Snap General Election?

[Likes Fast Cars]

don'tbesilly said:

wobert said:

Puggit said:

chris watton said:

FN2TypeR said:

This thread is going to be comedy gold on election night if he wins,

That would be funny, in a very perverse way. But May has shown herself wanting, trying to appeal to the minority, trying to emulate 'Labour-Lite' and putting off the majority. I have no idea why her government has done this, appealing to Guardianistas who would never vote for her anyway, and alienating the majority who would vote for her!

I am not voting for her government this time, I will spoil my ballot paper, all are just shades of awful, AFAIAC

Likewise, natural Tory voter here. But after the school meals and dementia tax I was considering spoiling. What the hell was she doing?

A conclusion that was mooted by a work colleague, was that May is deliberately trying to lose, so Corbyn has to compolete the Brexit negotiations.

By doing so, he will mess things up and be a one term PM, letting the Tories back in, in 2022......

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

Stop being silly!

They may try to stop it (either deliberately or through sheer incompetence) but I don't see how they can, the majority of people voted for Brexit, there would be rioting on the streets. The Brexit boat has sailed. Plus the EU has reacted too strongly against the democratic decision of the UK voters, as I understand it even more people are now in favour of Brexit.

[Likes Fast Cars]

Jockman said:

Get used to Tim Farron's face.

He will be the Deputy PM in the next Coalition Govt.

Tory strategy is eroding a landslide lead !!

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Jockman]

Challo said:

How much is it the Conservatives losing ground or Labour picking up votes elsewhere?

According to the Times, Cons down 1, Lab up 3, UKIP up 1 and Libs up 1.

Begs an obvious question...

[turbobloke]

It would be interesting to know not only when polls are published but when the surveys were undertaken.

This is FT 'pol of polls' dated 25 May, an hour ago (publication/update):

con 46%
lab 33%
libd 8%
ukip 4%

For those who can:

https://ig.ft.com/elections/uk/2017/polls/

[FN2TypeR]

Jockman said:

You can't say that about our next Coalition partner....

God damnit, please stop

[technodup]

W124 said:

Im sorry. I'm a bit lost here. Just to be clear. Your position is that the wave of radical Islamic terrorism we face is entirely unrelated, in any way, to our participation in several wars in the Middle and Near East?

Sweden weren't involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. They were still attacked..

I'm not saying it doesn't intensify feeling. But imo the attacks are essentially on the west. Our way of life. Our secularity. Our freedom. Our women's freedom to wear what and fk who they like.

And that means any country or people they associate with such excesses. Whether they've been involved in conflict or not.

[Jockman]

turbobloke said:

It would be interesting to know not only when polls are published but when the surveys were undertaken.

This is FT 'pol of polls' dated 25 May, an hour ago (publication/update):

con 46%
lab 33%
libd 8%
ukip 4%

For those who can:

https://ig.ft.com/elections/uk/2017/polls/

I'm sure the Times one is indicative of Tories losing ground >before< Monday's events.

May's personal approval rating dipped in to negative territory for a moment then finished just in positive territory.

[FN2TypeR]

technodup said:

weden weren't involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. They were still attacked..

I'm not saying it doesn't intensify feeling. But imo the attacks are essentially on the west. Our way of life. Our secularity. Our freedom. Our women's freedom to wear what and fk who they like.

And that means any country or people they associate with such excesses. Whether they've been involved in conflict or not.

I believe that Sweden had around a thousand troops in Afghanistan actually - although that's obviously a small fry contribution in the grand scheme of things and I'm not 100% sure what their purpose there was.

[don'tbesilly]

turbobloke said:

It would be interesting to know not only when polls are published but when the surveys were undertaken.

This is FT 'pol of polls' dated 25 May, an hour ago (publication/update):

con 46%
lab 33%
libd 8%
ukip 4%

For those who can:

https://ig.ft.com/elections/uk/2017/polls/

Quite a difference between the one (below) I saw yesterday, and the one above

CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)

(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)

[p1stonhead]

I dont think for one second that Labour will win, but they may be damn close to having enough MP's to stop pretty much anything if they combine with Lib Dems. Interesting times.

May's arrogance may be her undoing

[W124]

technodup said:

W124 said:

Im sorry. I'm a bit lost here. Just to be clear. Your position is that the wave of radical Islamic terrorism we face is entirely unrelated, in any way, to our participation in several wars in the Middle and Near East?

Sweden weren't involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. They were still attacked..

I'm not saying it doesn't intensify feeling. But imo the attacks are essentially on the west. Our way of life. Our secularity. Our freedom. Our women's freedom to wear what and fk who they like.

And that means any country or people they associate with such excesses. Whether they've been involved in conflict or not.

Those are separate issues. Causes and consequences are different things. It may be true that the consequences are indiscriminate. But the causes are a different matter.

[Eddie Strohacker]

technodup said:

weden weren't involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. They were still attacked..

Yes they were. So was just about anyone else you can think of. That line of argument is a factual cul-de-sac I'm afraid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Oper...

[Jockman]

FN2TypeR said:

I believe that Sweden had around a thousand troops in Afghanistan actually - although that's obviously a small fry contribution in the grand scheme of things and I'm not 100% sure what their purpose there was.

Troop Morale?

[don'tbesilly]

Jockman said:

FN2TypeR said:

I believe that Sweden had around a thousand troops in Afghanistan actually - although that's obviously a small fry contribution in the grand scheme of things and I'm not 100% sure what their purpose there was.

Troop Morale?

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us what type of weapon that is, and we'll then have umpteen posts contradicting what everyone writes, coupled with other very dull and uninteresting facts about said weapon.

Whilst I'm grateful for the totty pic Jockers, I fear the thread diversion won't be worth the eyeful!

[chris watton]

don'tbesilly said:

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us what type of weapon that is, and we'll then have umpteen posts contradicting what everyone writes, coupled with other very dull and uninteresting facts about said weapon.

Whilst I'm grateful for the totty pic Jockers, I fear the thread diversion won't be worth the eyeful!

[Likes Fast Cars]

W124 said:

technodup said:

W124 said:

Im sorry. I'm a bit lost here. Just to be clear. Your position is that the wave of radical Islamic terrorism we face is entirely unrelated, in any way, to our participation in several wars in the Middle and Near East?

Sweden weren't involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. They were still attacked..

I'm not saying it doesn't intensify feeling. But imo the attacks are essentially on the west. Our way of life. Our secularity. Our freedom. Our women's freedom to wear what and fk who they like.

And that means any country or people they associate with such excesses. Whether they've been involved in conflict or not.

Those are separate issues. Causes and consequences are different things. It may be true that the consequences are indiscriminate. But the causes are a different matter.

But weren't you asking the question about whether the cause(s) are linked to the consequences? (in earlier posts)

Now I'm confused.....

[Likes Fast Cars]

don'tbesilly said:

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us what type of weapon that is, and we'll then have umpteen posts contradicting what everyone writes, coupled with other very dull and uninteresting facts about said weapon.

Whilst I'm grateful for the totty pic Jockers, I fear the thread diversion won't be worth the eyeful!

Yes we're about to head off into the world of tangents and god knows what sorts of unknowns here, thanks Jockman!

You'd have thought Jockman would have posted a full nude to make the diversion worthwhile.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Although all political parties on offer for the June election are really just crap, the choice still seems quite clear to me.
Do we vote for a terrorist apologist (not forgetting his appalling sidekick Abbott) whose party has a known track record of destroying the UK economy EVERY time it gets the keys to No10, A party that will cave into all the demands of the EU, A party which supports the shirker rather than the worker, A party that wants to jump on the success of individuals, and tax the hell out of them, because that party only knows how to take money off the country, not how to make money in the country. Labour has never been good for business in the UK, it wants to tax the hell out of those too.
Or do we vote for a crap tory party, which even on the cusp of the election seems able to make appalling cock ups.
Not a very good choice admittedly, but bad as the tories can be, and often are, in no way shape or form are they as dire for the UK as the appalling, labour party. On that basis my vote can only go to the least worst party currently on offer, which means it will be cast in a way which does as much as an individual vote can possibly do to ensure that Corbyn never gets any where near to the keys of No10. The UK (especially now) simply could not survive another labour government.

[W124]

Likes Fast Cars said:

W124 said:

technodup said:

W124 said:

Im sorry. I'm a bit lost here. Just to be clear. Your position is that the wave of radical Islamic terrorism we face is entirely unrelated, in any way, to our participation in several wars in the Middle and Near East?

Sweden weren't involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. They were still attacked..

I'm not saying it doesn't intensify feeling. But imo the attacks are essentially on the west. Our way of life. Our secularity. Our freedom. Our women's freedom to wear what and fk who they like.

And that means any country or people they associate with such excesses. Whether they've been involved in conflict or not.

Those are separate issues. Causes and consequences are different things. It may be true that the consequences are indiscriminate. But the causes are a different matter.

But weren't you asking the question about whether the cause(s) are linked to the consequences? (in earlier posts)

Now I'm confused.....

It would appear so.

[Freypal]

don'tbesilly said:

turbobloke said:

It would be interesting to know not only when polls are published but when the surveys were undertaken.

This is FT 'pol of polls' dated 25 May, an hour ago (publication/update):

con 46%
lab 33%
libd 8%
ukip 4%

For those who can:

https://ig.ft.com/elections/uk/2017/polls/

Quite a difference between the one (below) I saw yesterday, and the one above

CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)

(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)

Yougov is a single poll. The other is an average of multiple poll sources.

The average may be a bit misleading as some polling companies haven't released updated polls for a week or two and so do not reflect the apparent upturn in labour votes.

Individual polls released in the last few days all show Labour increasing and Tories dipping slightly.