lie that suits their beliefs. (I won't go into examples, but we've seen them in the last year or so.)

What? You mean like the Remain-voting no-snap-general-election-promising PM, who now wants a snap general election to force through a hard Brexit?

ThePrettyDamned

Rocker said:

digitalscream said:i

Personally, I'm just looking forward to needling our local Green Party candidate again. Sure, it's like kicking small children, but I just can't help myself...

They never call now. Not after the bollocking I gave the candidate over the Windfarms issue..

Odd that the green party wouldn't support the safe, clean, sustainable and relatively efficient energy produced by wind farms, although I'm glad you educated them. 

randella

Fretwired said:

There are some marginal seats where such a strategy could pay off. It could work where I live as a combination of Labour and Lib Dem votes could defeat the sitting Tory. However, getting local activists to agree would be difficult and voters could be upset that they have no choice. Time for us to have a PR-based voting system.

Activists within the Labour party itself can't even settle infinitesimally small differences in their ideologies which is why the party's in the state it is.  It's like the "Judean Peoples' Front" scene in Life of Brian.

It's a nice thought, but I can't see them bridging those differences soon, never mind accepting enough compromise to team up with another lot they'll invariably see as 'yellow Tories'.

VimFuego

Rocker said:

digitalscream said:i

Personally, I'm just looking forward to needling our local Green Party candidate again. Sure, it's like kicking small children, but I just can't help myself...

They never call now. Not after the bollocking I gave the candidate over the Windfarms issue..

wow, must've been weak, considering how many times a week you get a kicking on here.

Bridgehouse

Fretwired

Bridgehouse said:

Hilarious ... she'd be quite good actually .... she could hold up her sonic screwdriver and scream BREXIT .. and another Dalek would explode ..

Drew_TNBD

randella said:

Fretwired said:

There are some marginal seats where such a strategy could pay off. It could work where I live as a combination of Labour and Lib Dem votes could defeat the sitting Tory. However, getting local activists to agree would be difficult and voters could be upset that they have no choice. Time for us to have a PR-based voting system.

Activists within the Labour party itself can't even settle infinitesimally small differences in their ideologies which is why the party's in the state it is.  It's like the "Judean Peoples' Front" scene in Life of Brian.

It's a nice thought, but I can't see them bridging those differences soon, never mind accepting enough compromise to team up with another lot they'll invariably see as 'yellow Tories'.

They're riddled tae fuck with identity politics. That's why they're floundering and fading.

RandallFlagg

prepare for hundreds of thousands of social media fake account Bots going crazy stirring up election turmoil, causing mass confusion and panic on the streets. HMS UK is taking on water...so we have issued a distress signal, a May Day if you will...

Bridgehouse

Fretwired said:

Bridgehouse said:

Hilarious ... she'd be quite good actually .... she could hold up her sonic screwdriver and scream BREXIT .. and another Dalek would explode ..

BREXTERMINATE! BREXTERMINATE!



She does look a bit like Patrick Troughton tho.