2019 General Election

First topic message reminder :

Now it's confirmed for December 12th (pretty much), I thought we should have a shiny new thread for the fourth and final UK GE of this tumultuous decade; a decade which has also included three referendums and four (maybe five) different Prime Ministers.

News this morning that Amber Rudd won't be defending her seat. Oh well.

Opinion polls currently have the Tories in a double digit lead, but it's anticipated to be a lot tighter than that by the time we reach the actual polling day.

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

If your party leader can't win a seat why bother at all?

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

If your party leader can't win a seat why bother at all?

Are the Brexit Party going to contest any seat?  

Some people are claiming up north where it is solid Labour - the Brexit Party might have a chance of gaining a few votes off Labour or at least splitting the labour vote.

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

If your party leader can't win a seat why bother at all?

Are the Brexit Party going to contest any seat?  

Some people are claiming up north where it is solid Labour - the Brexit Party might have a chance of gaining a few votes off Labour or at least splitting the labour vote.

By that definition then, no party leader should contest seats. As they're all leading there party's campaign.

I've heard there will be about 500 Brexit party MPs standing. Mainly in the north as has been pointed out.

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

He's a chuffing coward and afraid of failing to become an MP for how many times would it be this time? Pathetic.

Can we stop perpetuating the myth that the Brexit Company Ltd. are a legit political party? Its disrespectful to actual political parties and makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Luke wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

If your party leader can't win a seat why bother at all?

Are the Brexit Party going to contest any seat?  

Some people are claiming up north where it is solid Labour - the Brexit Party might have a chance of gaining a few votes off Labour or at least splitting the labour vote.

By that definition then, no party leader should contest seats. As they're all leading there party's campaign.

I've heard there will be about 500 Brexit party MPs standing. Mainly in the north as has been pointed out.

There will be about 600 candidates standing, all over England/Wales/Scotland, not just confined to the North of England (unless some silly Tory/BP pact comes about, which just isn't going to happen).

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

He's a chuffing coward and afraid of failing to become an MP for how many times would it be this time? Pathetic.

Tried and failed seven times thus far.

At least he's consistent.

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

He's a chuffing coward and afraid of failing to become an MP for how many times would it be this time? Pathetic.

Tried and failed seven times thus far.

Ta. Even a useless tw@t like Cameron became an MP after less attempts.

The Mogg has surely got to be in trouble over his Grenfell chat? Disgraceful lizard

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

He's a chuffing coward and afraid of failing to become an MP for how many times would it be this time? Pathetic.

Tried and failed seven times thus far.

Ta. Even a useless tw@t like Cameron became an MP after less attempts.

Because the FPTP system is like that. In the upcoming GE, any adult in this country could win a seat in Liverpool Walton if they were the Labour candidate; any adult in this country could win a seat in Christchurch if they were the Tory candidate. Cameron didn't win his seat in Witney because of his abilities; he won it because he was wearing a blue rosette (and he would have lost if it were a red or a yellow one).

Virtually no adult in this country (including Cameron!) could win a seat under FPTP if they were representing a GB-wide party that was polling at 3% or lower, as Farage was doing on six of the seven occasions.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The Mogg has surely got to be in trouble over his Grenfell chat? Disgraceful lizard

In a sane world he wouldnt even make it to an election before having the whip removed for bringing the party into disrepute. Appalling person letting his mask of disdain for the poor slip.

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

If your party leader can't win a seat why bother at all?

Are the Brexit Party going to contest any seat?  

Some people are claiming up north where it is solid Labour - the Brexit Party might have a chance of gaining a few votes off Labour or at least splitting the labour vote.

By that definition then, no party leader should contest seats. As they're all leading there party's campaign.

I've heard there will be about 500 Brexit party MPs standing. Mainly in the north as has been pointed out.

There will be about 600 candidates standing, all over England/Wales/Scotland, not just confined to the North of England (unless some silly Tory/BP pact comes about, which just isn't going to happen).

Especially not now he's pretty much trashed the deal, and had a go at the conservative party. Who are also firing shots back.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

He's a chuffing coward and afraid of failing to become an MP for how many times would it be this time? Pathetic.

Tried and failed seven times thus far.

Ta. Even a useless tw@t like Cameron became an MP after less attempts.

Because the FPTP system is like that. In the upcoming GE, any adult in this country could win a seat in Liverpool Walton if they were the Labour candidate; any adult in this country could win a seat in Christchurch if they were the Tory candidate. Cameron didn't win his seat in Witney because of his abilities; he won it because he was wearing a blue rosette (and he would have lost if it were a red or a yellow one).

Virtually no adult in this country (including Cameron!) could win a seat under FPTP if they were representing a GB-wide party that was polling at 3% or lower, as Farage was doing on six of the seven occasions.

Fair points. Farage is still a spineless coward though .

Samo wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The Mogg has surely got to be in trouble over his Grenfell chat? Disgraceful lizard

In a sane world he wouldnt even make it to an election before having the whip removed for bringing the party into disrepute.  Appalling person letting his mask of disdain for the poor slip.

Hang on a minute. I'm no fan of Mogg, at all, but this continual, modern, social media-driven habit of deliberately interpreting a remark as the worst it could possibly be is increasingly pathetic. The anti-Moggs (and I'm one, but not in a knee-jerk way such as appears to be happening here) have deliberately interpreted his remark as disparaging to the Grenfell families and victims. Personally, I initially read it as disparagement of the LFB's instructions to stay put and that it would common sense for Mogg, should he ever find himself in a remotely similar situation, to leave without awaiting instruction to do so. I'm more than happy to call him an arse on his apparent suggestion that it's 'common sense' to contradict the fire experts as that part is clear in his quote; the other interpretation, not so much.

Not directly related, but did I ever applaud Obama for his recent comments on this ****ing 'woke' culture:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50239261

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:Nigel Farage now not going to stand.
Hardly surprising, given that it's far easier to be behind the scenes rather than in front leading.

Well he will still be leading the Brexit Party's campaign, not hiding away. As he would have never won a seat anyway, it's a sensible decision.

He's a chuffing coward and afraid of failing to become an MP for how many times would it be this time? Pathetic.

Tried and failed seven times thus far.

Ta. Even a useless tw@t like Cameron became an MP after less attempts.

Because the FPTP system is like that. In the upcoming GE, any adult in this country could win a seat in Liverpool Walton if they were the Labour candidate; any adult in this country could win a seat in Christchurch if they were the Tory candidate. Cameron didn't win his seat in Witney because of his abilities; he won it because he was wearing a blue rosette (and he would have lost if it were a red or a yellow one).

Virtually no adult in this country (including Cameron!) could win a seat under FPTP if they were representing a GB-wide party that was polling at 3% or lower, as Farage was doing on six of the seven occasions.

Poor little Nige, looks like being a budget Mosley isn't popular with the electorate

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The Mogg has surely got to be in trouble over his Grenfell chat? Disgraceful lizard

In a sane world he wouldnt even make it to an election before having the whip removed for bringing the party into disrepute.  Appalling person letting his mask of disdain for the poor slip.

Hang on a minute. I'm no fan of Mogg, at all, but this continual, modern, social media-driven habit of deliberately interpreting a remark as the worst it could possibly be is increasingly pathetic. The anti-Moggs (and I'm one, but not in a knee-jerk way such as appears to be happening here) have deliberately interpreted his remark as disparaging to the Grenfell families and victims. Personally, I initially read it as disparagement of the LFB's instructions to stay put and that it would common sense for Mogg, should he ever find himself in a remotely similar situation, to leave without awaiting instruction to do so. I'm more than happy to call him an arse on his apparent suggestion that it's 'common sense' to contradict the fire experts as that part is clear in his quote; the other interpretation, not so much.

Not directly related, but did I ever applaud Obama for his recent comments on this ****ing 'woke' culture:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50239261

It is the state of journalism - everything is presented in simplistic soap opera style caricature that bears little to no resemblance to reality.  We end up with the polarisation we see on social media with posters wishing death on old British people as per xxx's previous comments and imagining politicians as equivalent to Hitler, Oswald Mosley or Stalin.

No name Bertie wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The Mogg has surely got to be in trouble over his Grenfell chat? Disgraceful lizard

In a sane world he wouldnt even make it to an election before having the whip removed for bringing the party into disrepute.  Appalling person letting his mask of disdain for the poor slip.

Hang on a minute. I'm no fan of Mogg, at all, but this continual, modern, social media-driven habit of deliberately interpreting a remark as the worst it could possibly be is increasingly pathetic. The anti-Moggs (and I'm one, but not in a knee-jerk way such as appears to be happening here) have deliberately interpreted his remark as disparaging to the Grenfell families and victims. Personally, I initially read it as disparagement of the LFB's instructions to stay put and that it would common sense for Mogg, should he ever find himself in a remotely similar situation, to leave without awaiting instruction to do so. I'm more than happy to call him an arse on his apparent suggestion that it's 'common sense' to contradict the fire experts as that part is clear in his quote; the other interpretation, not so much.

Not directly related, but did I ever applaud Obama for his recent comments on this ****ing 'woke' culture:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50239261

It is the state of journalism - everything is presented in simplistic soap opera style caricature that bears little to no resemblance to reality.  We end up with the polarisation we see on social media with posters wishing death on old British people as per xxx's previous comments and imagining politicians as equivalent to Hitler, Oswald Mosley or Stalin.

Rees-Mogg, 50, said during the radio show: “The tragedy came about because of the cladding leading to the fire racing up the building and then was compounded by the stay put policy.

“And it seems to me that is the tragedy of it. That the more one’s read over the weekend about the report and about the chances of people surviving, if you just ignore what you’re told and leave, you are so much safer.

“I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building.

“It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that that didn’t happen but I don’t think it’s anything to do with race or class.”

He's worded it very poorly, if you 100% trust that is what he meant. I'm quite appalled he is too dumb to know better, or cares too little to try. I think it shows disrespect regardless, as well as attacking the fire service (again for his party).

Man is classless, and the comments were disgraceful. Considering Diane Abbott still gets attacked for her numbers gaffe, it seems convenient the rich white man might escape this easily

He's also not very intelligent.

Got to hand it to the Tories, I thought it would be impossible to have a worse campaign than 2017 but we’re only 1 day in and they’re somehow managing. Classic Dom.

The right wing gammonheads are defending Rees-Mogg saying it's been "misinterpreted"

We all know full well if Corbyn or Abbot said this they would have gone crazy

So what is the current outlook according to the polls:
Conservatives getting the most seats but not enough to form a majority?  
Labour + Lib Dem + ?? having enough seats to form a coalition government?  

Of course things could change but it is unclear whether Labour on its own will get a majority (various reasons) - so for those wanting a "remain" outcome they might be looking towards some Labour + Lib Dem + ?? coalition?  Labour are saying that they will offer a referendum (their to be arranged Brexit deal or remain).

Steffan wrote:The right wing gammonheads are defending Rees-Mogg saying it's been "misinterpreted"

We all know full well if Corbyn or Abbot said this they would have gone crazy

I love that his apology was essentially “I know what I said but I actually meant the exact opposite”. The mans a disgrace and people are still defending him

The Tories have not got off to a great start. Mogg and now Alun Cairns has resigned

I think this is a good time to get them out. I could be wrong though

Steffan wrote:The right wing gammonheads are defending Rees-Mogg saying it's been "misinterpreted"

We all know full well if Corbyn or Abbot said this they would have gone crazy

You mean like the Mail calling Theresa May a traitor for her awful deal and yet Boris is Churchill when he puts forward the same thing ???

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The Mogg has surely got to be in trouble over his Grenfell chat? Disgraceful lizard

In a sane world he wouldnt even make it to an election before having the whip removed for bringing the party into disrepute.  Appalling person letting his mask of disdain for the poor slip.

Hang on a minute. I'm no fan of Mogg, at all, but this continual, modern, social media-driven habit of deliberately interpreting a remark as the worst it could possibly be is increasingly pathetic. The anti-Moggs (and I'm one, but not in a knee-jerk way such as appears to be happening here) have deliberately interpreted his remark as disparaging to the Grenfell families and victims. Personally, I initially read it as disparagement of the LFB's instructions to stay put and that it would common sense for Mogg, should he ever find himself in a remotely similar situation, to leave without awaiting instruction to do so. I'm more than happy to call him an arse on his apparent suggestion that it's 'common sense' to contradict the fire experts as that part is clear in his quote; the other interpretation, not so much.

Not directly related, but did I ever applaud Obama for his recent comments on this ****ing 'woke' culture:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50239261

It is the state of journalism - everything is presented in simplistic soap opera style caricature that bears little to no resemblance to reality.  We end up with the polarisation we see on social media with posters wishing death on old British people as per xxx's previous comments and imagining politicians as equivalent to Hitler, Oswald Mosley or Stalin.

Rees-Mogg, 50, said during the radio show: “The tragedy came about because of the cladding leading to the fire racing up the building and then was compounded by the stay put policy.

“And it seems to me that is the tragedy of it. That the more one’s read over the weekend about the report and about the chances of people surviving, if you just ignore what you’re told and leave, you are so much safer.

“I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building.

“It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that that didn’t happen but I don’t think it’s anything to do with race or class.”

He's worded it very poorly, if you 100% trust that is what he meant. I'm quite appalled he is too dumb to know better, or cares too little to try. I think it shows disrespect regardless, as well as attacking the fire service (again for his party).

Man is classless, and the comments were disgraceful. Considering Diane Abbott still gets attacked for her numbers gaffe, it seems convenient the rich white man might escape this easily

Agree with this last part for sure. The trust part is important too - I'm not sure I actually trust the (more) innocent meaning was the one meant with this pillock. That said, I'd personally hold off the sadly so typical knee jerk trashing of everyone who (might) have said something poorly in the media/public. Actually, over time this sort of pathetic public trashing is damaging to just the sorts of things the trashers propose to want.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Steffan wrote:The right wing gammonheads are defending Rees-Mogg saying it's been "misinterpreted"

We all know full well if Corbyn or Abbot said this they would have gone crazy

You mean like the Mail calling Theresa May a traitor for her awful deal and yet Boris is Churchill when he puts forward the same thing ???

Yes. How anyone can read a newspaper that supported Adolf Hitler is beyond me

Steffan wrote:The right wing gammonheads are defending Rees-Mogg saying it's been "misinterpreted"

We all know full well if Corbyn or Abbot said this they would have gone crazy

And the left wing Marxists (see what I did there?) would no doubt defend those you mention. As if one side is somehow morally better than the other - they're all ****ing disgraceful.

Steffan wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Steffan wrote:The right wing gammonheads are defending Rees-Mogg saying it's been "misinterpreted"

We all know full well if Corbyn or Abbot said this they would have gone crazy

You mean like the Mail calling Theresa May a traitor for her awful deal and yet Boris is Churchill when he puts forward the same thing ???

Yes. How anyone can read a newspaper that supported Adolf Hitler is beyond me

Without defending the toilet paper that is the Mail, is that you how make decisions? On the basis of something someone said/wrote >80 years ago while viewing through a 21st century morals prism? Interesting approach. Ever wondered why the name 'Eugene' was so popular in Britain in the early 20th century? No, it wasn't solely due to the Mail's view on Mosley's blackshirts either...

navyblueshorts wrote:Without defending the toilet paper that is the Mail, is that you how make decisions? On the basis of something someone said/wrote >80 years ago while viewing through a 21st century morals prism?

No. I make decisions not to read newspaper that brand someone "Enemies of the People" just because they do not agree with the high court ruling. The Mail is part of the whole problem of things like online abuse and people living in fear. Abuse and fear...hmmm...not so different to 1940s Germany after all then

Steffan wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Without defending the toilet paper that is the Mail, is that you how make decisions? On the basis of something someone said/wrote >80 years ago while viewing through a 21st century morals prism?

No. I make decisions not to read newspaper that brand someone "Enemies of the People" just because they do not agree with the high court ruling. The Mail is part of the whole problem of things like online abuse and people living in fear. Abuse and fear...hmmm...not so different to 1940s Germany after all then

Fair point, apart from the fact that you should read the opinions of those you disagree with; otherwise you're just living in an echo chamber aren't you? Still, you read and post here, so not all bad!

Steffan wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Without defending the toilet paper that is the Mail, is that you how make decisions? On the basis of something someone said/wrote >80 years ago while viewing through a 21st century morals prism?

No. I make decisions not to read newspaper that brand someone "Enemies of the People" just because they do not agree with the high court ruling. The Mail is part of the whole problem of things like online abuse and people living in fear. Abuse and fear...hmmm...not so different to 1940s Germany after all then

Online abuse, so using terms like right wing gammonhead?

Soul Requiem wrote:Online abuse, so using terms like right wing gammonhead?

Yeah I love using to term right wing gammonhead as it gets all the right wing gammonheads annoyed

navyblueshorts wrote:
Fair point, apart from the fact that you should read the opinions of those you disagree with; otherwise you're just living in an echo chamber aren't you? Still, you read and post here, so not all bad!

I do have the occasional look if someone has left it on the pub bar. To be fair while I am what is classed as a left wing person (other people's words not mine)...I read the Independent online and find it to be a load of nonsense also just in an opposing way to a paper like the Mail

Johnson is getting an early christmas gift of the Lib Dems...

Seem to be putting out 'only the Lib Dems can stop the Tories here' leaflets in areas where Labour are 20,000 votes ahead of them..

Swinson must be hoping for a job in a Con/Lib coalition.

Steffan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Online abuse, so using terms like right wing gammonhead?

Yeah I love using to term right wing gammonhead as it gets all the right wing gammonheads annoyed

So you're not against online abuse at all but want to be seen to care?

Soul Requiem wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Online abuse, so using terms like right wing gammonhead?

Yeah I love using to term right wing gammonhead as it gets all the right wing gammonheads annoyed

So you're not against online abuse at all but want to be seen to care?

Yeah I am against it. I do not class calling someone a right wing gammonhead as online abuse

Steffan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Online abuse, so using terms like right wing gammonhead?

Yeah I love using to term right wing gammonhead as it gets all the right wing gammonheads annoyed

So you're not against online abuse at all but want to be seen to care?

Yeah I am against it. I do not class calling someone a right wing gammonhead as online abuse

Right...

I spy with my little eye a welsh nationalist gammonhead.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Online abuse, so using terms like right wing gammonhead?

Yeah I love using to term right wing gammonhead as it gets all the right wing gammonheads annoyed

So you're not against online abuse at all but want to be seen to care?

Yeah I am against it. I do not class calling someone a right wing gammonhead as online abuse

Right...

And I have never actually called someone a right wing gammonhead directly. I referred to people as right wing gammonhead . So it's hardly "abuse"

No name Bertie wrote:I spy with my little eye a welsh nationalist gammonhead.

Awww. If that comment was about me it's the best compliment I have had in ages

Maybe we can all get to talking about politics at some stage. We have all got five weeks of this to go

No name Bertie wrote:Maybe we can all get to talking about politics at some stage. We have all got five weeks of this to go

Sounds good to me. Who are you voting for?

My personal choice is to "remain" - so I will vote accordingly (lib dem). I live in a labour safe seat so effectively my vote is not going to make any difference one way or the other.

No name Bertie wrote:My personal choice is to "remain" - so I will vote accordingly (lib dem).  I live in a labour safe seat so effectively my vote is not going to make any difference one way or the other.

I am also a Remainer and will be voting Plaid Cymru who I am a paying member of unless we don't field a candidate to avoid competing with the Lib Dems. Labour has dominated my area for decades but I know a lot of Labour voters who have become disgruntled with Corbyn and they are very Leave also so not sure if it will be as comfortable this time

I'm usually Plaid, but after Paul Flynn's death and the subsequent by election, Newport West is only a majority of a couple of thousand for Labour over the Tories, so I'll probably be voting Labour this time around.

FWIW, I was thinking Green, just to roll the dice, but then they spouted utter bollox about spunking an uncosted £100bn p/a on 'climate action'. I am fed up to the back teeth with pretty much all of our politicians. Does anyone know if the Monster Raving Looney party is running this time around?

Maybe Lib Dems? Maybe spoil my ballot? All GEs need a 'None of the above' option; a bit like Brewster's Millions.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm usually Plaid, but after Paul Flynn's death and the subsequent by election, Newport West is only a majority of a couple of thousand for Labour over the Tories, so I'll probably be voting Labour this time around.

Just as I would be voting...Green/Lib Dem/SNP/PC/Labour or whoever else was second to the Tories in my area....Unfortunately my one vote is cancelled out by two for the Tories in my household usually.....But my Wife isn't voting this time.....

Hates the lot of them.

navyblueshorts wrote:FWIW, I was thinking Green, just to roll the dice, but then they spouted utter bollox about spunking an uncosted £100bn p/a on 'climate action'. I am fed up to the back teeth with pretty much all of our politicians. Does anyone know if the Monster Raving Looney party is running this time around?

Maybe Lib Dems? Maybe spoil my ballot? All GEs need a 'None of the above' option; a bit like Brewster's Millions.

British politicians have already more or less closed down all the British coal pits and British coal fired power stations and deindustrialised Britain - only to have many more coal pits and quarries opened up in India and China - and many more coal fired power stations built in India and China - now most of our products are built in factories in India or China and then shipped over in colossal oil burning shipping freighters. Energy produced by fossil fuel burning in India and China is dirt cheap compared to the energy we pay for in Britain. Net result Britain (and Europes) de-carbonising and de-industrialisation - is many times over outweighed by Indias and Chinas fossil fuel burning and industrialisation.

All this rebellion extinction activites makes zero difference - except people think they are doing something. But I don't blame them because they have been fed stories of climate change Armageddon and they have become scared out of all their senses.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The Mogg has surely got to be in trouble over his Grenfell chat? Disgraceful lizard

In a sane world he wouldnt even make it to an election before having the whip removed for bringing the party into disrepute.  Appalling person letting his mask of disdain for the poor slip.

Hang on a minute. I'm no fan of Mogg, at all, but this continual, modern, social media-driven habit of deliberately interpreting a remark as the worst it could possibly be is increasingly pathetic. The anti-Moggs (and I'm one, but not in a knee-jerk way such as appears to be happening here) have deliberately interpreted his remark as disparaging to the Grenfell families and victims. Personally, I initially read it as disparagement of the LFB's instructions to stay put and that it would common sense for Mogg, should he ever find himself in a remotely similar situation, to leave without awaiting instruction to do so. I'm more than happy to call him an arse on his apparent suggestion that it's 'common sense' to contradict the fire experts as that part is clear in his quote; the other interpretation, not so much.

Not directly related, but did I ever applaud Obama for his recent comments on this ****ing 'woke' culture:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50239261

It is the state of journalism - everything is presented in simplistic soap opera style caricature that bears little to no resemblance to reality.  We end up with the polarisation we see on social media with posters wishing death on old British people as per xxx's previous comments and imagining politicians as equivalent to Hitler, Oswald Mosley or Stalin.

Rees-Mogg, 50, said during the radio show: “The tragedy came about because of the cladding leading to the fire racing up the building and then was compounded by the stay put policy.

“And it seems to me that is the tragedy of it. That the more one’s read over the weekend about the report and about the chances of people surviving, if you just ignore what you’re told and leave, you are so much safer.

“I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building.

“It just seems the common sense thing to do and it’s such a tragedy that that didn’t happen but I don’t think it’s anything to do with race or class.”

He's worded it very poorly, if you 100% trust that is what he meant. I'm quite appalled he is too dumb to know better, or cares too little to try. I think it shows disrespect regardless, as well as attacking the fire service (again for his party).

Man is classless, and the comments were disgraceful. Considering Diane Abbott still gets attacked for her numbers gaffe, it seems convenient the rich white man might escape this easily

Agree with this last part for sure. The trust part is important too - I'm not sure I actually trust the (more) innocent meaning was the one meant with this pillock. That said, I'd personally hold off the sadly so typical knee jerk trashing of everyone who (might) have said something poorly in the media/public. Actually, over time this sort of pathetic public trashing is damaging to just the sorts of things the trashers propose to want.

I agree with the majority of this, but would add that this isn't JRM's first dalliance with silly billy. Although he got topped by Andrew Bridgen. Not a great start for the Tories, but one suspects Labour's internal issues and their (mainly) disgusting vocal internet support will turn a lot of people off. That and having Corbyn as a leader, although the term leader doesn't quite suit