UK General Election

so, do we think the polls are accurate (and which ones etc?)

they were a bit off last time - is this effect going to increase or have they learnt from their errors?
 
DreadNiK said:
well this is a fruitful and interesting derail/nitpick going on...
Click to expand...

You may think so. I tend to think that hyperbole should be challenged, otherwise there is a danger this place just becomes a "we hate X" and "we hate Y" slanging match like the usual fare in the USA politics sub forum.
 
DreadNiK said:
so, do we think the polls are accurate (and which ones etc?)

they were a bit off last time - is this effect going to increase or have they learnt from their errors?
Click to expand...

The broad thrust of them is likely broadly accurate, roughly within their usual margins of error. I have never heard of an opinion poll that has a 20 point gap within its margin of error! I truly hope that their sampling (and corrections) have improved since the last election.
 
baron said:
Of course it's confusion. Opposing something that is definitely going to happen - indeed, is happening right now - is at best a waste of time, at worst extremely damaging.
Click to expand...

ISTM that there's absolutely no confusion about the LibDems' position on Brexit; they're fairly and squarely opposed to it on every level. I would expect that, in the vanishingly unlikely event that a LibDem government was elected, they would do all they could to terminate the Brexit process leaving the UK still in the EU. In politics, I'm not sure that "definitely going to happen" has any meaning whatsoever.

Dave
 
MikeG said:
No, it's you missing the point.

Every PM in history who has called an election has done so at a time of their choice specifically to give them the best result possible. What is it about May doing exactly this that is arrogant, and which deserves punishment?
Click to expand...

In this case, I would say it is the sensitive position that her government has put Britain in regarding Brexit. She already has a majority, so why bother with an election? Because she thinks she is assured of a bigger majority? Well, okay, but I think it's a silly gamble, and therefore on the face of it an arrogant one.
 
angrysoba said:
In this case, I would say it is the sensitive position that her government has put Britain in regarding Brexit. She already has a majority, so why bother with an election? Because she thinks she is assured of a bigger majority? Well, okay, but I think it's a silly gamble, and therefore on the face of it an arrogant one.
Click to expand...


Actually, the more I think about it, the more it's win/win for Ms May.

Either she gains an unassailable majority and can do what she likes or it all goes horribly wrong and she can slink away quietly without too much of the failure attaching itself to her.
 
angrysoba said:
.......She already has a majority, so why bother with an election? Because she thinks she is assured of a bigger majority? Well, okay, but I think it's a silly gamble, and therefore on the face of it an arrogant one.
Click to expand...

Not just that.

On this page (or maybe the last) there are a number of explanations as to why she wants a bigger majority, and more. Read carefully the stuff about the Parliament Act and policies in government manifestos (the Salisbury Convention). Read carefully about the political situation in the House of Lords. Pay close attention to the stuff about being held to ransom by 8 disgruntled remainer back-benchers. If there is anything you struggle with, there are plenty here who will venture some help, no doubt.
 
MikeG said:
Not just that.

On this page (or maybe the last) there are a number of explanations as to why she wants a bigger majority, and more. Read carefully the stuff about the Parliament Act and policies in government manifestos (the Salisbury Convention). Read carefully about the political situation in the House of Lords. Pay close attention to the stuff about being held to ransom by 8 disgruntled remainer back-benchers. If there is anything you struggle with, there are plenty here who will venture some help, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that she wants to explicitly put the government's policy on Brexit in the manifesto in order to prevent the Lords from delaying the passage of the Brexit bill?
 
Craig B said:
It will happen if nobody opposes it. When the Police try to mitigate or prevent crime, is this confusion because crimes are definitely going to happen? Brexit is a nonsense, and deserves to be opposed. It's a con as well. People have been deceived.
Click to expand...

He we go, all the proles are too stupid to see 'the truth' and therefore voted for Brexit. That canard got washed up last year.

Craig B said:
Some things that are definitely going to happen might not happen if people say no to them, which is what the opposition parties should be doing.
Click to expand...

No, things that are definitely going to happen will happen. That's what definitely means.
 
Information Analyst said:
It's not a question of one thing or another, but rather what form Brexit takes. Almost half of votes did not want Brexit at all, and many of those who did want it did not want a hard Brexit.
Click to expand...

The Lib Dems, or Tim Farron at least, wants to stop Brexit, not temper it. All this talk of opposing hard Brexit only popped up yesterday, clearly in an effort to win people over for the election. Prior to that Farron was hell bent on stopping it altogether.
 
Vixen said:
<sigh> Looks like the SUN and the DAILY MAIL have already started their election campaign.

Let's face it, it was these two papers that swung it for BREXIT. One is owned by an Australian who lives in the USA (iirc) and the other by an Non-Domestic Resident (someone who gives his principle address as abroad to avoid UK Income Tax).
Click to expand...

Ex-Australian thank you very much, the scum hasn't been an Australian citizen for a long time.
 
I don't think it's so much about wanting more of a majority (though I think that's part of it, and may well happen) as wanting to stop all the whinging about May not having a mandate, not being elected etc. (which is all nonsense, but a distracting nonsense)

Go through an election, and the government can once again start claiming that they have a mandate for whatever it is they decide they have a mandate for, as usual.
 
Worm said:
I don't think it's so much about wanting more of a majority (though I think that's part of it, and may well happen) as wanting to stop all the whinging about May not having a mandate, not being elected etc. (which is all nonsense, but a distracting nonsense)

Go through an election, and the government can once again start claiming that they have a mandate for whatever it is they decide they have a mandate for, as usual.
Click to expand...



I think, at that point, it really does have a mandate.

One based on utter, utter tripe and misinformation, but a mandate from the people nonetheless.
 
Worm said:
The system over here is far less polarised than in the US, and the 'centre' ground in the US would be considered very right of centre in the UK. It is always noteworthy to me that 'liberal' in the US is considered by some to be an insult, whereas in the UK, most parties would claim to be 'liberal' to some extent, and view it as a positive.

The electoral system makes a difference as well, the Prime Minister comes to power through a very different system to the US, so people view their vote in a different way.

Our parties are much closer together, and while there are certainly those who would never consider voting Tory or Labour, who they *will* vote for is less certain.

Of course, these are generalities, there are many who will only ever vote for one party, regardless of the candidate, and almost nothing will change that, just as in the US.
Click to expand...

The political system in the UK seems pretty straightforward to me by observation of how it has worked for the past few decades of my existence. Every few years an election is held, there is much fuss created and much money spent, then a right of centre government is elected and everything continues more or less as it was before.

I don't think I will even bother voting in this one and if I do it will be for Green probably. Foregone conclusion and a waste of time.
 
Worm said:
I don't think it's so much about wanting more of a majority (though I think that's part of it, and may well happen) as wanting to stop all the whinging about May not having a mandate, not being elected etc. (which is all nonsense, but a distracting nonsense)

Go through an election, and the government can once again start claiming that they have a mandate for whatever it is they decide they have a mandate for, as usual.
Click to expand...

If May wanted to do that, she'd have done it when she became Prime Minister, but she explicitly ruled it out. It would've been the honourable thing to do, considering she protested Gordon Brown had no mandate when he came to power without an election, but she didn't do it.

The reason she's going to the country now is to exploit her current advantage in the polls (which is exactly what the Fixed-Term Parliament Act is supposed to prevent), to up her majority ahead of the police report into conservative MPs' overspending in the 2015 General Election, and to push back the 2020 election so it doesn't occur in the middle of the economic tumble we're about to take due to leaving the EU.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Is a mandate based on tripe and misinformation actually a mandate?
Click to expand...

And that's why I'll carry on remoaning until the brex ***** come up with an extra £350m a week for the NHS.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to separate compound word in order for the autocensor to see and deal with a swear word.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom