UK General Election/Politics

First topic message reminder :

Here's a possible thread for it all, despite the lack of political input from me to start it!

Mods if you want to/can cut and paste the recent obviously political "discussions" from the Anything Goes, here might serve?

Mac, 95% of US and European media were pro Clinton and anti Trump. Did that concern you and do you think it influenced the gullible?

JAS wrote:there is a significant chunk of the population who are thick enough to believe that everything they read in a paper is true so when a paper prints lies it's a form of deception.  The scale of that deception may well influence the eventual result of the election.

Spot om and Super should take note.

pedro wrote:Mac, 95% of US and European media were pro Clinton and anti Trump. Did that concern you and do you think it influenced the gullible?

In which case thankfully most of the more right wing media outlets can see a racist idiot when he comes along. How lucky we are to have such a sensible media.

unfortunately they were not pro Clinton enough.

McLaren wrote:

JAS wrote:there is a significant chunk of the population who are thick enough to believe that everything they read in a paper is true so when a paper prints lies it's a form of deception.  The scale of that deception may well influence the eventual result of the election.

Spot om and Super should take note.

Push off mac.

McLaren wrote:

pedro wrote:Mac, 95% of US and European media were pro Clinton and anti Trump. Did that concern you and do you think it influenced the gullible?

In which case thankfully most of the more right wing media outlets can see a racist idiot when he comes along.  How lucky we are to have such a sensible media.

unfortunately they were not pro Clinton enough.

Duh! So media influence is only a problem when you disagree?

Although the US media were ostensibly pro-Clinton, the volume of free publicity in the form of media coverage of Drumpf dwarfed that of his Republican primary challengers and Clinton in the Election. Media bias is shown in more ways than one, though doubt if to quite the same level in GB&NI there is at least the appearance of substance over celebrity.

"Daily Mail devotes 13 pages to attack on Corbyn" Didn't there use to be a newspaper in there somewhere? Pre it's support for Hitler and other fascists of course. Oh and if there is one person Weak and Wobbly won't disagree with - Editor of Daily Mail aka her puppet master Mr Dacre!

Abbot's "illness" stinks of getting her out of the way before she does any more damage.

Whereas Philip Hammond doesn't even have the excuse of illness?

puligny wrote:"Daily Mail devotes 13 pages to attack on Corbyn"

According to the previous poster that's called free publicity and may in fact help him..

Bottom line is that it's not black and white and what may or may not influence votes is not clear cut.

super_realist wrote:Abbot's "illness" stinks of getting her out of the way before she does any more damage.

File under "no sh*t Sherlock" - congrats super for the least insightful post of the day

So predictions?

From what im reading, a tory majority of around 100, due to the death of ukip. In scotland it seems sturg to be put back.in her box with indy ref 2 as they are looking to loose seats.

The labour surge seems that a keft wing labour party wont win enough tory voters.

Predictions - well I will almost certainly apply for the Irish passport I am qualified for, which will at least make future travel plans a little easier.
On the broader picture I expect Cons to win, but unsure whether with an increased majority or not. Doubt May will see, and certainly not lead them into another election - she has been proved to be pathetic.

Having a British passport is hardly likely to impede your travel because of Brexit.

Do you see people from Norway, Iceland or Switzerland having a problem in Europe? No you don't. So why would a British passport be any more of a problem?

All those countries have freedom of movement. The uk may not have that if they go ahead with some of the brexit plans. Bit of a difference.

Can't see there being an issue. It is in no ones interest to make it difficult for UK citizens to travel. UK Travel is much more valuable to Europe than those from Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

But those countries make payments to the eu in order for their citizens to have freedom of movement, they are eea countries. The uk government doesnt want to be associate eea members, it doesnt want freedom of movement. If the country doesnt cone a deal with the eu, uk nationals will find it harder to move round europe. We will hhave no rights to live and move anywhere we want, unless sponsored or getting a visa. If we dont allow freedom of movement to the uk then no country will allow it from us.

Check the queues Super! Freedom of movement is more than a catchphrase! Might even fancy living somewhere else - independent Scotland perhaps!

There hasn't been any mention yet as to what the UK wants from Europe. It's all speculation. All of that has yet to be negotiated.

No deal better than a bad deal! No freedom of movement. Out of single market and no customs union! Hey ho! I recall as a young chap handling exports when we were part of EFTA and not the Common Market - what a balls ache that was!!! Unbelievable - really unfu..ingbelievable!!

Making this election about Brexit was a total con job, at the end of the day we will take whatever deal we manage to scrap for. Most of the negotiating will be done by civil servants anyway. Quite why people think the Tories are the safe hands here is remarkable, they are the incompetent fools who got us into the mess in the first place.

Well, apart from the majority of the people that voted.

McLaren wrote:

pedro wrote:Mac, 95% of US and European media were pro Clinton and anti Trump. Did that concern you and do you think it influenced the gullible?

In which case thankfully most of the more right wing media outlets can see a racist idiot when he comes along.  How lucky we are to have such a sensible media.

unfortunately they were not pro Clinton enough.

They were not pro Sanders enough during the primaries!!!

True, but they wouldn't have had the opportunity to create such a huge mess if it wasn't for the Tories running scared over UKIP. The fact remains that the referendum was called not because Cameron felt the country were desperate for it, but because he felt he could destroy UKIP. It was a poor decision made for political reasons by a party who are meant to be the supposed safe hands. I see no reason why they should be trusted to somehow make a great deal out of this mess, their attempts so far have been shambolic.

How do you think Corbyn would handle it Diggers? Do you think he'd get a better deal?

The UK public wanted a referendum so the Tories gave us one, fail to see the problem.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The UK public wanted a referendum so the Tories gave us one, fail to see the problem.

As usual a complete failure to understand the nuance of the situation.

super_realist wrote:How do you think Corbyn would handle it Diggers? Do you think he'd get a better deal?

I think the deal will be the deal, the extent of being able to create a much better one by either party is overplayed. I do think though that if Labour start the process by guaranteeing that existing EU citizens over here can remain, rather than using them as a ransom tool, then that would be a massive boost to ensuring better negotiations.

Probably true, but they probably would have put Abbot in charge.

To be fair, I think whatever the result today existing residents here and there will be guaranteed rights to remain. IMHO it's just about the only clear cut, obvious and fair (for want of a better word) aspect of the divorce.

In terms of the referendum, there is the aspect that the Tories were losing support to UKIP and it was probably misjudged, but that said it's one of the items I think it was justifiable to call a referendum over and I think inevitable at some point. It's just one of those things that "the people" were probably not clued up enough about what it means/meant to come out, as demonstrated now by pretty much all the so-called experts (on all sides of the political spectrum) who have pretty much no idea after a year of knowing it's coming!

Roller_Coaster wrote:To be fair, I think whatever the result today existing residents here and there will be guaranteed rights to remain. IMHO it's just about the only clear cut, obvious and fair (for want of a better word) aspect of the divorce.

In terms of the referendum, there is the aspect that the Tories were losing support to UKIP and it was probably misjudged, but that said it's one of the items I think it was justifiable to call a referendum over and I think inevitable at some point. It's just one of those things that "the people" were probably not clued up enough about what it means/meant to come out, as demonstrated now by pretty much all the so-called experts (on all sides of the political spectrum) who have pretty much no idea after a year of knowing it's coming!

I hope you are right about your first point RC, I have somewhat less faith in what a May government may consider to be an obvious and fair decision. I don't really see a justification for not guaranteeing their security now, why the delay? It's just poor diplomacy IMO.May has a reputation has a tough negotiator as Home Secretary, that's fine when you hold all the cards say when dealing with heads of the police or prison services. This is a different ball game, I'm not sure her heavy handed, accusatory approach is the right way to go about it.

Diggers, as far as I have been able to discern, the delay is due to Europe also not agreeing to UK citizens in Europe being allowed to stay.

Diggers wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The UK public wanted a referendum so the Tories gave us one, fail to see the problem.

As usual a complete failure to understand the nuance of the situation.

As usual you're throwing your toys out the pram because things didn't go the way you wanted, thankfully we live in a democracy.

super_realist wrote:Diggers, as far as I have been able to discern, the delay is due to Europe also not agreeing to UK citizens in Europe being allowed to stay.

We made the decision to leave, we could choose to act first. The EU decision requires a collective agreement from 27 states, it would sense to me to guarantee security for these people (who we need) and thus creating an element of goodwill - as well as basically doing the decent thing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The UK public wanted a referendum so the Tories gave us one, fail to see the problem.

As usual a complete failure to understand the nuance of the situation.

As usual you're throwing your toys out the pram because things didn't go the way you wanted, thankfully we live in a democracy.

Point missed again, you're nothing if not consistent.

I haven't missed the point at all, just you being a petulant child.

Hmm, you see when you miss the point, you don't really know what the point is you've missed...
Time and time again, you keep missing the point. Scratch your surface and there is just a whole load more surface lurking underneath.

Wow wow wow. See you later teresa.

beninho wrote:Wow wow wow. See you later teresa.

and Corbyn and a big kick in Sturgeons hairy balls too. Good riddance to all of them.

New broom

Diggers, I get your point of calling the referendum in the first place. But I also think it's dangerous to discard the peoples will, whether you like it or not.

With regards to EU citizens in the UK. Do you really think anybody would sincerely beleive the UK wanting to kick out highly educated (which they are for the most part) French, Germans, Swedes etc. -- while keeping scores of uneducated 3rd world peasants and mountain dwellers? And I'm not talking about the Welsh here. Duh. Hardly an interesting business case. It's just a petulant baby threatening to throw its toys out of the pram. Whereas it's a different story the other way around. The UK is leaving a marriage so why should the other party let us keep all the benefits of it? I doubt the EU is as dependant of UK citizens as the other way around.

Feck, I did not expect how this is turning out :-/

Brilliant to see Fat Salmond and Rotund Robertson lose their seats. Looks like Sturgeons dream of Indyref2 is "in the long grass" now.

I'm never wrong wrote: Or even a hung parliament.

Should have gone to the bookies.....

Well, well. Interesting times. Hard to see how May can stay on, equally hard to think of a remotely credible Tory as an alternative.

The frightening thing is the alternative Diggers. Boris or Gove?

Exactly mate, I think Boris has ran his race. Gove is even more unpopular than May. Usually the CofE steps up as a contender...anyone know his name?

Thought you meant Church of England for a minute there Digs. Phew.

Diggers wrote:Hmm, you see when you miss the point, you don't really know what the point is you've missed...
Time and time again, you keep missing the point. Scratch your surface and there is just a whole load more surface lurking underneath.

I'll have to remember that put down...

super_realist wrote:Brilliant to see Fat Salmond and Rotund Robertson lose their seats. Looks like Sturgeons dream of Indyref2 is "in the long grass" now.

Yep, Salmond getting the boot gave me a genuine reason to smile this morning.

Great to see that UKIP is now a busted flush. Hopefully I'll never have to see Nuttall's ugly mug on my tele box again.