General Election 2017

[Alan M]

I think Labour are desperately trying to flood us with policy statements to try to remind people that "an Election is not just for Brexit". I have no doubt these will all find their way into the manifesto, since they have been reduced to feverishly creating policies to fill the void that was clearly there (because they thought they had 3 more years to come up with polices), and they might even make some form of coherent whole when they do, but few people read manifestos, they just rely on the media (and the politicians) to digest them into sound bites. Speaking of which, they could do with a consistent slogan - it seems to change every day - though nobody would thank them if they tried to ram it down our throats as much as the vacuous "strong and secure" one.

BoJo is a liability in an election where May is trying to win votes in t'north, and only really of use in the south east. Abbott is a liability outside her own constituency and always sounds as if she is talking down to people. McDonnell has to overcome a chequered past where the media will focus on all the black squares and none of the white ones.

 

[Andy]

I'd go further and say Labour need to bin off McDonnell. I and many others would never vote for a party with that man in the cabinet. A truely repulsive man. He doesn't more damage to Labour then Corbyn does.

 

[Ben]

No defence of Dianne Abbott from me either. A pretty embarrassing lack of basic maths from a potential future Home Secretary however unlikely that may seem. It's also a spectacular own goal that hands the Tories even more ammunition (if they needed any more) when it comes to Labour's perceived weakness on the economy and spending. Painful to watch.

That said, if this was a Tory minister or MP who did the same, would there so much coverage of it in the national press? I somehow doubt it.

 

[Andy]

Give over with the "Labour get unfair treatment".

There's plenty of things that were attrocious that happened at last years party conference that went ignored by the Press.

Last year in the EU ref, Sky hosted a Q&A with Corbyn and Gove. Give was asked tricky questions about the economy, whilst Corbyn got an easy ride with questions like "what's your favourite colour?"

 

[Ben]

Well you've got the story about May caught awkwardly eating chips during a campaign stop in Cornwall yesterday. Yes, it got reported but then it's hardly been splashed over the front page of The Sun like the time when Miliband was caught having trouble eating a bacon sandwich.

Plus the majority of the national press are Conservative supporting and even the Labour-backing press have been critical of Corbyn. So hardly a surprise then if Labour do get more negative coverage than the Tories.

 

[Alan M]

It is uncontestable that the majority of the national print media in this country is unashamedly either pro-Con or anti-Lab, and always has been ever since the days of the press barons. Their influence may have declined slightly, but their leanings remain clear. There is (and has been) a succession of examples of stories, headlines, photos etc to demonstrate this. That said, I am surprised Diane Abbott didn't make the front pages apart from a brief reference in the i. Labour got away with that one.
Quoting Sky during the EU referendum as an example is hardly valid evidence of anything at all, given that the referendum was not a Con-Lab contest.

 

[Andy]

It's nit picking in regards to it.

Brexit overcame a massive bias in the media.

Trump overcame the biggest bias ever recorded.

It's not an excuse Labour can use. Approval ratings and Trust ratings for main stream media are low, so it really has very little affect, as seen in Brexit and the us election.

 

[Alan M]

If it has very little effect, then can someone please tell May and her entourage to stop banging on about strong and stable every time they spot a reporter.

I'd like to hear some policies. They can't even bring themselves to mention the Labour policies by name, preferring instead just to claim "the policies" are unfunded. Firstly, they haven't had a sneak preview of the manifesto, so I'll delay on passing judgement on that. Secondly, they won't name the actual policies because they don't want to have to actually give their own opinion on them, because they know that the policies (if not the leadership or the funding rationale behind them) strike more of a chord with many voters than their own views on those issues. We don't know the Tories' policies on pensions, healthcare, education, housing, etc, other than what they've dished up in the past 2 years.

 

[Andy]

We don't know the Tories' policies on pensions, healthcare, education, housing, etc, other than what they've dished up in the past 2 years.

Because sensibly, they're waiting for their Manifesto to be completed before announcing polices. Labour keep throwing promises all over the shop, dangerous game before the Manifesto is ready.

 

[Toddy]

At this present time we have not one politician fit to lead our country,they are either idiot's or light weights.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Because sensibly, they're waiting for their Manifesto to be completed before announcing polices. Labour keep throwing promises all over the shop, dangerous game before the Manifesto is ready.

So rewind 12 months and remind me of the plan that Posh Dave, Gideon and his cronies put in place just in case the Brexit vote ended with an 'out' vote?

Sod all is the answer.

And 12 months on, Liar, Liar Pants on fire and all round coward May (11 times she was on record saying that she would not call an early election and she is such a coward that she won't go toe-to-toe with the other party leader live on TV) and her cronies still don't have a cogent plan in place (other than vote for us because we are going to give those Johnny Foreigners a bloody nose if they don't do what they tell them).

Frankly, it is a complete bloody mess that will take years to sort out and will adversely affect us for a decade or more.

And we only have one party to blame for putting us into this situation - The Tories.

Posh Dave promising a referendum was the only way he could placate the ultra right wing of his party from giving him some real grief in the HoP whilst trying to fend off the supposed attack from UKIP (which never materialized) that they thought might have impacted on the 2015 election outcome.

But here is where I agree with Toddy.

As much as it pains me, as a life-long Labour member, I just don't see the party I have supported for all of my adult life (and several years before) being able to have a chance of being routed in this election, never mind winning it.

So I am resigned to having to suffer at least another 5 years of Tory mis-rule during which the least well off and vulnerable will be expected to pay for the actions and deeds of those who are more powerful, richer and wield greater influence because of their breeding, background, money and therefore influence.

I'm old enough to know that 'The Nasty Party' (which remember is what the Sainted Theresa once called her own party) doesn't change its spots.

They were against Gay Rights. Opposed to the Anti-Apartheid movement. Supported Pinochet. Said that the minimum wage would cost millions of jobs. Destroyed much of our major industries and the communities that depended on these. Have always worked against equal rights legislation. Opposed the much needed investment in railways, hospitals, schools and other much needed infrastructure that was delivered in the early part of this century.

In the end it is your choice folks.

But my vote will not be going for those who favour the betterment of the well off few who already have a disproportionate advantage over the majority for whom making ends meet on a week to week, month to month basis remains a real struggle.

And those who seek to build a more equitable, peaceful and sustainable world.

And despite the lack of faith have in the current leadership of my party, in England it does offer the only creditable alternative to the Tories.

 

[Alan M]

What he said ... (plus 'sold off the social housing stock and other infrastructure, so that now instead of it being run by our own state [because state-run utilities and transport are inefficient apparently] it is run by state-owned companies from other countries [because they are efficient apparently??])'

 

[Nicki]

Brexit overcame a massive bias in the media.

If you're including print media, you've got that the wrong way round. There was a massive pro-Brexit bias. That's not my opinion, that's from the Newspapers' stated stance, their circulation figures and analysis of Brexit articles leading up to June 23rd.

Trump overcame the biggest bias ever recorded.

Clinton polled more votes.


Except when there are facts to prove otherwise (first point above), media bias is completely 'in the eye of the beholder'. Many on the left consider the BBC to have a right bias, many on the right see it as having a left bias. It's all about selective hearing.

 

[Nicki]

At this present time we have not one politician fit to lead our country,they are either idiot's or light weights.

...or both!

When has it ever been any different Toddy?

One exception might be John Smith - the greatest Prime Minister we never had (in my lifetime). In the interests of balance, Ken Clarke might also have made a better fist of things than those who pipped him in leadership battles.

 

[Andy]

So rewind 12 months and remind me of the plan that Posh Dave, Gideon and his cronies put in place just in case the Brexit vote ended with an 'out' vote?

Sod all is the answer.

And 12 months on, Liar, Liar Pants on fire and all round coward May (11 times she was on record saying that she would not call an early election and she is such a coward that she won't go toe-to-toe with the other party leader live on TV) and her cronies still don't have a cogent plan in place (other than vote for us because we are going to give those Johnny Foreigners a bloody nose if they don't do what they tell them).

Frankly, it is a complete bloody mess that will take years to sort out and will adversely affect us for a decade or more.

And we only have one party to blame for putting us into this situation - The Tories.

Posh Dave promising a referendum was the only way he could placate the ultra right wing of his party from giving him some real grief in the HoP whilst trying to fend off the supposed attack from UKIP (which never materialized) that they thought might have impacted on the 2015 election outcome.

But here is where I agree with Toddy.

As much as it pains me, as a life-long Labour member, I just don't see the party I have supported for all of my adult life (and several years before) being able to have a chance of being routed in this election, never mind winning it.

So I am resigned to having to suffer at least another 5 years of Tory mis-rule during which the least well off and vulnerable will be expected to pay for the actions and deeds of those who are more powerful, richer and wield greater influence because of their breeding, background, money and therefore influence.

I'm old enough to know that 'The Nasty Party' (which remember is what the Sainted Theresa once called her own party) doesn't change its spots.

They were against Gay Rights. Opposed to the Anti-Apartheid movement. Supported Pinochet. Said that the minimum wage would cost millions of jobs. Destroyed much of our major industries and the communities that depended on these. Have always worked against equal rights legislation. Opposed the much needed investment in railways, hospitals, schools and other much needed infrastructure that was delivered in the early part of this century.

In the end it is your choice folks.

But my vote will not be going for those who favour the betterment of the well off few who already have a disproportionate advantage over the majority for whom making ends meet on a week to week, month to month basis remains a real struggle.

And those who seek to build a more equitable, peaceful and sustainable world.

And despite the lack of faith have in the current leadership of my party, in England it does offer the only creditable alternative to the Tories.

"She said she wouldn't call an election. That statement is where common sense clearly eludes people.

A general election in the weeks after the referendum is the last thing the country needed.

And in the 11 months since then, a lot has changed.

- The Lib Dems are promising to do everything their 9 MPs can to stop Brexit.

- Thanks to Gina Miller and her rich Woman's hobby to Single handedly stop Brexit, the Government needs a bigger majority in the Commons.

- Labour front benchers have used terms like "she has no mandate" and then complain when an election is called to get a mandate

- She's running under Cameron's Maifesto, considering you clearly hate him so much, surely you'd be happy at the chance to get rid of his manifesto?

Essentially, the government needs a larger majority to ensure that a handful of people in the House of Commons can't derail something that 17 million people voted for.

A bigger majority strengthens the governments hand in the Brexit negotiations. That's an undeniable fact.


And the old Nasty Party cliche. Funny to see that used, especially when you consider the Nastiest person in politics is the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnel. He's nothing more than an IRA Terrorist loving, woman hating, Mao worshiping fill in the blank!. Now that's a real NASTY bunch of traits.

 

[Nicki]

A bigger majority strengthens the governments hand in the Brexit negotiations. That's an undeniable fact.

Writing something on here doesn't make it fact.

What is fact is that the European Parliament Brexit coordinator (and key negotiator) has already said that the size of the government majority doesn't make a jot of difference.

What he has said is, of course, his opinion but I'm going to choose his version of opinions on this one.

All that's important to EU is that a majority of those who voted, voted for leave, the rest is party politics.

 

[Andy]

Writing something on here doesn't make it fact.

What is fact is that the European Parliament Brexit coordinator (and key negotiator) has already said that the size of the government majority doesn't make a jot of difference.

What he has said is, of course, his opinion but I'm going to choose his version of opinions on this one.

All that's important to EU is that a majority of those who voted, voted for leave, the rest is party politics.

Well it does, because with a small majority the EU know it'll be difficult to pass the proposed deal through parliament. With a larger majority, it makes it easier for the Government to walk away if the only deal on offer is no good, and the EU also know that. And no deal is bad for the EU.

There's a huge possibility, that come Monday morning, the EU will also have Frexit on their hands.

 

[Nicki]

Like I say, I'll go with one of the negotiators' opinion on this one.

(Though none of us will ever know either way.)

Brexit, Frexit. Who thinks these things up?

A French exit should be a Frortie.

 

[Andy]

Like I say, I'll go with one of the negotiators' opinion on this one.

(Though none of us will ever know either way.)

Brexit, Frexit. Who thinks these things up?

A French exit should be a Frortie.

But it would make sense for the EU negotiators to say that. They'd love for the UK to turn against May, as leave he with a small majority, or even a defeat.

I personally can't wait for Portugal to leave, which shall be know as "Departugal"

 

[Nicki]

Very good!