04-18-2017, 08:01 AM
Interesting. Can we have one of those so we can elect a different president?
Seriously though, are you in favor of a snap election or no?
Seriously though, are you in favor of a snap election or no?
The Thread of Political Discourse
04-18-2017, 08:01 AM
Interesting. Can we have one of those so we can elect a different president?
Seriously though, are you in favor of a snap election or no?
04-18-2017, 08:08 AM
Not really. She's called it because Labour is not a strong opposition party at the moment and is meekly going along with her hard line Brexit ideas. On top of that, the Liberal Democrats have struggled to be a real opposition voice for some time now so she's getting in there quick before the public really starts turning against her or those two main opposition parties really get their act together.
Also interesting to note that the Lib Dems gained 1000 new members in the first hour after the election was called. I think anyone who was against Brexit in the first place should be looking to them now. At the very least they can perhaps force a hung parliament and show TM that she's not got as much of the country behind her as she seems to think.
04-18-2017, 01:04 PM
Definitely one for the tactical vote I think. Which ever party has been the leading opposition against the tories where you're voting.
I live in a Tory safe seat, but Lib Dems have always come second, so they're where I'm laying my cards.
"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
- Dylan Thomas
- Artwork -
04-18-2017, 05:20 PM
I thought the country needed stability and a period of time in order to deal with the issues facing it? That is what prime Minister May said, right?
May was always adamant that there will not be a snap election because it would bring uncertainty.
So, what changed?
I don't like Theresa May (mind you, of all the party leaders we have, I do think May is the most competent to run the country), but I do not want an election right now. Our focus should be on Brexit and the negotiations. We have a window of two years, and in that time, I want to know exactly what is happening with Brexit. I need my government to show me that they are working hard for a fair and decent deal. I do not need national focus to be aimed at an election while who knows what goes on behind closed doors in regards to Brexit.
If Prime Minister May can change her stance in elections, what else can change? I'm not saying that people's opinions and beliefs must always stay the same, but what purpose is this election meant to serve?
It seems to me that either May is very confident of winning the election (and thus, showing that she is indeed an elected leader with a mandate), or May does not want to be leader that takes us through Brexit (and then had to deal with the potential fallout should the consequences not be positive).
"Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars." ~ Serbian Proverb
"You can't cross the sea by merely standing and staring at the water." ~ Rabindranath Tagore
Avatar by Heatherlly
04-19-2017, 09:25 AM
The concept of a "snap election" is old hat here in Canada (and Quebec). While the elected term for the Prime Minister of Canada or a provincial Premier is 5 years, an election can be called at any time. At one point, we were having federal elections every two years - for the exact same reason that Ms. May has called the election in Britain.
When the governing party's position is strong, and they know dissent is on the horizon, it makes sense to call the election and hopefully consolidate their hold on power. Unfortunately, the costs involved are dismissed and the frustration of the voters is ignored and, once again, we are faced with what seems like a never-ending campaign filled with rhetoric until election day.
At least we here in Canada don't have to face the lengthy campaign that our neighbours to the south experience. We are usually looking at 5-6 weeks of campaign, not close to 1 1/2 years!
So, good luck to all of you heading to the polls in Britain.
04-19-2017, 05:15 PM
I have a grudging respect for Theresa May's political savvy. This decision is an excellent tactic for the Conservative Party, will consolidate her mandate as a leader and negotiator for Brexit, and will be potentially disastrous to the Opposition.
My guess is that the electorate will punish Labour. And to be honest, I don't feel much sympathy for the Opposition at the moment, who have a leader that will not resign despite growing evidence that his presence in the party is largely destructive and the cause of infighting. I personally would not place much hope in the hands of the Liberal Democrats, who have yet to be forgiven for their time in government between 2010 and 2015-- unless of course people are feeling remorseful after the EU referendum in which case they may gain traction. Certainly the SNP (Scottish National Party) should not be too comfortable either, given their impractical and ideological obsession with another independence referendum before even knowing what their relationship with England will be like after the Brexit negotiations have ended. Since the Scottish Conservatives have made history in becoming the second largest party in that country, I think the First Minister will have to fight harder to retain her majority than she did in 2015.
A significant reason that we have reached this situation is the lack of a strong Opposition Party. Labour are disintegrating from the inside, and such lack of organization will translate into an election campaign as confusing as their Remain Campaign. Regardless of how British people vote, we must have a strong Opposition to hold the sitting government to account. We do not have this. Furthermore, voters across England and Wales have lost confidence in the Labour Party, particularly many working-class voters. This explains the current, albeit limited, popularity of UKIP (the UK Independence Party). UKIP are bound to make some headway, although the disorganized leadership won't make them headlines. What we are seeing is a rejection of the political establishment and I think that trajectory will continue. Like I said, May is savvy, and despite having been a Remainer, she knows that she must ride the current wave of EU scepticism in order to retain her power and retain voter confidence. Hence her words about a "bold plan for Britain" and "strong leadership". In a way, some of what she says is right. Like Semperfortis, I believe that May is the only leader competent enough at the moment to lead the country. Corbyn is too ideological and would make a poor negotiator. Farron is a joke. The Greens are too small. She will most likely retain power, so I think the focus will rather be upon the size of her majority and the traction gained by opposing parties.
I wish we were still in the EU, but we're leaving and once again, I don't accept the classification of a "hard/soft Brexit". Leaving is leaving, as far as I am concerned. The Europeans have made it clear that access to the single market means accepting freedom of movement. A significant number of voters oppose this, and will expect May to negotiate against accepting such terms. The Conservative backbenchers, who have always been solid Eurosceptics, will advocate for total removal from the single-market altogether, and greater liaisons with countries like India, Brazil, America and China. These are not countries (with the exception of America) that I particularly trust with regards to having the same production standards as European countries, but Britain has a far stronger negotiating hand as many EU countries will not stop exporting their goods to us or stop trading with us just because we are not in the single market. So there is room for optimism here.
We shall see, anyway.
04-20-2017, 11:52 AM
I'm going to try and be as neutral as possible without letting my political bias show when I talk on this one.
On an analytical point of view, I agree with MMLeFay, this is a savvy move but for many reasons.
The outward pretense is to get a mandate for Brexit negotiations, to claim that other parties are obstructing the people's will over Brexit (which I already said was absurd as no one actually voted on what Brexit was, there was no plan for Brexit and no one knew what it really meant when they were voting for it) so on one hand you could see reason to the argument that this is the chance for everyone to present their case for Brexit and their Brexit plans and have the country vote on that, and then the election ensures that whatever party wins, they will be in charge of the negotiations for the duration of the period.
Yet while this is the given reason the public will always feel this was her looking at the polls and saying this was the right time to have an election that would increase her majority and allow her to push through what she wants to get done, and thus breaking her earlier promise about not calling a snap election.
Now the other effect of this is that recently they had tried to do some policy changes, and push through a few changes within the budget, however it ran up against the old Manifesto which was laid out by David Cameron. A new election allows Theresa May to create her own manifesto and paint her own vision and not the vision of David Cameron, and with the polls looking at them increasing their majority, she could claim a mandate to push through that manifesto and keep her back-benchers in line.
But, I think what everyone is missing is that this is all dependent on current polls, the same polls that had the UK remaining in the EU on the referendum, and Hillary Clinton winning by a comfortable margin. Polls can be wrong, especially in the last few couple of years.
Neither Theresa May nor the Conservative Government are particularly popular at the moment, and while normally that would be the end of it for them, they are winning by default.
The Labour Party generally tends to have a lot of popular policies, and while that would ordinarily mean something they are at the moment still facing deep distrust over taking the country into the Iraq war illegally, and are seen as being financially reckless and are still taking the blame for the financial crisis. Now Jeremy Corbin to his credit is not tied to those as he voted against the war and has been a party outsider. Now you would think that would put them in a strong position, but as has been said, he's seen as being a weak and ineffective leader, obviously Labour at this point had a choice, they could rally around him in a show of unity and try to strengthen his image or they could have selected a new leader. They opted to try and replace him, but the party members voted against that (because they had not long elected him to be leader in the first place) and rather than accepting this, the Parliamentary party has carried on it's infighting and has fallen into chaos. I have zero sympathy for the Labour Party in this situation, they created this mess. So they do have two options, either they could unite behind Jeremy Corbin who the party members elected to leader twice, or Jeremy could resign.
However, what the Labour Party seem to have missed is that even if Jeremy Corbin resigns they don't have anyone waiting in the wings to replace him, they don't have a strong leadership candidate and someone charismatic enough to win an election. The party is damaged goods, and even more so with the infighting, so no matter who leads, they are doomed to failure. This also means if they were to suddenly unite behind Jeremy Corbin, that wouldn't help them either, the Parliamentary Party has damaged their party, and they have damaged him, he was weak anyway, but they tore down their own leader and have made it so that there is a 20 point gap between Labour and the Conservatives. If anything this does mean that Labour are no longer going to be judged on their economic policies, but it does mean that they are being judged only on the infighting and inability to lead and govern, so progress?
The Lib Dems however have an image problem, no one knows Tim Farron, he doesn't get given much attention and I doubt the country as a whole even knows he is the leader of the Lib Dems. But they do have the most to gain from this election, partially because they found themselves in such a bad position last time, but because Labour have knocked themselves out of the running, a lot of people won't want to vote Conservative, the Lib Dems have consistently said that they are on a pro EU side and so are likely to favour a soft Brexit and trying to remain in the single market and have from the outset of the post brexit referendum political landscape been trying to actively court the 'remainers' vote , the Lib Dems are now painting themselves as the protest vote against the government, against Brexit and also the only alternative to the Conservatives. As such I really wouldn't be surprised if they do make significant gains.
The SNP have the Theresa May problem, staunch nationalists are loving that Nicola Sturgeon is calling for a Second referendum on Scottish Independence, however the first was sold as a 'once in a generation' affair, she also said that they can't just keep holding referendums until they get the result they want. So many people have noticed that she's now changed her tune the moment she's not getting what she wants and that she is being quick to jump the gun in calling for this referendum before knowing what the Brexit deal entails, it has also been noted that the EU said that Scotland wouldn't be able to just take the UK's place within the EU if Scotland left the Union and wanted to stay in the EU, Scotland would have to apply to join the EU, meaning that Scotland would be both separate from the EU and the UK and a part of neither (Which then asks the question, why are the SNP so concerned about leaving the EU, when the first referendum would have had the same effect and they weren't so bothered about it back then?)
They are also no longer in the position where they can keep blaming all their problems on England and the Conservatives, because since Devolution they have had more and more independence and self governing powers, this means Scotland's problems are caused by Scotland's political parties, and as the SNP are in the majority, they only have themselves to blame for those issues. They have been in the Majority since 2007, they have had 10 years and it is a general trend that sitting governments get replaced if they have spent too long in power, Scotland may not vote in a change, but I also agree that they stand to take a loss.
I disagree about UKIP, I think they are over, they were a one issue party, while they were also a protest vote party the one issue has been achieved, they lost their leader, their current leader is something of a joke and they have just as many stories of infighting as Labour do, I predict that many of the voters that stopped voting conservative and instead voted UKIP for a Brexit will return to the Conservatives now they have Brexit and the Conservatives are giving them what they want. I think the racist vote however will probably return to the BNP (I may have to take a shower now for just mentioning them)
So, I think the way this will play out is that with Brexit the Conservatives will have locked up the traditional Conservative vote as well as the Right Wing vote, With Labour having imploded I think they also stand to tie up much of the centre vote that actually turns out to vote.
I think that Labour will only be able to secure its traditional base, if they are lucky they may be able to energize the left wing and get them to vote.
I would suggest that it would be the Lib Dems that secure the remaining Centre vote and not Labour (again to Labour having imploded) mopping up what would be the Labour vote or moderates that might normally lean Conservative but are pro EU, they could also make gains on the left wing vote, but this would be more of a three way fight with Labour and the Greens
I think The Green Party might see gains out on the Left fringes, as they will end up dividing up what was that Labour Vote with the Lib Dems
After 2015 the SNP only have one direction to go, they can't increase their majority, the question is can they hang onto the seats they took in 2015? Have they spent too long in power? Have they actually achieved anything in the UK parliament? And let's not forget the unfortunate death of Charles Kennedy, after which there was an expression of regret for voting SNP (especially as he got online abuse by SNP supporters and an SNP official)
I've just looked at the polls (this very moment), and polls don't translate to election results as I earlier said, especially in the UK system, on the polls the results between now and 2015, UKIP are doing worse than they did, Lib Dems are about the same (but showing some signs of recovering), Greens are about the same, Labour have collapsed and the conservatives have a marginal increase. This is based solely on polls AND these are the same polls that show that at the time of the 2015 election the Labour/ Conservative vote was even (Conservatives got 36% in the election, Labour 30%, looking at these polls, and if you remember back at the time, they didn't expect the Conservatives to win or get such a margin)
TLDR: Conservatives will win, Labour will be crushed, Lib Dems will capitalise on Labour's decline along with the Green Party, UKIP will start to fade into obscurity. SNP might stand to lose seats but probably maintain their majority.
04-21-2017, 09:11 AM
I noticed I didn't say much about the Conservatives in that post,
But there's not much that can be said about the Conservatives, as a party their biggest move has been capitalising on Labour's failure, this was how Thatcher came to power and maintained power, and it's how David Cameron regained power in the Coalition Government. They get in power and stay in power by being opportunistic and ruthless.
It's interesting to note that Thatcher is a really divisive politician now, yet at the time she easily crushed Labour in every election from 1983 onwards, it was only the 1979 election when she took power that was close, she had over a 40% approval rating for most of the 80's which even climbed to 50% at times and peaked at 60% with the Falklands War and dropped to 20% with the Poll Tax, so as she put it, she won elections no matter what the people thought of her. Again Labour was seen as unelectable during this period, but it was more than that, Thatcherism seemed to work as Britain was on the rise, yes inequality was increasing, the gap between those at the top and the bottom widened, those at the bottom were worse off and felt left behind. But the middle-class dreamed of the entrepreneurs, of becoming the next Alan Sugar or Richard Branson. She also gave people Right To Buy which meant that they could eventually buy their council home that they had been paying rent on, increasing home ownership which had been a dream for many. This is why she won, she gave them just enough to keep them voting for her.
This is why New Labour adopted many aspects of Thatcherism, they saw that it was a winner amongst the electorate, and they went after the Centre, they left many of their traditional views and policies behind, but still promised to lift those left behind by the inequality. Add to that the cult of personality that was Tony Blair, and they had a winning formula, they pushed the Conservatives out to the Right and took the Centre for themselves. This is why under New Labour they continued with the PFI's increasing the amount of them and using it as the solution for everything, having businesses build hospitals and then renting those buildings out to the NHS in what would turn out to be bad contracts which would see the NHS spending far more than if they had just paid to build the hospitals themselves. The inequality continued to grow as well, and it does seem like many people are now looking back at these years and saying "what was the difference between them and the Conservatives?" which only increases voter apathy.
But the Modern Conservatives desperate for power have been opportunistic in their every approach, they saw the rise of UKIP so tried to change policies to get those voters back, as well as promising a EU referendum not just to attract the UKIP voters but disgruntled Labour voters that were promised a vote on the EU by Blair, but then never got one.
And now we get to Theresa May who's trying to rebrand the Conservatives as a more compassionate and fairer Conservative Party, she's outwardly spoken about adopting policies that were Labour held positions, doing the reverse of New Labour in trying to grab the Centre for herself and squeeze Labour out to the left fringes, and if she pulls it off it would be quite the coup, David Cameron failed to achieve it, which is why he resorted to promising the Referendum, but if Theresa May can do this move she will do what Thatcher did and push Labour out far into the Left Wing, make them irrelevant, give the people just enough to keep them satisfied and secure a Conservative Government for years to come. It's an effective tactic, just ask Tony Blair who also did this.
I believe the snap election is her way to ensure she can get these changes made to push the Conservatives towards the Centre, because if she gets a majority and a mandate to do what she wants, that is what she will do, and it will shape the political landscape for the next few elections.
04-21-2017, 04:27 PM
Breaking News: a top team of psychiatrists from Yale University have declared Donald Trump to be "paranoid and delusional". We would never have guessed!
They have also discovered that depression is a mental illness and illegal drugs are bad for you.
This article gave me a good laugh. Whether Trump does indeed have a medical mental illness or not, his behaviour is repugnant and this is reflected in both his "professional" (I use the term loosely) and his private life. The relationship he has with his wife is incredibly awkward at best, disturbing at worst.
Yale Psychiatrists Say Trump Has "Dangerous Mental Illness"
|Possibly Related Threads...|
|Thread of Venting||AJsRandom||155||15,246||
04-23-2017, 08:57 AM
Last Post: crshore
|The Random Chatter Thread||semperfortis||214||20,568||
04-18-2017, 10:05 PM
Last Post: Eloeehez
|The Stalker Thread||nooneushudknow||12||2,246||
09-07-2016, 10:52 PM
Last Post: Legendary
|Users browsing this thread:|