The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Drew_TNBD

digitalscream said:

Bridgehouse said:

Fretwired said:

Bridgehouse said:

Fretwired said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Me getting banned is almost a certainty.

DREXIT .. will we get a forum referendum?

Not sure I could cope with all the DROANERS afterwards..

Are you a Drexiteer?

Nope. I'm going to spoil my paper. I might even freeze one of my own shits in a bag and shove it up my arse. 

Then I can spend at least 6 months ranting about the result, no matter what it is, claiming everything is undemocratic, that we are clearly misguided by a Russian-mobster media, and make a massive big slab-of-rock manifesto with declarations of a flat earth, that planes can take off from conveyor belts, that valve amps are like holy relics and that bass guitar isn't an instrument - it's actually less complex than the washboard or triangle. 

Once it's all settled down a bit I'll go back to making exact replicas of Harley Benton guitars - I have the factory set up already and I'm working on the "Charley Chenton" logo right now.

How cute. You all think this forum is a democracy....

No-one thinks that. We all know this is the "Democratic People's Republic of Monquixote" !!

DarnWeight

quarky said:

DarnWeight said:

You mean like when UKIP didn't forward a candidate of their own, and backed Zac Goldsmith in the Richmond by-election?  Damn those lefty 'kippers and their authoritarianism.

That wasn't right either, but that wasn't a nationwide agreement between parties in a national election, that was simply one party deciding not to field a candidate. Wrong but a different ballpark.

I'm sorry, but that smacks of "But-Miss-it-was-a-bunch-of-big-kids-that-ganged-up-on-me".  May has made this an election about Brexit, so she'd better be prepared for people who don't share her viewpoint to find common ground and argue for the things they agree on.  There is absolutely nothing authoritarian about that, in my book.

If anything, it's agreements such as this that will help shore up the massive hole in our democratic process that is first-past-the-post.  A lot of our votes count for absolutely nothing under the current electoral system, and as the last Coalition showed, if you expect backroom deals done by parties after an election to deliver a representative democracy, then there's a very good chance you'll get burned again.  At least this way, you'll have a fair idea of exactly what your vote is buying you before you cast it.  I'm not saying it's ideal, but to call it anti-democratic is wrong.

ICBM

digitalscream said:

Actually, if everyone who voted Remain voted together for any party, they'd almost certainly win even if they were the only ones voting for that party (based on the turnout from the 2015 election). The only way to beat them would be for everyone who voted Leave to do exactly the same, and then it'd be down to constituency boundaries...

Exactly, but there are three Leave parties (if you count UKIP), and only one Remain (if you discount the Greens), so the result will be a split Leave vote and the one Remain party could easily take almost every seat.

After the independence vote in Scotland there was an active campaign to get anyone who voted Yes to vote SNP, whether or not they would normally support them. The three other main parties split the No vote, so the SNP almost won every seat in Scotland. Which was an opportunity only afforded by the undemocratic nature of FPTP, I fully admit - but I did feel there was a certain amount of poetic justice involved…

Never underestimate a sore loser.

mikeyrob73

Bridgehouse said:

Fretwired said:

Bridgehouse said:

Fretwired said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Me getting banned is almost a certainty.

DREXIT .. will we get a forum referendum?

Not sure I could cope with all the DROANERS afterwards..

Are you a Drexiteer?

Nope. I'm going to spoil my paper. I might even freeze one of my own shits in a bag and shove it up my arse. 

Then I can spend at least 6 months ranting about the result, no matter what it is, claiming everything is undemocratic, that we are clearly misguided by a Russian-mobster media, and make a massive big slab-of-rock manifesto with declarations of a flat earth, that planes can take off from conveyor belts, that valve amps are like holy relics and that bass guitar isn't an instrument - it's actually less complex than the washboard or triangle. 

Once it's all settled down a bit I'll go back to making exact replicas of Harley Benton guitars - I have the factory set up already and I'm working on the "Charley Chenton" logo right now.

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

Babones

Teetonetal said:

7 weeks to get it together, and persuade people he has got it together is just not enough time.

It is, if you put it in a montage sequence, to an upbeat 80s soundtrack.

Not forgetting to fade out, to connote the passing of more time.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Do it. Tim Nice But Dim isn't actually any worse than Corbyn or May.

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 ..

quarky

DarnWeight said:

I'm sorry, but that smacks of "But-Miss-it-was-a-bunch-of-big-kids-that-ganged-up-on-me".  May has made this an election about Brexit, so she'd better be prepared for people who don't share her viewpoint to find common ground and argue for the things they agree on.  There is absolutely nothing authoritarian about that, in my book.

If anything, it's agreements such as this that will help shore up the massive hole in our democratic process that is first-past-the-post.  A lot of our votes count for absolutely nothing under the current electoral system, and as the last Coalition showed, if you expect backroom deals done by parties after an election to deliver a representative democracy, then there's a very good chance you'll get burned again.  At least this way, you'll have a fair idea of exactly what your vote is buying you before you cast it.  I'm not saying it's ideal, but to call it anti-democratic is wrong.

Democracy is about giving voters the choice to vote for their choice of representatives, not playing games by restricting those freedoms, to artificially skew the national results.

Restricting that choice is what happens in other socialist systems like in China, North Korea, and used to happen in the former USSR and Eastern Block. It is not as bad as those countries I just mentioned, but still anti-democractic. It is still parties denying voters their choice.

ICBM

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.

siremoon

ICBM said:

digitalscream said:

Actually, if everyone who voted Remain voted together for any party, they'd almost certainly win even if they were the only ones voting for that party (based on the turnout from the 2015 election). The only way to beat them would be for everyone who voted Leave to do exactly the same, and then it'd be down to constituency boundaries...

Exactly, but there are three Leave parties (if you count UKIP), and only one Remain (if you discount the Greens), so the result will be a split Leave vote and the one Remain party could easily take almost every seat.

After the independence vote in Scotland there was an active campaign to get anyone who voted Yes to vote SNP, whether or not they would normally support them. The three other main parties split the No vote, so the SNP almost won every seat in Scotland. Which was an opportunity only afforded by the undemocratic nature of FPTP, I fully admit - but I did feel there was a certain amount of poetic justice involved…

Never underestimate a sore loser.

Isn't it at least possible that the SNP might lose a couple of seats to the Tories given that there seems to be some discontent with their performance as the governing party in Scotland?

Sporky

quarky said:

Democracy is about giving voters the choice to vote for their choice of representatives

That's a rather narrow view.

And by your standards this isn't a democracy anyway; there isn't a party that's very well aligned with my principles, so there's no-one who would actually represent me. I'm not a right wing authoritarian which rules out the main three straight off, and I'm not a reactionary bigot which rules out pretty much all of the others...

MrBump

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.

ICBM

siremoon said:

Isn't it at least possible that the SNP might lose a couple of seats to the Tories given that there seems to be some discontent with their performance as the governing party in Scotland?

Yes, certainly. The SNP can't really do anything other than lose seats this time, in fact.

I was thinking more of the fact that a 45% Yes vote translated into a 50% SNP vote (due to a smaller turnout) in the general election and winning 56 out of 59 Westminster seats. If the same happens this time and all 48% who voted Remain vote Lib Dem, we could see the same sort of result across the UK.

The Lib Dems should actively campaign on this basis.

In fact the danger for the SNP is that the Lib Dems could actually do quite well here - because the Lib Dems are now the best choice if you voted No and Remain, which is the majority of Scots.

quarky

Sporky said:

quarky said:

Democracy is about giving voters the choice to vote for their choice of representatives

That's a rather narrow view.

And by your standards this isn't a democracy anyway; there isn't a party that's very well aligned with my principles, so there's no-one who would actually represent me. I'm not a right wing authoritarian which rules out the main three straight off, and I'm not a reactionary bigot which rules out pretty much all of the others...

Just because someone doesn't represent your views 100%, doesn't mean it isn't democracy. You still have a choice from several main parties. Although two or maybe three of those would like to restrict you choice, but for your own benefit of course

scrumhalf

With the non-election period gloves off Corbyn and Abbott are going to get flayed alive on telly. There are plenty of non-Corbynites who will willingly stick the knife into him to ensure he is an electoral liability and will have to go, thus allowing them to reposition labour post-election away from the unelectable.

As for Abbott, it's like a moth attracted to a light bulb. She can't keep away from a live camera or microphone even though any contact over five seconds with either shortens her political life.

And as for Minor Fart, well, as the Americans say, he couldn't get elected dog-catcher.

DarnWeight

quarky said:

Democracy is about giving voters the choice to vote for their choice of representatives, not playing games by restricting those freedoms, to artificially skew the national results.

Restricting that choice is what happens in other socialist systems like in China, North Korea, and used to happen in the former USSR and Eastern Block. It is not as bad as those countries I just mentioned, but still anti-democractic. It is still parties denying voters their choice.

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"  

ICBM

scrumhalf said:

With the non-election period gloves off Corbyn and Abbott are going to get flayed alive on telly. There are plenty of non-Corbynites who will willingly stick the knife into him to ensure he is an electoral liability and will have to go, thus allowing them to reposition labour post-election away from the unelectable.

Sadly I think the Labour party are happy to commit electoral suicide by voting for the early election in the hope that it rids them of what they perceive as the cancer at the top.

Sporky

quarky said:

Just because someone doesn't represent your views 100%, doesn't mean it isn't democracy. You still have a choice from several main parties.

That's not really a choice though - they're all practically the same thing. By your own argument it's not democracy.

Gassage

This is the funniest thing I have seen all day:

https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/?fref=nf

hywelg

This isn't about Labour being weak and beatable. It's about what things would look like in 2020 if we haven't reached a formal agreement with the EU. 

That election would be much more difficult for the tories as we would be in the middle of trade deal negotiations.  This way we are out, and none of the shit has hit the headlines yet, and it gives May a better hand at the negotiations.  2022 will be a.much better place for the tories. V.clever IMO. 

quarky

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.