The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

ToneControl

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

Tim nice but dim eating shit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39710559

an evangelical Christian who "doesn't believe gay sex is a sin"?
what a big fat liar with pants on fiyah

His religion is his own personal thing. He isn't campaigning for his belief system to be adopted by the whole country. His belief is only a problem if he takes part in actions that discriminate against homosexuals. Abstaining on the gay marriage vote meant he didn't participate rather than discriminate against them. 

Religion is idiotic to me but I recognise that there are many who have their faith. The people within my own family who have a faith-based system of worship going on... I'll defend them up to the point where they discriminate against someone else for having a differing ideology. It's no different to believing in free speech and allowing groups you are opposed to in every way to have their right to speak. 

I found his responses actually quite thoughtful. He's quite right to say that he gets the theological questions that others do not get. It's the sort of clash of ideologies you find when religion and homosexuality mix, how something as old as religion bashes up against modern liberalism. Go and ask someone like Andrew Sullivan about how he reconciles his homosexuality with his Catholic beliefs and his belief that hate laws undermine the freedom of speech. I would thoroughly recommend starting with his book Virtually Normal as an introduction. 

no, that's not true:
you can't stand as leader of a political party and have personal beliefs that clash with the society you aspire to lead

As far as I understand it, evangelicalism is a fundamentalist variation of Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Characteristics

As such the bible condemns homosexuality - hence the repeated questions he has faced in a secular society
Either he shares the belief that homosexuality is a sin, or not.
Personally, I think he is lying when he denies the biblical teaching - his body language says it all

having said all that, no one gave Sadiq Khan the same attention

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

His voting record is irrelevant. He's upset a lot of people and shown why God worshipping politicians shouldn't hold high office.

Finally Fretwired goes SJW. You should start a petition #noprayingjustgaying

Politicians have to be inclusive - God has no place in politics.  May goes to church but she leaves her faith at home. Farron stated on numerous occasions that he thought gay sex was a sin. He was finally called out and did a U-turn. The guy has no credibility .. by all means get on your high horse but we live in a multi-cultural society than needs to bring people of different faiths and beliefs together and that includes people like me who think that anyone who believes in God is one can short of a four pack.

Your #noprayingjustgaying is offensive ..

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

no, that's not true:
you can't stand as leader of a political party and have personal beliefs that clash with the society you aspire to lead

As far as I understand it, evangelicalism is a fundamentalist variation of Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Characteristics

As such the bible condemns homosexuality - hence the repeated questions he has faced in a secular society
Either he shares the belief that homosexuality is a sin, or not.
Personally, I think he is lying when he denies the biblical teaching - his body language says it all

What a load of first paragraph bollocks. 

Please point out under what constitutional laws you determine that first paragraph to be true. 

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

having said all that, no one gave Sadiq Khan the same attention

If you bothered to check his voting record, you'd understand why. 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11878/sadiq_khan/tooting/divisions?policy=826

ICBM

ToneControl said:

it's a good narrative, but you could apply many others to the facts

my one is that new Labour were unfortunate enough to be in charge when the global bubble burst
the Tories shamelessly exploited this, and with the aid of the press, convinced many that (new) Labour were incompetent with the economy

soundbites and spin are probably unavoidable in any aspirant party, the SNP played that tactic well, I can't see how that destroyed the labour party. Look how well parties have done when they bail out of doing PR properly

I accept that Corbyn comes across more as a normal, unpolished bloke, but I seriously doubt he has any more principles or integrity than most labour MPs. Traingate should illustrate this adequately

Corbyn makes lists of things that are unfair (anyone can do that), and proposes curative policies that appear destructive or risky. This will never appear to the majority. I can list what's unfair, this does not qualify me to lead the country.

All mostly true too.

I'm not sure I quite agree about the soundbite thing though - New Labour really did have a problem with bring unable to give a meaningful answer to any question - politicians have been avoiding giving a straight answer when it's inconvenient for decades, but Blair's legacy is that they don't seem to be able to *ever* give one, or in fact hold any solid beliefs whatsoever - it's all an exercise in reverse-reading the question and reciting variations of some nonsense which appears to answer it while in fact saying nothing.

The suggestion made earlier that someone like Yvette Cooper could eventually replace Corbyn is appalling to me - she represents the very worst of that and was rightly thrashed by him for the leadership. If Labour fails under Corbyn - and sadly I think it will - then a return to New Labour won't help… the only alternatives are a total reinvention around someone untainted by the Blair years, or oblivion.

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

Fretwired said:

Listened to the R4 interview this morning with Labour's Sir Keir Starmer. If Labour win they will immediately guarantee the rights of all EU citizens without expecting anything in return and will insist on access to the single market, no tariffs etc. In fact every benefit we have now. Nick Robinson suggested this was a wish list and what happens if the EU say NON. There would be a vote in the HoC and if the deal was rejected we'd remain in the EU.

So if you want to remain in the EU vote Labour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/general-election-2017-labour-leaves-door-open-keeping-uk-eu/

pure genius
there goes all the remaining former labour voters who are Brexiteers

… but potentially capturing Remain voters who don't want a hard Brexit, ideally would prefer no Brexit at all, are disappointed that the pro-EU Lib Dems appear too weak to grasp this firmly enough, and/or who don't think Tim Nice But Dim would make a very good PM.

I know who I'm voting for now.

I have to say, it's the first Labour pronouncement that's caught my attention.  So far, I've been firmly of the mindset that I can't vote Labour because a vote for Labour is a vote for the dreadful prospect of the Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott axis.  I haven't changed my mind, but it's made me think.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

His voting record is irrelevant. He's upset a lot of people and shown why God worshipping politicians shouldn't hold high office.

Finally Fretwired goes SJW. You should start a petition #noprayingjustgaying

Politicians have to be inclusive - God has no place in politics.  May goes to church but she leaves her faith at home. Farron stated on numerous occasions that he thought gay sex was a sin. He was finally called out and did a U-turn. The guy has no credibility .. by all means get on your high horse but we live in a multi-cultural society than needs to bring people of different faiths and beliefs together and that includes people like me who think that anyone who believes in God is one can short of a four pack.

Your #noprayingjustgaying is offensive ..

Points of thought, most of them irreverent as it's well past midnight and it's comedy hour. 

1. We've broken the internet with this thread. Google isn't working.

2. God does have a place in politics as it stands right now. A wave to the Lords Spiritual right now will suffice on that debate. We can go through the other points tomorrow. I'd welcome a secularised political environment but right now we don't have it. 

3. May goes to church, actively voted against some gay rights measures in the past, and was a bit squiffy on Section 28 for a while from what I remember, but she's in the fold now. I'd still call her credibility into question given her love of human rights issues. 
 
4. Get on my high horse - It's my horsey and I'll whine if I want to. I'll bring your saddle back on Friday. 

5. I look forward to your future speaking tour of the Middle East discussing the proposition that all religious people are bonkers. In true Deadpool tradition, I recommend wearing the brown pants. 

6. I'd say there are fair greater targets we should focus on when it comes to inclusion than a bloke whose party have done a good amount for LGBTQ issues. That Euro-hating party currently targeting a religious group in their manifesto might be more deserving of our efforts. 

7. I have no problem with Farron's personal belief system versus how he operates with regard to laws that affect others. I say that as a bloke who said goodbye to permanent heterosexuality some time ago. 

8. It's been a week on the fitness routine, I run a lot and this thread is giving me ironic smirks. Why? Because I can't give up the fags.

9. In the spirit of inclusion, I have awarded Wisdoms to everybody's posts on this page. 

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

no, that's not true:
you can't stand as leader of a political party and have personal beliefs that clash with the society you aspire to lead

As far as I understand it, evangelicalism is a fundamentalist variation of Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Characteristics

As such the bible condemns homosexuality - hence the repeated questions he has faced in a secular society
Either he shares the belief that homosexuality is a sin, or not.
Personally, I think he is lying when he denies the biblical teaching - his body language says it all

What a load of first paragraph bollocks. 

Please point out under what constitutional laws you determine that first paragraph to be true. 

it's my opinion - i.e. if your beliefs clash with the electorate, you are unlikely to get votes

ToneControl

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

it's a good narrative, but you could apply many others to the facts

my one is that new Labour were unfortunate enough to be in charge when the global bubble burst
the Tories shamelessly exploited this, and with the aid of the press, convinced many that (new) Labour were incompetent with the economy

soundbites and spin are probably unavoidable in any aspirant party, the SNP played that tactic well, I can't see how that destroyed the labour party. Look how well parties have done when they bail out of doing PR properly

I accept that Corbyn comes across more as a normal, unpolished bloke, but I seriously doubt he has any more principles or integrity than most labour MPs. Traingate should illustrate this adequately

Corbyn makes lists of things that are unfair (anyone can do that), and proposes curative policies that appear destructive or risky. This will never appear to the majority. I can list what's unfair, this does not qualify me to lead the country.

All mostly true too.

I'm not sure I quite agree about the soundbite thing though - New Labour really did have a problem with bring unable to give a meaningful answer to any question - politicians have been avoiding giving a straight answer when it's inconvenient for decades, but Blair's legacy is that they don't seem to be able to *ever* give one, or in fact hold any solid beliefs whatsoever - it's all an exercise in reverse-reading the question and reciting variations of some nonsense which appears to answer it while in fact saying nothing.

The suggestion made earlier that someone like Yvette Cooper could eventually replace Corbyn is appalling to me - she represents the very worst of that and was rightly thrashed by him for the leadership. If Labour fails under Corbyn - and sadly I think it will - then a return to New Labour won't help… the only alternatives are a total reinvention around someone untainted by the Blair years, or oblivion.

I don't think Cooper is the best hope for Labour, I  thought the problem with Yvette Cooper was that she wasn't very good at that technique - she comes across as fake, I too am tired of the over-polished facade that many politicians rely on.

Having said that, May doesn't give many straight answers, and she seems quite popular at present

I agree that the best hope comes with a new face for leader, to enable a "clean slate" rebuff to some attacks, although I don't personally have a knee-jerk reaction to reject everything Blair did in office, no government gets 100% right or 100% wrong 

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

it's my opinion - i.e. if your beliefs clash with the electorate, you are unlikely to get votes

Leaders have personal beliefs that clash with members of the electorate all the time. Le Pen doesn't have universal backing and was leader for ages. Farage with UKIP. Corbyn. Trump. Sturgeon. The Conservatives in the Blair years. 

Being a successful politician/government isn't just about introducing policies that your electorate are in favour of. The litmus test of a politician is how they handle the introduction of difficult policies. Take Cameron and gay marriage. Never universally popular within a number of his own party members yet he got that through parliament. 

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

I don't think Cooper is the best hope for Labour, I  thought the problem with Yvette Cooper was that she wasn't very good at that technique - she comes across as fake, I too am tired of the over-polished facade that many politicians rely on.

Having said that, May doesn't give many straight answers, and she seems quite popular at present

I agree that the best hope comes with a new face for leader, to enable a "clean slate" rebuff to some attacks, although I don't personally have a knee-jerk reaction to reject everything Blair did in office, no government gets 100% right or 100% wrong 

Labour has a problem and that's how it is funded - by the Unions. Corbyn is old fashioned left leaning, union supporting Labour - people don't want that any more as its no longer relevant in a post-industrialised Britain. Blair was clever - he rebranded as New Labour, pinched a lot of Tory ideas and moved to the centre and marginalised the unions. I can't see Labour doing that again.

Maybe the centre left need to look at Macron in France and break away to form a new progressive centre-left party that doesn't have the baggage of Labour or the Tories.  And maybe the tax payer has to fund political parties to ensure they're not just a front for Union bosses or big business.

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

it's my opinion - i.e. if your beliefs clash with the electorate, you are unlikely to get votes

Leaders have personal beliefs that clash with members of the electorate all the time. Le Pen doesn't have universal backing and was leader for ages. Farage with UKIP. Corbyn. Trump. Sturgeon. The Conservatives in the Blair years. 

Being a successful politician/government isn't just about introducing policies that your electorate are in favour of. The litmus test of a politician is how they handle the introduction of difficult policies. Take Cameron and gay marriage. Never universally popular within a number of his own party members yet he got that through parliament. 

Politicians can have beliefs but they should keep them private. If you want to preach God to the electorate become a priest. Blair was a practising Catholic, but I never heard him banging on about religion or saying abortion was a sin.

Sporky

Fretwired said:

And maybe the tax payer has to fund political parties to ensure they're not just a front for Union bosses or big business.

I don't think that's a bad idea in principle, but I wouldn't want to be the person standing in front of the baying hordes to announce it.

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

And maybe the tax payer has to fund political parties to ensure they're not just a front for Union bosses or big business.

I don't think that's a bad idea in principle, but I wouldn't want to be the person standing in front of the baying hordes to announce it.

I think we'd have better politics and maybe some new parties so more choice. In the overall scheme of things it wouldn't cost much more as MPs are paid, have expenses for offices and other basic stuff. Labour has a £4 million 'war fund' to fight this election. We're not in the USA .. :-)

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Maybe the centre left need to look at Macron in France and break away to form a new progressive centre-left party that doesn't have the baggage of Labour or the Tories.

Let's wait and see if Macron wins first - and if he does, actually makes any progress. The problem with electing outsiders is that by being outsiders, they're usually unfamiliar with how the dirty business of getting things done works. That's also been a problem for Trump, because although he has a wealth of dirty business experience, it's different from the political establishment's.

(I know Macron isn't entirely an outsider, though.)

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Maybe the centre left need to look at Macron in France and break away to form a new progressive centre-left party that doesn't have the baggage of Labour or the Tories.

Let's wait and see if Macron wins first - and if he does, actually makes any progress. The problem with electing outsiders is that by being outsiders, they're usually unfamiliar with how the dirty business of getting things done works. That's also been a problem for Trump, because although he has a wealth of dirty business experience, it's different from the political establishment's.

(I know Macron isn't entirely an outsider, though.)

I think that a new party would be made up of familiar faces from existing parties - it would be hard but doable. The hardest part, and this is where the wheels will fall off Macron's bus, is the constituency infrastructure. He may find his a lame duck president if he can't get enough MPs elected in June.

Fretwired

:-)

randella

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/uk-could-have-driverless-government-by-2020-say-experts-20170426126611

ThePrettyDamned

Labour is red
Tories are blue 
They're all greedy bastards
Out to get you 

Woohoo I wroted a poem! 

I have been speaking to some old friends and they're all feeling the same as me - like there is no *good* party. Not *right* or *wrong*, just varying shades of shit. 

I don't think apathy can be ignored at the moment. It seems like everyone is quite fired up (well, talking about politics at least) but in reality there are a lot of people who just feel like it's a group of elites with nothing in mind but their own career, regardless of party. 

Not exactly an enlightening contribution to the thread, but it's important. Something needs to change, but I don't know what. I don't know enough about our system to comment really. 

ThePrettyDamned

randella said:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/uk-could-have-driverless-government-by-2020-say-experts-20170426126611

Lol