The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

ThePrettyDamned

Fretwired said:

What's wrong with Labour? Car crash interview on R4 this morning ... this woman is an MP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p050mxy9?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=thetodayprogramme&ns_source=facebook

And I see Labour MPs moaning about a possible Tory landslide and how it's bad for democracy. I didn't here anyone complaining when Blair won two three digit majorities - and good old Len McCluskey has had his rival for the election of leader of Unite suspended over 'irregularities' - straight out of the Stalinist book on how to keep power.

A once great party now a shambles ..

Jesus christ... 

VimFuego

Fretwired said:

VimFuego said:

it is negetive, I agree, however we have a significant democratic shortfall in this country due to our flawed electoral system. If the tories are willing to game the system to gain an advantage then I don't see anything wrong in applying the same to them. If all votes counted, there's no way in hell they'd have called an early election.

The system doesn't favour the Tories. Had Labour got a decent left of centre leader and some policies I think they'd be well ahead in England. Cameron couldn't beat brown and ended up with a slim majority against Miliband who was wiped out in Scotland. Cameron hardly caused an earthquake in British politics.

where did I say it did?

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

My earthquake comment was about the two general elections stood in as leader. Cameron didn't make the Tories electable - people were tired of Labour and many turned to the Lib Dems and SNP, not the Tories. In 2010 he was forced into a coalition (hardly a ringing endorsement when he couldn't beat Brown) and in 2015 he just about beat a guy who couldn't make a bacon sandwich and profited from a collapse in Lib Dem support over the coalition.

With regards to the referendum don't forget Labour did a massive U-turn and backed it so it suddenly built up momentum ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749

As ever, your anti-Cameron feelings ring out. 

Hague and IDS were dreadful and Howard lost to a warmongering Blair with the lowest popular vote majority government of all time. Compared to his three predecessors, Cameron pulled an absolute blinder in getting a party that was full of division and petty arse bullshit back into Downing Street. What's more, he did that in an era when it's not three party politics any longer. The political landscape you had for most of your life suddenly got squashed by the internet age, one where the like of Beppe Grillo can spring up from nowhere. 

The Conservatives were viewed as cunts for ages. Cameron's time as leader did change that. Elements like gay marriage shifted them out of 1822 and into the 21st century. His tenure was full of cunty elements but it surprises me that your loathing is so blinkered. 

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

Fretwired said:

VimFuego said:

it is negetive, I agree, however we have a significant democratic shortfall in this country due to our flawed electoral system. If the tories are willing to game the system to gain an advantage then I don't see anything wrong in applying the same to them. If all votes counted, there's no way in hell they'd have called an early election.

The system doesn't favour the Tories. Had Labour got a decent left of centre leader and some policies I think they'd be well ahead in England. Cameron couldn't beat brown and ended up with a slim majority against Miliband who was wiped out in Scotland. Cameron hardly caused an earthquake in British politics.

where did I say it did?

Where did I say you did .. I picked the wrong quote ... :-)

VimFuego

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

My earthquake comment was about the two general elections stood in as leader. Cameron didn't make the Tories electable - people were tired of Labour and many turned to the Lib Dems and SNP, not the Tories. In 2010 he was forced into a coalition (hardly a ringing endorsement when he couldn't beat Brown) and in 2015 he just about beat a guy who couldn't make a bacon sandwich and profited from a collapse in Lib Dem support over the coalition.

With regards to the referendum don't forget Labour did a massive U-turn and backed it so it suddenly built up momentum ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749

As ever, your anti-Cameron feelings ring out. 

Hague and IDS were dreadful and Howard lost to a warmongering Blair with the lowest popular vote majority government of all time. Compared to his three predecessors, Cameron pulled an absolute blinder in getting a party that was full of division and petty arse bullshit back into Downing Street. What's more, he did that in an era when it's not three party politics any longer. The political landscape you had for most of your life suddenly got squashed by the internet age, one where the like of Beppe Grillo can spring up from nowhere. 

The Conservatives were viewed as cunts for ages. Cameron's time as leader did change that. Elements like gay marriage shifted them out of 1822 and into the 21st century. His tenure was full of cunty elements but it surprises me that your loathing is so blinkered. 

cameron had that same quality as blair, he was emminently electable. This isn't a complement.

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

My earthquake comment was about the two general elections stood in as leader. Cameron didn't make the Tories electable - people were tired of Labour and many turned to the Lib Dems and SNP, not the Tories. In 2010 he was forced into a coalition (hardly a ringing endorsement when he couldn't beat Brown) and in 2015 he just about beat a guy who couldn't make a bacon sandwich and profited from a collapse in Lib Dem support over the coalition.

With regards to the referendum don't forget Labour did a massive U-turn and backed it so it suddenly built up momentum ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749

As ever, your anti-Cameron feelings ring out. 

Hague and IDS were dreadful and Howard lost to a warmongering Blair with the lowest popular vote majority government of all time. Compared to his three predecessors, Cameron pulled an absolute blinder in getting a party that was full of division and petty arse bullshit back into Downing Street. What's more, he did that in an era when it's not three party politics any longer. The political landscape you had for most of your life suddenly got squashed by the internet age, one where the like of Beppe Grillo can spring up from nowhere. 

The Conservatives were viewed as cunts for ages. Cameron's time as leader did change that. Elements like gay marriage shifted them out of 1822 and into the 21st century. His tenure was full of cunty elements but it surprises me that your loathing is so blinkered. 

With respect he hardly did a Blair. Tony Blair won two three digit majorities for Labour. Cameron failed at attempt number one against an unpopular PM and ended up in coalition with the Lib Dems as Nick Clegg kicked his arse in the TV debates. He then scraped a small majority in 2015 which is partly why May has to go to the country again. If you think that's a good track record then fine.

As for my anti-Cameron feelings I have some justification. He called a referendum on the EU after being spooked by UKIP, said he'd get a better deal from the EU and failed, he split the country, ran a negative referendum campaign and lost. He said he'd see it through and then quit. And that's before you get to the bedroom tax, benefits cock-ups, NHS cock-ups and U-turns.

Bridgehouse

VimFuego said:

cameron had that same quality as blair, he was emminently electable. This isn't a complement.

He was electable in the circumstances - I suspect our political landscape would be so different right now if David Miliband had won that fateful leadership election..

Even if he'd not won in 2015 it would have been close and probably a coalition, and I suspect he would be romping in the polls by now this time round. Actually, no, there would be no poll. He wouldn't have triggered an ill-concieved referendum. 

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

The referendum was a straight question - remain or leave the EU and everyone's vote counted.

The problem with tactical voting is apathy. When it's been tried in the past it hasn't worked that well - if you're a staunch Labour supporter you'll probably think sod it I can't be arsed to vote. What it it gives the Tories is a clarion call to get their vote out. The other thing it does is potentially damage the Lib Dems. I bet there are seats in areas that voted remain where the Lib Dems could win votes from Tories who voted remain. If the Lib Dems are seen to be in bed with Corbyn's Labour they'll be unlikely to vote Lib Dem.

Tim Farron is missing a trick IMHO - he can win seats on a remain ticket.

A question that somehow became God... 

So explain General Elections and why turnout keeps going up despite more negativity. 

There hasn't really been a tactical voting effort in the modern era. Go back to 1983 and 1987 to see how some of those efforts went. Then try to compare the frameworks for voter engagement then to now. It's a whole different world. It's one where modernism clobbers against old stuff like classic right wing tropes from UKIP and the beardy brigade. 

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

My earthquake comment was about the two general elections stood in as leader. Cameron didn't make the Tories electable - people were tired of Labour and many turned to the Lib Dems and SNP, not the Tories. In 2010 he was forced into a coalition (hardly a ringing endorsement when he couldn't beat Brown) and in 2015 he just about beat a guy who couldn't make a bacon sandwich and profited from a collapse in Lib Dem support over the coalition.

With regards to the referendum don't forget Labour did a massive U-turn and backed it so it suddenly built up momentum ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749

As ever, your anti-Cameron feelings ring out. 

Hague and IDS were dreadful and Howard lost to a warmongering Blair with the lowest popular vote majority government of all time. Compared to his three predecessors, Cameron pulled an absolute blinder in getting a party that was full of division and petty arse bullshit back into Downing Street. What's more, he did that in an era when it's not three party politics any longer. The political landscape you had for most of your life suddenly got squashed by the internet age, one where the like of Beppe Grillo can spring up from nowhere. 

The Conservatives were viewed as cunts for ages. Cameron's time as leader did change that. Elements like gay marriage shifted them out of 1822 and into the 21st century. His tenure was full of cunty elements but it surprises me that your loathing is so blinkered. 

cameron had that same quality as blair, he was emminently electable. This isn't a complement.

Then why didn't Cameron get a big majority in 2010 or 2015? In 2010 he clearly lost the TV debates to Nick Clegg who proved to be more popular than Cameron and was seen by the public as the man with the real policies. Blair was in a different league to Cameron ..

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

With respect he hardly did a Blair. Tony Blair won two three digit majorities for Labour. Cameron failed at attempt number one against an unpopular PM and ended up in coalition with the Lib Dems as Nick Clegg kicked his arse in the TV debates. He then scraped a small majority in 2015 which is partly why May has to go to the country again. If you think that's a good track record then fine.

It's a fucking good track record when you consider how his predecessors as Conservative leader managed. And that's the point you somehow seem completely incapable of registering in my words. I'm not saying he's a good leader per se. He wasn't. But within the confines of Torydom, he's a genius compared to the lot before him. 

Bridgehouse

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

With respect he hardly did a Blair. Tony Blair won two three digit majorities for Labour. Cameron failed at attempt number one against an unpopular PM and ended up in coalition with the Lib Dems as Nick Clegg kicked his arse in the TV debates. He then scraped a small majority in 2015 which is partly why May has to go to the country again. If you think that's a good track record then fine.

It's a fucking good track record when you consider how his predecessors as Conservative leader managed. And that's the point you somehow seem completely incapable of registering in my words. I'm not saying he's a good leader per se. He wasn't. But within the confines of Torydom, he's a genius compared to the lot before him. 

Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn have been the most effective Tory Leaders in recent memory...

VimFuego

you must remember that a lot of blairs popularity came from just how deeply unpopular majors government were (and that whole fat cat and sleaze thing). He remained popular by buying off the electorate with cheap credit and borrowing to fund pubic services, tax credits etc and was helped by a series of deeply flawed tory leaders and a tory party that were riven by the euro sceptic thing and were easy prey for the campbells of this world. It was easy for him to be popular. Cameron couldn't buy off the electorate with cheap credit. But despite waging a war against public services etc, he still got a majority.

randella

Bridgehouse said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

With respect he hardly did a Blair. Tony Blair won two three digit majorities for Labour. Cameron failed at attempt number one against an unpopular PM and ended up in coalition with the Lib Dems as Nick Clegg kicked his arse in the TV debates. He then scraped a small majority in 2015 which is partly why May has to go to the country again. If you think that's a good track record then fine.

It's a fucking good track record when you consider how his predecessors as Conservative leader managed. And that's the point you somehow seem completely incapable of registering in my words. I'm not saying he's a good leader per se. He wasn't. But within the confines of Torydom, he's a genius compared to the lot before him. 

Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn have been the most effective Tory Leaders in recent memory...

Ed Miliband was good enough that, despite the three terms of Labour fresh in people's memory, he held the Tories to a wafer-thin majority of what, 17 seats?  I wasn't a big fan of his at the time, but he looks like a political colossus compared with Albert Steptoe.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

you must remember that a lot of blairs popularity came from just how deeply unpopular majors government were (and that whole fat cat and sleaze thing). He remained popular by buying off the electorate with cheap credit and borrowing to fund pubic services, tax credits etc and was helped by a series of deeply flawed tory leaders and a tory party that were riven by the euro sceptic thing and were easy prey for the campbells of this world. It was easy for him to be popular. Cameron couldn't buy off the electorate with cheap credit. But despite waging a war against public services etc, he still got a majority.

I agree, but the Tories did themselves no favours afterwards. Ken Clarke would have made a popular leader in the country but his stance on Europe made him unpopular who those who ran the party. Blair made Labour electable by moving it to the right - he was a canny operator.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Then why didn't Cameron get a big majority in 2010 or 2015? In 2010 he clearly lost the TV debates to Nick Clegg who proved to be more popular than Cameron and was seen by the public as the man with the real policies. Blair was in a different league to Cameron ..

First debate, Clegg did indeed hold the lead. But the third debate, the Prime Ministerial Debate, had every poll putting Cameron as winner or level with Clegg. Even the Guardian poll had Cameron winning there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010#Prime_Ministerial_Debate:_economic_affairs

I am unsure how Cleff proved to be popular than Cameron when a week later Clegg's party finished third with -5 seats and 900,000 more votes than 2005. Cameron by comparison saw 97 seats turn blue and nearly 2 million more votes than 2005.

I do have a question: are you secretly dating Nick Clegg behind Miriam's back? 

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

With respect he hardly did a Blair. Tony Blair won two three digit majorities for Labour. Cameron failed at attempt number one against an unpopular PM and ended up in coalition with the Lib Dems as Nick Clegg kicked his arse in the TV debates. He then scraped a small majority in 2015 which is partly why May has to go to the country again. If you think that's a good track record then fine.

It's a fucking good track record when you consider how his predecessors as Conservative leader managed. And that's the point you somehow seem completely incapable of registering in my words. I'm not saying he's a good leader per se. He wasn't. But within the confines of Torydom, he's a genius compared to the lot before him. 

If you say so .. it's like the England football team .. win a few but ultimately mediocre.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

I agree, but the Tories did themselves no favours afterwards. Ken Clarke would have made a popular leader in the country but his stance on Europe made him unpopular who those who ran the party. Blair made Labour electable by moving it to the right - he was a canny operator.

Absolutely. God, can you imagine Ken Clarke in his prime against Corbyn now? It would have been magnificent. 

VimFuego

and that was the thing about cameron, he conned us into thinking he'd turned the tory party to the center, even though we knew he was lying. Less substance than a wet paper bag, but he made the tory party electable, and much like how labour so savaged the tories and made them unelectable, his tory party are now doing the same to labour.

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

Then why didn't Cameron get a big majority in 2010 or 2015? In 2010 he clearly lost the TV debates to Nick Clegg who proved to be more popular than Cameron and was seen by the public as the man with the real policies. Blair was in a different league to Cameron ..

First debate, Clegg did indeed hold the lead. But the third debate, the Prime Ministerial Debate, had every poll putting Cameron as winner or level with Clegg. Even the Guardian poll had Cameron winning there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010#Prime_Ministerial_Debate:_economic_affairs

I am unsure how Cleff proved to be popular than Cameron when a week later Clegg's party finished third with -5 seats and 900,000 more votes than 2005. Cameron by comparison saw 97 seats turn blue and nearly 2 million more votes than 2005.

I do have a question: are you secretly dating Nick Clegg behind Miriam's back? 

New PoliticsHome research (June 2010) reveals that the Liberal Democrat leader receives a higher approval rating from the public than David Cameron.

In a nationwide survey, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg enjoys a clear popularity gap ahead of the Prime Minister, holding an approval rating of 17, compared to the David Cameron's rating of 11.

While the two men both attract the approval of 39% of the public, fewer disapprove of Mr Clegg (22%) than Mr Cameron (28%).

Cable and Hague top poll

Meanwhile, Business Secretary Vince Cable and Foreign Secretary William Hague enjoy the highest net approval ratings of any leading politicians.

While 40% of the public approve of Mr Cable, 16% disapprove, giving the Liberal Democrat's outgoing Deputy Leader a net approval of 24. Meanwhile, 43% of voters approve of Mr Hague and 22% disapprove, leaving the Yorkshire MP with a net approval of 21.

Another high-flier is Justice Secretary Ken Clarke with a net approval of 19. Altogether, the eight most popular politicians belong to the Coalition, and all but one of those with positive approval ratings.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

and that was the thing about cameron, he conned us into thinking he'd turned the tory party to the center, even though we knew he was lying. Less substance than a wet paper bag, but he made the tory party electable, and much like how labour so savaged the tories and made them unelectable, his tory party are now doing the same to labour.

I think you've hit the nail on the head for me .. I didn't trust Cameron. I wasn't convinced he was telling the truth - too much expediency. He couldn't even cut the deficit - the Tories ended up borrowing more money than Labour.