General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Leroy42

Harry Palmr wrote: »

That rather pathetic by the BBC.

To be fair, it is perfectly reasonable and normal that the sitting PM would address the nation when an incident like this occurs.

What will be telling is how the BBC handle it. IMO they should let him talk about COBRA, the threat level, the bravery of the citizens, the loss of the people killed etc.

Once he starts, or attempts to discuss politics, such as the line about 20k more police etc, Marr should immediately shut him down on the basis that this is not the time for campaigning, that he has a perfectly available opportunity with Neil to discuss whatever crime policies he likes.

In one way this is incident is politically good for the Tories. It will highlight peoples fears of Corbyn which are very much there.

However on the other, Johnson has now giving multiple interviews (rightly) about this but only a few days ago was saying he was far too busy to take part in debates or interviews. And as others have pointed out, he open himself up, as previous foreign secretary, to questions about what he did to deal with this in his time as FS and does picking picks with Muslims really help reduce the risk?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't say he was "going to disband the army" as a matter of policy, but that he believes that all armies should be abolished, including the UKs.

He does not understand the important value that an army brings. He sees armies as something to be eliminated, rather than as a positive force when it needs to be used.

Ok, no need for the semantical twist. You said he was in favour of disbanding the army but dont, far as i see, have a link to prove it. Lets leave it at that.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

The Conservatives aren't a monolith. How they exist today - with Johnson and Patel and their policies - is very different to the party and policies of 2010.

That's true. They are much more right wing and authoritarian now. But they have both been part of previous governments.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok, no need for the semantical twist. You said he was in favour of disbanding the army but dont, far as i see, have a link to prove it. Lets leave it at that.

The quote and link above is even worse than what he said about the UK.

It's not just the UK army he wants disbanded, but everyone else's army too.

That demonstrates a naivity that simply doesn't work with reality. In the real world, which is chaotic and replete with danger, the nation-state needs an army. Of course, there are other functions for an army, too, but the military component is not one that you can readily dismiss.

The fact that Corbyn can't grasp this reality means that he is automatically compromising the national security of the UK, placing more power into his opponents hands because they know perfectly well that Corbyn will never hold a foreign power to account, no matter what the crime or level of evil committed.

This is not a small issue.

Swating it away as a matter of "semantical twists" is not a serious response.

Joe_ Public

Is it a good or bad position for Marr to be in? Cant be great for his ego that he's being basically portrayed as Andrew Neil-lite. So people going to be watching and judging his performance as much as johnsons. Does he allow johnson to use yesterdays terror attack to appear tough and presidential or does he grill him on the hard questions pertaining to it? Tough decisions for marr to make.

Slowyourrole

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is it a good or bad position for Marr to be in? Cant be great for his ego that he's being basically portrayed as Andrew Neil-lite. So people going to be watching and judging his performance as much as johnsons. Does he allow johnson to use yesterdays terror attack to appear tough and presidential or does he grill him on the hard questions pertaining to it? Tough decisions for marr to make.

Absolutely. Even Andrew Neill would have a hard time pressing him 48 hours after the attack.

Strazdas

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Absolutely. Even Andrew Neill would have a hard time pressing him 48 hours after the attack.

I'm not certain the London Bridge attack can be considered a 'huge' story though. Yes, it made all the front pages but it's not on the scale of the previous bridge attack or other terrorist atrocities such as the Manchester Arena bombing (and it has come against the backdrop of zero terrorist incidents this year).

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say he was "going to disband the army" as a matter of policy, but that he believes that all armies should be abolished, including the UKs.

He does not understand the important value that an army brings. He sees armies as something to be eliminated, rather than as a positive force when it needs to be used.

The Swiss held at least one referendum on disbanding the army (1989), it defeated as expected but afaik that was the 3rd such referendum they held.

I think it's an unfeasible idea tbh - although if one has to have a military - and I think one does - the Swiss model of it being organised around military service by citizens (or comparable service for conscientious objectors/ extra tax paid by those who do not 'serve' ) is quite good. They have a 'basic' of around 3,000 full time personnel and a trained populace ready to be called up immediately should the need arise.
When you consider the amount of money spent by some countries on the 'permanent' military when there are other areas chronically underfunded it makes a very strong argument to at least cut back/change the model. And lets be honest - if a country is paying out for a large military complex then they are going to have to 'use it' to justify that expense.

beggars_bush

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Swiss held at least one referendum on disbanding the army (1989), it defeated as expected but afaik that was the 3rd such referendum they held.

I think it's an unfeasible idea tbh - although if one has to have a military - and I think one does - the Swiss model of it being organised around military service by citizens (or comparable service for conscientious objectors/ extra tax paid by those who do not 'serve' ) is quite good. They have a 'basic' of around 3,000 full time personnel and a trained populace ready to be called up immediately should the need arise.
When you consider the amount of money spent by some countries on the 'permanent' military when there are other areas chronically underfunded it makes a very strong argument to at least cut back/change the model. And lets be honest - if a country is paying out for a large military complex then they are going to have to 'use it' to justify that expense.

Brits cannot disband the army

They've invaded and pissed off too many other countries and groups of people around the world.

It comes back to bite you eventually

Personality matters in a General Election campaign, too.

Corbyn appears to have lost any buzz or excitement he had in the 2017 election. He now gives the impression that he's tired or bored or just not enjoying politics at all - and people simply do not like the pessimism he comes out with.

Whereas Johnson has an infectious style of sense of humour.

After 3 years of Brexit, many people simply want this type of political relief.

Not miserable May or crowing Corbyn, but jolly Johnson.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Personality matters in a General Election campaign, too.

Corbyn appears to have lost any buzz or excitement he had in the 2017 election. He now gives the impression that he's tired or bored or just not enjoying politics at all - and people simply do not like the pessimism he comes out with.

Whereas Johnson has an infectious style of sense of humour.

After 3 years of Brexit, many people simply want this type of political relief.

Not miserable May or crowing Corbyn, but jolly Johnson.

Yet, according to the sofa sitters on Gogglebox the general consensus was 'look at the state of him" - not jolly, disheveled and bumbling was their opinion.

Those are actual British voters. Not some Boris fan-boy who won't have to live under any government lead by him so I think their opinion counts rather more than yours tbh.

Strazdas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet, according to the sofa sitters on Gogglebox the general consensus was 'look at the state of him" - not jolly, disheveled and bumbling was their opinion.

Those are actual British voters. Not some Boris fan-boy who won't have to live under any government lead by him so I think their opinion counts rather more than yours tbh.

He has been terrible in this campaign....a poor speaker and full of hot air and waffle.

I suspect one of the reasons the Tories are stalling in the polls is because Johnson is so bad on the campaign trail and on TV.

ArmaniJeanss

BMG.
Wowsers, getting fun now.
Previous figures from a week ago.

Conservatives 39% (-2)
Labour 33% (+5)
Lib Dems 13% (-5)
Brexit 4% (+1)
Green 5% (-)

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

After 3 years of Brexit, many people simply want this type of political relief.

Point of information: no-one has had any Brexit to date - that is all yet to come.

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

BMG.
Wowsers, getting fun now.
Previous figures from a week ago.

Conservatives 39% (-2)
Labour 33% (+5)
Lib Dems 13% (-5)
Brexit 4% (+1)
Green 5% (-)

Thats nice for the greens. Would like to see them get another couple of seats and even possibly get the chance to have a say in government.

L1011

There's only one other seat the Greens have any chance of winning. Which I can't remember and I'm somewhere with very poor internet..

An Ciarraioch

L1011 wrote: »

There's only one other seat the Greens have any chance of winning. Which I can't remember and I'm somewhere with very poor internet..

Usually either Norwich or Bristol West, though Isle of Wight is reportedly in play this time.

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Usually either Norwich or Bristol West, though Isle of Wight is reportedly in play this time.

Bristol West is the likliest but they're fighting labour there and labour is strong on the climate issue so looks a hard task. Still, remain hopeful they can cause a shock somewhere and get another mp, isle of wight is a possibility alright.

L1011

Bristol West the one I was thinking of.

IoW has the largest electorate for a single seat and had a reputation of being willing to vote for a donkey based on rosette colour (blue) so taking that would be a huge scalp

fly_agaric

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

BMG.
Wowsers, getting fun now.
Previous figures from a week ago.

Conservatives 39% (-2)
Labour 33% (+5)
Lib Dems 13% (-5)
Brexit 4% (+1)
Green 5% (-)

Oh my God...have not been following the polls very closely but was hoping Conservatives would win a (healthy) majority. Not so good for Ireland but ultimately would bring clarity and we can go foward on that basis. Will Brexit ever end and will it consume bottomless amounts of time & resources in the EU (and especially here in Ireland) for ever more? I wish someone would just lock all the MPs in conclave with no food until they produce some Brexit white smoke out the top of Big Ben.

Strazdas

fly_agaric wrote: »

Oh my God...have not been following the polls very closely but was hoping Conservatives would win a (healthy) majority. Not so good for Ireland but ultimately would bring clarity and we can go foward on that basis. Will Brexit ever end and will it consume bottomless amounts of time & resources in the EU (and especially here in Ireland) for ever more? I wish someone would just lock all the MPs in conclave with no food until they produce some Brexit white smoke out the top of Big Ben.

I think Johnson failing to get a majority would kill Brexit stone dead.

Where would be the mandate for it? Johnson would have seen his 'Get Brexit done' manifesto rejected and we would now be four years after the referendum.

fly_agaric

Strazdas wrote: »

I think Johnson failing to get a majority would kill Brexit stone dead.

Where would be the mandate for it? Johnson would have seen his 'Get Brexit done' manifesto rejected and we would now be four years after the referendum.

Scenario could be some unholy coalition franken-government with Johnson, Brexit Party and the DUP hanging by a thread would it not? Would the rest of the rag bag of parties be able to put anything together?

In that case, what we've had for the last few years (vacillation with Brexit neither delivered or cancelled) would continue (unless Macron or some other EU leader calls a halt just cuts the UK's lifeline)

BonnieSituation

fly_agaric wrote: »

Scenario could be some unholy coalition franken-government with Johnson, Brexit Party and the DUP hanging by a thread would it not? Would the rest of the rag bag of parties be able to put anything together?

In that case, what we've had for the last few years (vacillation with Brexit neither delivered or cancelled) would continue (unless Macron or some other EU leader calls a halt just cuts the UK's lifeline)

BXP will have barely a seat.

fly_agaric

BonnieSituation wrote: »

BXP will have barely a seat.

I'll take your word for it...as said have not being following along very much and don't know any constituency-level detail.

fly_agaric

Strazdas wrote: »

I think Johnson failing to get a majority would kill Brexit stone dead.

Where would be the mandate for it? Johnson would have seen his 'Get Brexit done' manifesto rejected and we would now be four years after the referendum.

Yes, if the rest can put aside their differences & put a government together + get the Conservatives out that should be the end of it for now but I wonder if they will be able to do that?

Also, that outcome may be quite convenient & tidy for Ireland (in the short term) but am very unsure if the UK remaining as a member of the EU now after all that has happened is really for the best. Certainly for the EU itself, less sure about the UK.

sid waddell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

BXP will have barely a seat.

Always expected them to get 0. A general election is a completely different ball game to European elections.

Small parties need absolutely exceptional candidates in order to take a seat.

Caroline Lucas is rare example.

The Brexit party have precisely 0 exceptional candidates.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Always expected them to get 0. A general election is a completely different ball game to European elections.

Small parties need absolutely exceptional candidates in order to take a seat.

Caroline Lucas is rare example.

The Brexit party have precisely 0 exceptional candidates.

And Abbott, Long-Bailey, McDonnell, Dawn Butler, and Emily Thornberry are shining examples of "exceptional candidates"?

They would collectively struggle to say the alphabet in order.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

And Abbott, Long-Bailey, McDonnell, Dawn Butler, and Emily Thornberry are shining examples of "exceptional candidates"?

They would collectively struggle to say the alphabet in order.

I'm sure there are other forums, and there's always social media, if you just want to have a rant about how much you hate Labour.

You also clearly didn't read my previous post.

sid waddell

Here's an "exceptional" candidate, alright: sitting Tory MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Simon Hart.

He's been adding swastikas to his own election poster in an attempt to smear Labour.

You don't get many candidates adding swastikas to their posters, I can't think of any ever before, actually, but the Tories have somehow found one...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/simon-hart-pembrokeshire-swastika-graffiti-nazi-sympathy-election-christina-rees-a9226291.html

ArmaniJeanss

ComRes going in the opposite direction.
Poll taken Wednesday and Thursday this week, +- is from last weekend.

CON: 43% (+2)
LAB: 33% (-1)
LDEM: 13% (-)
BREX: 4% (-1)
GRN: 3% (+1)