baron
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,627
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.
UK General Election
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Not sure what you mean here, unless you are arguing that everything is permissable unless it breaks the law. However, it is not illegal to tell lies even for elected politicians to tell lies or to be hypocritical. Even you people have elected liars and hypocrites from time to time. In such situations, do you expect someone to say, "if you don't like having liars and hypocrites and people who come up with bad policies then you should change to rules to prevent such things."? No, you do not for such advice would be fatuous. This is the case here as well. Your fatuous advice ignores the fact that this is a very odd announcement indeed especially after having emphatically stated that she won't call a snap election. For me, regardless of how sure people think she should feel about winning the next election with a larger majority than she has now, I think to so arrogantly assume a victory is in the bag ought to be punished by the electorate. Of course, then we would be in a difficult situation of a new government having to suddenly take the reins of a time-sensitive negotiation that has a lot at stake.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
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.
You'll be able to back this up, I presume. I mean, you can show where she has said anything about assuming she'll win, can you?
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,106
angrysoba
Philosophile
Either she does, or she is happy to leave the Brexit negotiations to another government having shaved off a few months for them. Which do you think it is?
No, no. You made the claim. What was your evidence that she has arrogantly assumed she will win?
To make your case, you'll need to show that there was arrogance involved, not just that she has called an election. Not many PMs have ever called an election wanting to lose.
To make your case, you'll need to show that there was arrogance involved, not just that she has called an election. Not many PMs have ever called an election wanting to lose.
That isn't the claim that was made. Is there anything in "not thinking she'd win" that would warrant punishment? I mean, every PM who has ever called an election was done it at a time they've chosen to suit their desire to win. What specifically is different about May doing precisely this that means she is A/ arrogant, and B/ deserves to be punished?
angrysoba
Philosophile
I will rephrase it, as you are missing the point. Either she thinks the election is in the bag - which would be arrogant, in my opinion. Or her loss would mean another government would be in a bad negotiating position due to her triggering of Article 50.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,106
I'm struggling to see why she'd call an election now if she didn't think she could win. She's looked at the polls, she's looked at her majority and decided to improve her chances of pushing through what she wants with an improved majority.
If she doesn't think she'll win, can you come up with another reason why she's called an election some three years before she had to?
It only makes sense to me if she thinks she'll win. Why has she done it if she doesn't?
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?
Or, are you saying that every PM who has ever called an election was as a result automatically arrogant and deserving of punishment?
Last edited:
So what? No one is arguing with this. The claim, however, wasn't that she thought she might win, but that she "arrogantly assumed it was in the bag" and therefore "deserved punishment". Back those claims up and help Angrysoba out, or just accept that you and I agree completely.
Last edited:
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,106
No, I wouldn't say it's arrogant, she's just looked at the polls. Opportunistic? Yes. Hypocritical? Yes.
She's demonstrated lots of arrogance since she became PM (by accident), but I don't think this is an arrogant move.
It may be her most savvy political move to date depending on the result. I do hope not.
Yep, we agree then. Angrysoba thinks something special is afoot this time, though, so I simply await the justification for that.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,106
DreadNiK
A typical atypical
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 909
when you say things like this in a discussion of politics, like asking why a government would care about retirement ages (another poster), all you do is lower your intellectual credibility in the discussion