General Election June 2017

I refuse to hope.

Rebellions are built on hope.

So are X-Factor auditions.

I say we get H2O to tell us what is going on, then believe the opposite.

pssst... the pollsters are in on it...
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/manifesto-destinies/

I thought it was a Haiku

Thank you Ivanka.
I am very proud of you.
I would date you hard.

#trump

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/manchester-attack-theresa-may-conspiracy-theory-rufus-hound-social-media

USA NATO
Bound in mutual alliance
Until Donald Trump

#TrumpHaikus

apparently from the ukip manifesto

is it bad that the only bit that surprises me / makes me think it's fake is use of the word taupe? Far too progressive a colour.

you know who else liked yellow adhesive stars...?

Fred Talbot?

This narrowing of the Tory lead is great, but I've still got the sense that it doesn't translate into seats for Labour. Labour's support is pretty heavily concentrated (ie. London constituencies like Hackney North where Abbott has a majority of around 24,000), while last time out the Tories won by narrow margins in a lot of places, converting their votes into MPs more efficiently. I wouldn't be surprised if last year's boundary changes were designed to amplify this effect.

'taupe'? Suzanne Evans' true (Farrow & Ball?), colours showing through?

I wouldn't be surprised if last year's boundary changes were designed to amplify this effect

I agree with this. However, worth noting that this years election is not using the new Boundarys which would, I think, disadvantage Labour otherwise.

The boundary change is also meant to correct already existing issues which favour Labour. Although I would suspect that the exact changes were a bit overzealous.

UKIP endorse Labour candidate in Wakefield

This is getting weird.

Proves a point tho.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/26/conservative-labour-tax-spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto

IFS in politicians lie shocker...

I think this is one of the times when the 'all politicians lie' attitude is just not helping; you've got an election which comes down to two parties. One party wants to privatise all the things and has mobilised troops on the streets in advance of an election; the other wants your grandmother to be able to keep her house when she needs care. I know, it's a tough call, but you'll have to decide which one is lying in your interest.

voting should merely be a list of unattributed key policies and you get to put a yes or no next to each one.

It's obvious Labour is too optimistic

But the IFS does not comment on the Tory benefit cuts: It's 11 bn that won't get put back into the UK economy either, as generally poor families have no pot to piss in, so everything gets spent.

The word "lies" is somewhat strong...

Absurdity from everyone attacking Corbyn's speech today:

JC: "Guilt still lies with terrorists, but foreign policy led to the an increased likliehood of attacks".

Tories and LDs: "rubbish rubbish, nothing to do with foreign policy, all guilt on the attackers, no link with Iraq war."

So why did we go to war in Iraq then? All guilt for that should be on us yes, if I understand you correctly? We are not allowed at all to attribute our military actions abroad to the behaviour of those regimes, by your own logic?

Facile wankers. Try actually joining a debate, you twunts.

Hasn't Johnson himself previously said that the Iraq war directly led to the conditions that allowed ISIS to prosper?

Even Tory bloggers have been pointing out that:

1. Jeremy Corbyn did not absolve the terrorist of any blame at all
   
2. Theresa May and Boris Johnson have both pointed out the negative repercussions of Britain's Middle East/North Africa foreign policy before
   
   

I feel kind of bad for the reprehensible cunts, they clearly got told Corbyn was going to make some inflammatory "It's all our fault, let's blame the armed forces and Blair" type speech, and when he didn't, they just went with what they prepared anyway. Now they look even more like clueless idiots. Shame the majority of the electorate seems to be too.

I have quite a few long term, involved, labour member friends who have been adamantly against JC since day one. As far as I can tell, it is because he is "unelectable" and will leave labour on the fringes for years.

As a thought experiment, I wonder what they would think of him were he to win the general election. Obviously, this is highly unlikely to happen, but more likely than two weeks / months / years ago.

I will ask them at some point.

Does anyone else on here fit into that category and would care to comment?

This is what happens when you try that... from voteforpolicies.org.uk after 2015 election

1 Attachment

A colleague of mine at work is a lovely man, and a Labour councillor, and we've long respectfully disagreed about Corbyn. His main complaints are about the trashing of Blair's legacy, which he thinks comes in for a disproportionate amount of hostility, and I think finds Corbyn in general a bit embarrassing.

At some points, I was in complete opposition to him, but earlier in the year I'd come to think that even though I was glad to have voted for Corbyn (twice), it was time for him to go.

Now, colleague and myself are both in agreement that he's done a cracking job on the campaign so far, and that the manifesto is a very good one. I'm really pleased that he's decided to put his reservations aside and throw his weight behind the party. Surely as momentum gathers more will do the same.

I might keep calling Jon Woodcock a cunt on Twitter till he fucks off though.