the snap general election thread

kabayiri

Moby wrote: »

So tell me about Theresa May's morality! What is she offering? What does she believe in?......... and don't give me nonsense like 'brexit means brexit' or her latest meaningless utterance 'strong stable Govmt'! If Labour had a decent leader....David Miliband, Chukka, Cooper, Starmer etc...they'd wipe the floor with her. Cooper used to shadow May at the Home Office and regularly spanked her, metaphorically speaking.

The Conservatives promised a referendum and are now trying to see through the result of that referendum.

Whether you agree with the result or not, it's hard to argue that they are not putting the trust in the people.

For me that's a moral position to take.

Herzlos

So you don't mind about the rest of her questionable morals as long as she sees through the results of a 52/48 non-binding referendum?

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

So tell me about Theresa May's morality! What is she offering? What does she believe in?......... and don't give me nonsense like 'brexit means brexit' or her latest meaningless utterance 'strong stable Govmt'! If Labour had a decent leader....David Miliband, Chukka, Cooper, Starmer etc...they'd wipe the floor with her. Cooper used to shadow May at the Home Office and regularly spanked her, metaphorically speaking.

Is this the miliband who ran off and hid in America when he didn't win?
Or the chukka who ran off and hid when the pressure got a bit too much?
Or the cooper who is currently in hiding while her party is in meltdown?

Such brave, principled, labour leaders-in-waiting.

At least starmer is prepared to be a proper senior politician. Shame he can't seem to put a coherent policy together.

westernpromise

The leadership of the Labour party is currently racist, anti-Semitic and terrorist-supporting, yes.

If you cannot distinguish between these views and those of the government, then you're morally incompetent. Alternatively you can, but you agree with them all. Or you can see the difference, you disagree with these hateful views but you are happy to confer democratic legitimacy on such people. Whichever applies, in each case it comes back to moral incompetence again.

StevieJ

WengerIn wrote: »

Nationalised industries used something called marginal cost pricing which should have baked in losses every day.

That's before we look at the terrible products they put out. Maybe you're old enough to remember it taking the GPO 18 months to put in a phone line or the horror that was travelling by BR.:eek:

Don't remember that, I do remember the lovely breakfast and evening meals (with wine) that were served when traveling to London on Business. I also remember traveling on that same route with Virgin with no heating in the middle of winter ( that was first class).

IveSeenTheLight

mrginge wrote: »

Is this the miliband who ran off and hid in America when he didn't win?
Or the chukka who ran off and hid when the pressure got a bit too much?
Or the cooper who is currently in hiding while her party is in meltdown?

Such brave, principled, labour leaders-in-waiting.

At least starmer is prepared to be a proper senior politician. Shame he can't seem to put a coherent policy together.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion her politic is back her or get our of her way.

I'm also thinking that this GE, (despite her repeated assurances there would not be one), is a manipulative ploy to politically increase the Conservative majority and provide a mandate to go forward.

Its also a clever and manipulated position to change the policies that the Conservative Government were elected on and squeeze in some "non-desired" policies such as tax rises hidden in behond the main mantra they will produce which is that the UK needs a strong leader to go into the Brexit negotiations.

If this all fails to deliver the mandate desired, it also gives her a get out option, to stand down saying she does not have the mandate.

Hats off to her, very clever, very manipulative, very opportunistic.
I still don't trust her as the PM though.

wotsthat

westernpromise wrote: »

It does if you vote for an anti-Semitic, racist or Marxist party. Nobody's forcing you to do so.

This is not a question of a legitimate party having a generally respectable manifesto and a few fringe loony candidates that it disowns. The anti-Semites, racists, and terrorist sympathisers are actually leading the party. They're not the anomaly.

Well it sounds as if you'd be perfectly happy with a massive government majority and a non-existent opposition.

I'd only point out you were really really unhappy with how things turned out last time this happened. Now granted I won't be voting Labour just because I want to see a strong opposition but neither will I be wishing a one party state on the UK.

westernpromise

We had a massive government majority and a non-existent opposition from 1997 to 2005. So what?
The opposition was ineffective so people didn't vote for it. They didn't vote for it regardless of its deficiencies just because it was the opposition. At best that would have meant it stayed just as rubbish and at worst it might have got elected. They withheld their support till it improved.

Are you following how this voting lark works?

Now, supposing you had Theresa May opposed by a party that wants every child in the country killed. You'd support that party, would you? You'd confer democratic legitimacy on it by voting for it? Because that's how your support will be read.

wotsthat

westernpromise wrote: »

We had a massive government majority and a non-existent opposition from 1997 to 2005. So what?
The opposition was ineffective so people didn't vote for it. They didn't vote for it regardless of its deficiencies just because it was the opposition. At best that would have meant it stayed just as rubbish and at worst it might have got elected. They withheld their support till it improved.

Are you following how this voting lark works?

Now, supposing you had Theresa May opposed by a party that wants every child in the country killed. You'd support that party, would you? You'd confer democratic legitimacy on it by voting for it? Because that's how your support will be read.

I'm suggesting that a government with a massive majority probably isn't in our best long term interests. I'm not suggesting we vote for a party that decides to kill babies (huh) just to ensure a smaller majority.

It's fairly simple. It's all well and good having a good laugh at the expense of Labour but it's only a short term giggle because I think poor outcomes due to massive majorities are correlated to the size of the majority rather than the colour of the PM's knickers.

WengerIn

RIP UKIP
3 Sept 1993 - 4 May 2017