General Election 2017

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

That kind of assumes the party that wins stands by their manifesto pledges though.

Indeed it does.

But if you go into the election assuming they are all going to lie anyway then what are you actually basing your decision on? Just a guess? A personality contest?

At least if you base it on what they say they'll do, you have legitimate reason to be annoyed when they don't.

 

[wellquickwoody]

When do manifestos usually get published?

Perhaps this is unfashionable but I'll probably decide based on party policies.....

Now you are just being pedantic. Voting should done with assumption, rumour and gossip.

 

[CHAPPERS]

A personality contest?

More or less.

 

[mikeyjh]

A MUSLIM group in Oxford has backed controversial proposals from UKIP to ban full face veils in public.
Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford director Dr Taj Hargey stressed his organisation did not endorse the party's 'right-wing agenda' but supported the 'sensible proposal' to ban the burka and niqab.

It 'may' be a sensible idea to ban the burka and if you read Dr Hargey's arguments (it's quite interesting actually), he talks about the historical and cultural reasons that some choose to where the burka, indeed he argues that it is nothing to do with Islam. While other muslims will, undoubtably, disagree with him, I've no problem with a considered argument like that. The driver behind UKIP's policy is far less sophisticated, it's a clearly anti islamic policy designed to appeal directly to their blame everything on foreigners and muslims mantra.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

More or less.

But if we all think they just lie then isn't that quite a bad personality trait?

I would count "being a liar" as one of the worst in fact. So what personality traits is it based on? Mannerisms?

 

[Soulman]

It 'may' be a sensible idea to ban the burka and if you read Dr Hargey's arguments (it's quite interesting actually), he talks about the historical and cultural reasons that some choose to where the burka, indeed he argues that it is nothing to do with Islam. While other muslims will, undoubtably, disagree with him, I've no problem with a considered argument like that. The driver behind UKIP's policy is far less sophisticated, it's a clearly anti islamic policy designed to appeal directly to their blame everything on foreigners and muslims mantra.

So basically even though other countries have stated the same, because it is UKIP an agenda is put forward, fair enough.

 

[SeafordBHA]

Whole politics in this country is a mess. I'll probably go Conservative based on the fact May is the only candidate strong enough to make any good of Brexit.

The Lib Dem's are an embarrassment. Suggesting they'll hold a referendum before confirming Brexit deal - so our position is weakened throughout negotiations, we then either have a shit deal, or no deal.

Easy enough for a few Europeans to come out and suggest they'd take us back, we all know in reality it won't be a simple as that and unlikely every single member state will want us back... even with a exponentially inflated fee.

 

[CHAPPERS]

But if we all think they just lie then isn't that quite a bad personality trait?

I would count "being a liar" as one of the worst in fact. So what personality traits is it based on? Mannerisms?

Not so much personality but it's not too hard to judge a person's character.

I'm lucky though, I'm blessed with Caroline Lucas as my MP who is a highly intelligent and clearly a very caring human being.

You can also look back through MPs' voting history, that gives a good idea.

 

[mikeyjh]

So basically even though other countries have stated the same, because it is UKIP an agenda is put forward, fair enough.

No, I was trying to challenge the implied justification you gave for a UKIP policy - Instinctively, I don't like the didn't like it when it was proposed in other European (spot the MASSIVE irony there) countries but if someone puts forward a well thought out argument, I'll listen. It is true to say that I do not expect that to come from UKIP.

 

[Audax]

I think you'll find their are a lot more like me than you think. The importance of protecting the democratic outcome of last summer's referendum is paramount.

Or we could look deeper than the headline result. Some of us (myself included) actually feel that the referendum result *does not* deliver a democratically clear directive that Brexit *must* happen, let alone the so-called "hard" Brexit. (equally, there's clearly no definitive democratic result in favour of Remain either).

I don't have time to go into detail at the moment, but one of the issues I have with the referendum and the way it was run is that the results treat those who didn't vote as if they don't exist. An alternative approach is to treat them as "abstentions" instead (as would happen in Parliament), in which case the Leave campaign *did not* win a majority. In fact, it didn't win a majority anyway - not by a long shot.

It is *not* a safe assumption to make that everyone who didn't vote have the same proportional split between Leave / Remain, nor is it safe to assume that those who didn't vote failed to do so because they "don't care". Keep in mind here that those who want change are more likely to go and vote for change than those who are happy to keep the status quo are to go and vote against change - especially when pre-vote polls are showing that the status quo should win (as they did at the time).

I also don't believe it is "democratic" for two of the four member states of the UK to be dragged out of the EU against their wishes. Remain won by larger percentages in both Scotland and Northern Ireland than Leave won by in England and Wales. Leave won overall on the basis that England has the highest population, by a long shot. Which is democratic, to an extent, but not when it causes much clearer results in other areas to get brushed aside; let's not forget that this is a United Kingdom, and while England is the 'lead' (ie, largest) nation that doesn't give it the right to ride roughshod over the others. (As an example, in Australia a similar referendum would have required a 3-1 majority of member states voting in favour of Leave for Leave to win).

And a third point is that the result was won on the back of profoundly dishonest campaigns (by both sides) that will always cast doubt on the result. Not to mention that there are still open investigations focused on the conduct of the Leave campaigns.

 

[beorhthelm]

Or we could look deeper than the headline result. Some of us (myself included) actually feel that the referendum result *does not* deliver a democratically clear directive that Brexit *must* happen, let alone the so-called "hard" Brexit. (equally, there's clearly no definitive democratic result in favour of Remain either).

I don't have time to go into detail at the moment, but one of the issues I have with the referendum and the way it was run is that the results treat those who didn't vote as if they don't exist. An alternative approach is to treat them as "abstentions" instead (as would happen in Parliament), in which case the Leave campaign *did not* win a majority. In fact, it didn't win a majority anyway - not by a long shot.

so you'd have the same view on those that didnt vote had the remain side "won" without a clear majority of the entire electorate? the only fair way to count those that dont vote, is to not count them. btw in Parliament, they count abstentions for the record, but they do not count for or against the vote: if the Government has 200 votes, the opposition 190, and the rest abstain, the government wins.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Or we could look deeper than the headline result. Some of us (myself included) actually feel that the referendum result *does not* deliver a democratically clear directive that Brexit *must* happen, let alone the so-called "hard" Brexit. (equally, there's clearly no definitive democratic result in favour of Remain either).

I don't have time to go into detail at the moment, but one of the issues I have with the referendum and the way it was run is that the results treat those who didn't vote as if they don't exist. An alternative approach is to treat them as "abstentions" instead (as would happen in Parliament), in which case the Leave campaign *did not* win a majority. In fact, it didn't win a majority anyway - not by a long shot.

It is *not* a safe assumption to make that everyone who didn't vote have the same proportional split between Leave / Remain, nor is it safe to assume that those who didn't vote failed to do so because they "don't care". Keep in mind here that those who want change are more likely to go and vote for change than those who are happy to keep the status quo are to go and vote against change - especially when pre-vote polls are showing that the status quo should win (as they did at the time).

I also don't believe it is "democratic" for two of the four member states of the UK to be dragged out of the EU against their wishes. Remain won by larger percentages in both Scotland and Northern Ireland than Leave won by in England and Wales. Leave won overall on the basis that England has the highest population, by a long shot. Which is democratic, to an extent, but not when it causes much clearer results in other areas to get brushed aside; let's not forget that this is a United Kingdom, and while England is the 'lead' (ie, largest) nation that doesn't give it the right to ride roughshod over the others. (As an example, in Australia a similar referendum would have required a 3-1 majority of member states voting in favour of Leave for Leave to win).

And a third point is that the result was won on the back of profoundly dishonest campaigns (by both sides) that will always cast doubt on the result. Not to mention that there are still open investigations focused on the conduct of the Leave campaigns.

The same statements can be made for the vote that took us into the ECC ( we of course never got the opportunity to vote on joining the EU ).

 

[GT49er]

I don't have time to go into detail at the moment, but one of the issues I have with the referendum and the way it was run is that the results treat those who didn't vote as if they don't exist. An alternative approach is to treat them as "abstentions" instead (as would happen in Parliament), in which case the Leave campaign *did not* win a majority. In fact, it didn't win a majority anyway - not by a long shot.

It is *not* a safe assumption to make that everyone who didn't vote have the same proportional split between Leave / Remain, nor is it safe to assume that those who didn't vote failed to do so because they "don't care".

Not going to go through your whole post. Sufficient to say that I disagree with it.

Two points I must make, though.
Firstly, I have made no assumption about the views of those who didn't vote. I've no idea what percentage of them wanted to remain, or wanted to leave, or just couldn't care either way. The fact, though, is that in a democracy whenever an election or referendum is held, the views of those that do not vote are not taken into account. They have, in effect, tacitly handed the decision making to those who do vote. End of story.
Secondly, UK elections and referendums are just what it says on the tin. They are elections or referendums of the whole UK as a single entity. What happened last summer wasn't a referendum for Scotland, a referendum for Wales, a referendum for England and another for NI - it was a UK referendum. If you're going to exempt Scotland and NI from accepting the result, it would be only fair to claim an exemption from Brexit for London, Bristol and Liverpool too. Good luck with that one!

 

[Mr Banana]

you can trot out tired old memes like this, fact is that 11million people voted Tory in the last election, and about 8-10m in the previous few. most of those millions of people are neither "rich", nor "dont care about other people", and don't recognise the left's caricature of Conservative voters. this is is why the current polling shows Labour so far behind, because more people are connecting with the message from May than the message from Corbyn.

I can't fathom the lack of compassion and humanity needed to vote for the current government, so I'm not too reluctant to post things which neatly condense that

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Its an interesting election decision to make, based on whether one votes on the basis of Ideology or Competence. I have no doubt that the Tories will be more competent than Labour in actually governing, indeed I wince at the level of incompetence that might result from a Corbyn government, and am grateful to a degree that I know I will never see it. But I will vote based on Ideology, and therefore my vote will be for the left.

A Tory win will no doubt produce the most stable government, however I could never forgive myself for enabling them when they undoubtedly slash the NHS and education budgets and give tax breaks to the better off in society, or begin to take apart the EU's environmental frameworks. I'll keep believing in the prospect of a fairer, more caring and responsible society and hope that this election is another stepping stone towards that, as it hopefully does away with Corbyn for good. He just better bloody well resign afterwards.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Do people think the turnout will go up or down from 66.4%?

That was an increase of just over 1% from 2010

 

[jakarta]

Not going to go through your whole post. Sufficient to say that I disagree with it.

Two points I must make, though.
Firstly, I have made no assumption about the views of those who didn't vote. I've no idea what percentage of them wanted to remain, or wanted to leave, or just couldn't care either way. The fact, though, is that in a democracy whenever an election or referendum is held, the views of those that do not vote are not taken into account. They have, in effect, tacitly handed the decision making to those who do vote. End of story.
Secondly, UK elections and referendums are just what it says on the tin. They are elections or referendums of the whole UK as a single entity. What happened last summer wasn't a referendum for Scotland, a referendum for Wales, a referendum for England and another for NI

Thanks for this post, has saved me having to say the same. Some people clearly don't know what Democracy means!

 

[studio150]

Interesting to see former UKIP backers see the han as folly

http://news.sky.com/story/amp/election-2017-arron-banks-says-ukip-is-going-to-war-with-islam-10850077

And The Muslim Council for Britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4442520/Muslim-Council-Britain-condemn-Ukip-bigots.html

 

[The Birdman]

I think Europeans working here should be aloud to stay but should labour say it now and sell our nationals living abroad in Europe down the tube.

 

[Soulman]

I think Europeans working here should be aloud to stay but should labour say it now and sell our nationals living abroad in Europe down the tube.

I am always bemused by the assumption that those that voted Brexit wanted Europeans or any others, to not be allowed to stay. Controlling and managing immigration now and in the future was a key factor though.