Snap General Election?

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

The people voted for that in the referendum, there is a lot that could change between now and us actually leaving though, and the nature of what leaving actually means is still not decided.

You are unlikely to vote, amazing.

[turbobloke]

Vaud said:

turbobloke said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Hey all you lot on here saying you're going to vote Lib Dum this time, look what you've all done. They're up in the opinion polls!

They're back abpve single figures, lordy lordy such dizzy heights! Tim Who will be chuffed before he's stuffed.

I'd like to see the Lib Dems succeed; 20+ seats would be good for parliamentary democracy. They tend to be pragmatic and less held by dogma (in my perception) than Labour.

They also run town level councils quite well as they don't tend to be grandstanding for a national position.

On the other hand they can't (yet) be trusted. Clegg has seen to that.

While Tim Who may be getting excited, earlier this week YouGov committed only to conceding that LibDem performance will be tricky to quantify (NSS) while at least one of the latest polls predicts that the Lib Dems might actually lose seats. Electoral Calculus reckons they may well end up with eight seats, one less than now. The Bolly should be kept on ice for a while yet.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 22 April 18:43

[Henners]

On the subject of the Libdems, has nice-but-dim decided if he hates the gays or not?

[FiF]

Henners said:

The Green drop is interesting.

Labour and UKIP not so surprising.

Based on that it's much the same as I said the other day, 60+ gains by Cons. Mainly from Labour. LD not gaining as many as they hope, though that's a big unknown tbh. Their gains in votes may be spread too evenly to have major impact.

[johnxjsc1985]

did I see a picture of that awful Miller woman gobbing off again about democracy. Well if she is so concerned we have an election coming up and as an Individual she has the same rights as all of us who are registered to vote that's how democracy works.

[Vaud]

Henners said:

On the subject of the Libdems, has nice-but-dim decided if he hates the gays or not?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/19/t...

[anonymous-user]

Henners said:

On the subject of the Libdems, has nice-but-dim decided if he hates the gays or not?

He considers them sinners.

But everybody sins.

That's his position.

[Vaud]

turbobloke said:

On the other hand they can't (yet) be trusted. Clegg has seen to that.

While Tim Who may be getting excited, earlier this week YouGov committed only to conceding that LibDem performance will be tricky to quantify (NSS) while at least one of the latest polls predicts that the Lib Dems might actually lose seats. Electoral Calculus reckons they may well end up with eight seats, one less than now. The Bolly should be kept on ice for a while yet.]

Fair points.

It's probably more my innate belief in 2 party systems being weak and the importance of having a 3rd party with a wide spectrum of policies being good for parliamentary democracy... I think they were unfairly punished in the coalition, mostly because we (as a populace) have so little experience in what a coalition is.

For me the Lib Dems are a bit like the Church of England. I wouldn't go myself, but I'm quite glad they are there as a moderating/influencing force that softens some of the extremes...

Edited by Vaud on Saturday 22 April 19:28

[turbobloke]

Vaud said:

turbobloke said:

On the other hand they can't (yet) be trusted. Clegg has seen to that.

While Tim Who may be getting excited, earlier this week YouGov committed only to conceding that LibDem performance will be tricky to quantify (NSS) while at least one of the latest polls predicts that the Lib Dems might actually lose seats. Electoral Calculus reckons they may well end up with eight seats, one less than now. The Bolly should be kept on ice for a while yet.]

Fair points.

It's probably more my innate belief in 2 party systems being weak and the importance of having a 3rd party with a wide spectrum of policies being good for parliamentary democracy... I think they were unfairly punished in the coalition, mostly because we (as a populace) have so little experience in what a coalition is.

For me the Lib Dems are a bit like the Church of England. I would go myself, but I'm quite glad they are there as a moderating/influencing force that softens some of the extremes...

Equally fair points.

Even so I suspect LibDem performance is likely to be one of the interesting side dishes rather than the main course.

[Robertj21a]

turbobloke said:

Equally fair points.

Even so I suspect LibDem performance is likely to be one of the interesting side dishes rather than the main course.

As with Labour, they really do need to get a leader who can inspire confidence. Hell, inspire anything would be a major plus point for most of them at present.
This GE would only get interesting if they had a 'heavyweight' quality leader for both Labour and the LibDems - at present, it's like being smacked around the face with a wet fish.

[Derek Smith]

I've been trying to work out why May has called a GE, and so quickly. I could see better use of dissolving parliament.

She's not stupid so the assumption that there's a reason for this decision (over and above the one stated of course - she's a politician) is reasonable.

The only time constraint that comes to mind are the reports filed by the police on election fraud. It is probably probable that any found guilty would be subject to reelection, which would give rise to another dozen or so elections. This would, of course, cost May her majority. This way, there's no scandal before an election.

If any miscreants are reelected in the GE then the electoral law commission cannot order the fraudulent MPs to seek reelection.

Whoever organised the fraud could be imprisoned and/or fined. But after the GE.

[Vaud]

turbobloke said:

Equally fair points.

Even so I suspect LibDem performance is likely to be one of the interesting side dishes rather than the main course.

True.

I suspect our discussion is too reasonable and balanced for NP&E....

[sidicks]

Eddie Strohacker said:

If you like, I''l take the view that anyone who criticises the standard of debate & in the very next post calls someone an idiot, irrespective of whether they subjectively are or not has shot themselves in the foot. Hilariously.

You'll obviously have missed the numerous previous posts in this thread and a wide variety of others with the same outcome:]
- JawKnee posts absolute nonsense
- he is challenged and is asked a few questions to clarify his claims
- he ignores all reasonable questions and all the evidence that explains why he is wrong
- he makes further stupid comments

It's trolling 101.

[AstonZagato]

Likes Fast Cars said:

Let me be controversial here ..... should the NHS be completely root-to-branch reformed? Should all options be put on the table? Governments aren't good at managing things (generally speaking).

The SNP have screwed it up in Scotland, someone said Wales isn't exactly great.....

I believe the NHS needs to be depoliticised somehow. Put into a Trust, like the BBC, perhaps. Something so that it ceases to be a football that is kicked in a different direction every time the government changes.

[johnxjsc1985]

AstonZagato said:

I believe the NHS needs to be depoliticised somehow. Put into a Trust, like the BBC, perhaps. Something so that it ceases to be a football that is kicked in a different direction every time the government changes.

we could give a blank cheque to the NHS and it still wouldn't work because far too many people expect far too much and give far too little towards it.

[dimots]

Vaud said:

AstonZagato said:

Indeed. When the NHS was founded in 1948, the life expectancy for men was 66, and for women, 71. Today those figures are 79 and 83. There is a lot that can and does go wrong in those extra 12/13 years.

The treatment in '48 for a heart attack was aspirin. If you were alive in the morning, then it was a success. Babies born at 28 weeks were sure to die. Now we can do so much more and it is all expensive cutting-edge stuff.

Sadly, the Tories can't touch the system. It is a sacred cow. I think it needs to be depoliticised somehow (I don't know that this i.e. even possible). Possibly put it into a trust - like the BBC. Have decisions made by people who are not elected and can take a dispassionate view of what our taxes can and should be paying for and what they shouldn't.

I'd also make private medical insurance tax deductible and encourage trusts to have private wards to take in those patients' cash. I'd also give everyone who left hospital a bill. If people knew what it cost they'd be far more appreciative. We could also ensure that those who aren't entitled to the NHS pay up.

It is the 3rd rail and highly emotive for any party.

It is unsustainable. People are living longer. Complex treatments cost a lot. Ill people are not rational. Demand is near infinite.

Spending more is the easy option when it needs systemic review; the new "NHS" would take 15 years to evolve to (?), which is a tough sell.

It's not unsustainable.

Keep it going until we cure all ills. NHS no longer necessary. Enter sustainable period of perfect health for all.

[sidicks]

dimots said:

It's not unsustainable.

Keep it going until we cure all ills. NHS no longer necessary. Enter sustainable period of perfect health for all.

Did someone mention the magic money tree again?

[essayer]

Holy st 25% lead according to ComRes

[Deptford Draylons]

Nice poll lead and May has set out the terms of what Brexit will be, so no moaning like there was post referendum about the single market and half a hundred other attempts of a get out. If elected, its done and settled as to what she has the authority to do. Bye bye Brexit moaners and Gina Miller.

[Patrick Bateman]

This is bloody brilliant-

https://twitter.com/JOE_co_uk/status/8554811552436...

Boris

Must have taken a while.