Snap General Election?

[Jockman]

Blue Oval84 said:

Genuine question here because I'm not sure how this traditionally works, but couldn't they just have omitted to mention these things in the manifesto, or been deliberately vague, and then drop the bombshells once in power?

That's how it has worked for years. Reference a Labour landslide in 1997 and the decimation of pensions by Gordon Brown shortly thereafter.

And that was a govt inheriting a decent economic position.

[Lance Catamaran]

Dog Star said:

p1stonhead said:

Fox hunting
Pensions
Old people and dementia
School meals

All hugely emotive issues they chose to tackle when they didn't have to. Even if they wholly believe in their positions on these, why fking say it publicly and alienate a lot of their core?!

The fox hunting thing is something that totally mystifies me; it's to appease a tiny proportion of people who would vote Tory anyway. It's nonsensical, and just erodes support from the people they're supposed to be appealing to. Utter idiocy.

And dropping their pledge to ban ivory trading

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cons...

[Justayellowbadge]

Blue Oval84 said:

Genuine question here because I'm not sure how this traditionally works, but couldn't they just have omitted to mention these things in the manifesto, or been deliberately vague, and then drop the bombshells once in power?

Most of what they're doing (bar fox hunting which just seems illogical self-harm electorally) seems sensible, and they are nettles that need grasping. But the public are fickle and want free stuff, so why not just grasp the nettle later?

I find it depressing actually that a party with an "unassailable" lead in the polls can't actually tackle issues like pensions and care, and still needs to buy the votes of old people....

Isn't there a parliamentary protocol that opposition parties don't vote against policies in a manifesto as the populace has already voted on them?

[anonymous-user]

Likes Fast Cars said:

Greg66 said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Obama enacted the same types of bans TWICE during his presidency, and for more countries than Trump, and nothing was said or done.

It's much more fun arguing on the internet when you just make things up to suit you, isn't it?

Why don't you go fact check yourself and come back when you've done your homework.

Already done that's why I posted it.

You did a poor job then. Or perhaps "when caught in a lie the best strategy is to brazen it out".

Obama implemented one, not two, travel restrictions. In 2011 he directed that the processing of special immigrant visas for Iraqi applicants be slowed down while further screening procedures were put in place.

So: one, not two; a ban vs not a ban; not the "same type of ban" at all; for one country vs multiple countries.

[Likes Fast Cars]

Blue Oval84 said:

Genuine question here because I'm not sure how this traditionally works, but couldn't they just have omitted to mention these things in the manifesto, or been deliberately vague, and then drop the bombshells once in power?

Most of what they're doing (bar fox hunting which just seems illogical self-harm electorally) seems sensible, and they are nettles that need grasping. But the public are fickle and want free stuff, so why not just grasp the nettle later?

I find it depressing actually that a party with an "unassailable" lead in the polls can't actually tackle issues like pensions and care, and still needs to buy the votes of old people....

That would have been far too sensible. There are a lot of things that could have been left unsaid / not commented on.

I think they (the Conservatives) have tried to run a "presidential" strategy for the campaign, this works where there is a personality who is bigger than / overshadows the party; in this case may as tough on Brexit, and Corbyn being a lame leader who Labour voters aren't even warming to; the Cons strategy was to try and play the man to maximise the Cons vote. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to hold your campaign together and execute well at all stages.

As I say, this is only my theory but given Crosby (the Conservatives' campaign director) has form this is likely with him (Howard back in the 2000's versus some very weak and ineffectual Labor leaders).

The manifesto and TM's subsequent gaffs have exposed weaknesses.

As jockman said they should have shut up and just nodded.

[Hayek]

Jockman said:

don'tbesilly said:

If Corbyn wins I'd put money on Brexit not happening.

+1

Longer term I suspect that Brexit is unstoppable, genie is out of the bottle.

The result of any government stopping Brexit would be (assuming the government was not Tory) an actual Conservative Tory opposition that would later win a landslide, or equally likely a new UKIP/Arron Banks/Farage type formation that finally has the momentum to start winning seats.

[BlackLabel]

Justayellowbadge said:

Blue Oval84 said:

Genuine question here because I'm not sure how this traditionally works, but couldn't they just have omitted to mention these things in the manifesto, or been deliberately vague, and then drop the bombshells once in power?

Most of what they're doing (bar fox hunting which just seems illogical self-harm electorally) seems sensible, and they are nettles that need grasping. But the public are fickle and want free stuff, so why not just grasp the nettle later?

I find it depressing actually that a party with an "unassailable" lead in the polls can't actually tackle issues like pensions and care, and still needs to buy the votes of old people....

Isn't there a parliamentary protocol that opposition parties don't vote against policies in a manifesto as the populace has already voted on them?

In the Lords yes but not the commons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Conventi...

[Hayek]

p1stonhead said:

If the Tory's dont end up decimating Labour or end up with a smaller majority than now, calling this election presuming a Tory win would be easy will be one of the worst political fk ups for a long time.

A long time? What about Dave's referendum that he thought he couldn't lose?

[Likes Fast Cars]

Greg66 said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Greg66 said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Obama enacted the same types of bans TWICE during his presidency, and for more countries than Trump, and nothing was said or done.

It's much more fun arguing on the internet when you just make things up to suit you, isn't it?

Why don't you go fact check yourself and come back when you've done your homework.

Already done that's why I posted it.

You did a poor job then. Or perhaps "when caught in a lie the best strategy is to brazen it out".

Obama implemented one, not two, travel restrictions. In 2011 he directed that the processing of special immigrant visas for Iraqi applicants be slowed down while further screening procedures were put in place.

So: one, not two; a ban vs not a ban; not the "same type of ban" at all; for one country vs multiple countries.

Or I could use the "Sir I have no knowledge of that" strategy.

My read of it was 2 x bans, well 2 x occasions then when measures were taken.

Does the number of countries really matter though? Same intent.

[Hayek]

Lance Catamaran said:

Dog Star said:

p1stonhead said:

Fox hunting
Pensions
Old people and dementia
School meals

All hugely emotive issues they chose to tackle when they didn't have to. Even if they wholly believe in their positions on these, why fking say it publicly and alienate a lot of their core?!

The fox hunting thing is something that totally mystifies me; it's to appease a tiny proportion of people who would vote Tory anyway. It's nonsensical, and just erodes support from the people they're supposed to be appealing to. Utter idiocy.

And dropping their pledge to ban ivory trading

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cons...

I agree, both of these things mystifying. I agree with unbanning fox hunting from the point of view that I think somethings got to be really worth banning to ban it. But surely it's a net turn-off?

Surely nobody is interested in trading in ivory in 2017?

[768]

Hayek said:

I agree, both of these things mystifying. I agree with unbanning fox hunting from the point of view that I think somethings got to be really worth banning to ban it. But surely it's a net turn-off?

Surely nobody is interested in trading in ivory in 2017?

Big issue for Dai sitting on his couch in the valleys waiting for his jobseeker's to come through.

I had no idea there was anything about it in previous manifestos.

[Gogoplata]

Lance Catamaran said:

And dropping their pledge to ban ivory trading

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cons...

I may be wrong, but isn't Ivory Trading banned under international law? AFAIK Ivory Trading isn't mentioned in the Tory manifesto, or any other major party manifesto. Does that mean that the Labour party support Ivory trading because they don't mention it in their manifesto?

Happy to be corrected as I'm at work & can't search the details of it.

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

p1stonhead said:

If the Tory's dont end up decimating Labour or end up with a smaller majority than now, calling this election presuming a Tory win would be easy will be one of the worst political fk ups for a long time.

And it will have cost the taxpayer well over £100m (the 2010 election cost the public purse £113m).

This one will surely cost a lot more. I am happy to be corrected but the increased security around candidates and in particular current MPs seeking re election must be significantly higher than in 2015 ? Surely id police have to do more overtime to provide protection then that would be a ccost factor ?

[anonymous-user]

Likes Fast Cars said:

Greg66 said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Greg66 said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Obama enacted the same types of bans TWICE during his presidency, and for more countries than Trump, and nothing was said or done.

It's much more fun arguing on the internet when you just make things up to suit you, isn't it?

Why don't you go fact check yourself and come back when you've done your homework.

Already done that's why I posted it.

You did a poor job then. Or perhaps "when caught in a lie the best strategy is to brazen it out".

Obama implemented one, not two, travel restrictions. In 2011 he directed that the processing of special immigrant visas for Iraqi applicants be slowed down while further screening procedures were put in place.

So: one, not two; a ban vs not a ban; not the "same type of ban" at all; for one country vs multiple countries.

Or I could use the "Sir I have no knowledge of that" strategy.

My read of it was 2 x bans, well 2 x occasions then when measures were taken.

Does the number of countries really matter though? Same intent.

Reading. Such an underrated skill.

[Likes Fast Cars]

techiedave said:

BlackLabel said:

p1stonhead said:

If the Tory's dont end up decimating Labour or end up with a smaller majority than now, calling this election presuming a Tory win would be easy will be one of the worst political fk ups for a long time.

And it will have cost the taxpayer well over £100m (the 2010 election cost the public purse £113m).

This one will surely cost a lot more. I am happy to be corrected but the increased security around candidates and in particular current MPs seeking re election must be significantly higher than in 2015 ? Surely id police have to do more overtime to provide protection then that would be a ccost factor ?

Well Corbyn should be immune from any harm with his latest revelations so he doesn't need a security detail, that will save some money.

[OzzyR1]

p1stonhead said:

If the Tory's dont end up decimating Labour or end up with a smaller majority than now, calling this election presuming a Tory win would be easy will be one of the worst political fk ups for a long time.

The Spectator have just noted that if the YouGov poll was replicated on the 8th the Tory majority would be 2.

[Slagathore]

Blue Oval84 said:

Genuine question here because I'm not sure how this traditionally works, but couldn't they just have omitted to mention these things in the manifesto, or been deliberately vague, and then drop the bombshells once in power?

Most of what they're doing (bar fox hunting which just seems illogical self-harm electorally) seems sensible, and they are nettles that need grasping. But the public are fickle and want free stuff, so why not just grasp the nettle later?

I find it depressing actually that a party with an "unassailable" lead in the polls can't actually tackle issues like pensions and care, and still needs to buy the votes of old people....

I had that line of thought as well.

By being honest and realistic, they've harmed their chances and probably lost voters.

Corbyn is gaining support because of social media, I'm 100% sure of that. The neurotic, selfie-loving-I was there generation that are easily bought with a few promises of an easier life/free stuff.

The fear of missing out and inclusion social media promotes means lots of young people who would have never voted have lapped up the Corbyn stuff and will now vote for him, because it's the popular thing to do.

Zuckerberg, well, I'm not sure if this was his intention when he started Facebook, but he's created the perfect platform to control and influence people.

The sort of people that see their friend post something pro-Corbyn and get 20 likes, so they do the same etc. The sort of people that only care about public image and get taken in by the nonsense. Vote for Corbyn and make yourself look caring and empathetic, but ignore the implications it'll have on the rest of the population and the economy.

Corbyn has run an almost entirely emotive campaign. Support me or you're a bad person, and the younger generation have fallen for it.

That coupled with the sort 'activist' wannabes constantly setting up pro-Corbyn pages and spreading and sharing biased information or lies. Clickbait titles like, 'Reporters destroy may on dementia tax u -turn'. All leads to the young, fickle and naive getting swayed.

What is most worrying - when challenged, it is clear they have no understanding whatsoever of the policies themselves, implications of the policies, or even about history, or the basics of the economy, they just repeat whatever was in the last pro-corbyn article they read. Completely unable to use reasoning or analytical skills to form their own opinion.

The conservatives fked up. It's been obvious the support and influence social media has over people has been increasing, yet no one saw this coming.

[anonymous-user]

I am not on facebook or anything else other than Twitter.

I try and get a balance of commentators to avoid the "Echo chamber" phenomenon and what I have noticed in the last few days is that the "new labour" types I follow have slowly started getting behind Corbyn, whereas previously they were the biggest critics - far more than the Tories.


I really can't see a British electorate returning a Corbyn govenrment, or it being even that close but his general campaign has been OK to Good as opposed to the Tory's which is a pure st show.

[Challo]

Slagathore said:

Blue Oval84 said:

Genuine question here because I'm not sure how this traditionally works, but couldn't they just have omitted to mention these things in the manifesto, or been deliberately vague, and then drop the bombshells once in power?

Most of what they're doing (bar fox hunting which just seems illogical self-harm electorally) seems sensible, and they are nettles that need grasping. But the public are fickle and want free stuff, so why not just grasp the nettle later?

I find it depressing actually that a party with an "unassailable" lead in the polls can't actually tackle issues like pensions and care, and still needs to buy the votes of old people....

I had that line of thought as well.

By being honest and realistic, they've harmed their chances and probably lost voters.

Corbyn is gaining support because of social media, I'm 100% sure of that. The neurotic, selfie-loving-I was there generation that are easily bought with a few promises of an easier life/free stuff.

The fear of missing out and inclusion social media promotes means lots of young people who would have never voted have lapped up the Corbyn stuff and will now vote for him, because it's the popular thing to do.

Zuckerberg, well, I'm not sure if this was his intention when he started Facebook, but he's created the perfect platform to control and influence people.

The sort of people that see their friend post something pro-Corbyn and get 20 likes, so they do the same etc. The sort of people that only care about public image and get taken in by the nonsense. Vote for Corbyn and make yourself look caring and empathetic, but ignore the implications it'll have on the rest of the population and the economy.

Corbyn has run an almost entirely emotive campaign. Support me or you're a bad person, and the younger generation have fallen for it.

That coupled with the sort 'activist' wannabes constantly setting up pro-Corbyn pages and spreading and sharing biased information or lies. Clickbait titles like, 'Reporters destroy may on dementia tax u -turn'. All leads to the young, fickle and naive getting swayed.

What is most worrying - when challenged, it is clear they have no understanding whatsoever of the policies themselves, implications of the policies, or even about history, or the basics of the economy, they just repeat whatever was in the last pro-corbyn article they read. Completely unable to use reasoning or analytical skills to form their own opinion.

The conservatives fked up. It's been obvious the support and influence social media has over people has been increasing, yet no one saw this coming.

The social media thing it worrying. Everything I see on twitter and facebook is labour related and how its the nasty tories fault

[Likes Fast Cars]

Corbyn will be in the hot seat with Andrew Neill at 7pm tonight. Let's see how that goes.