General Election Pre-Thread (1 of 6)

[markavfc40]

55 minutes ago, bickster said:

Why would he want 6 debates? He’s absolutely shite at them

I'd imagine he doesn't actually want 6 he just wants to try to score a few petty points by saying Starmer is running scared. The fact is Labour are just following the normal format.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I'd imagine he doesn't actually want 6 he just wants to try to score a few petty points by saying Starmer is running scared. The fact is Labour are just following the normal format.

Well there's that and I think the point about GBeebies has some validity too

[The Fun Factory]

2 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

Really don’t see why we have to have this conversation about how many debates we should be having every time. Infuriating. Just put something in legislation to say that they have to have them on BBC, ITV and Sky, maybe channel 4 so they reach the most amount of people and be done with it.

Really not sure why Sunak is suggesting 6 of them. Does he want one on GBeebies or something?

And put into legislation of having  fixed term parliaments not dissolved at the whim of the prime minister.

Oh wait.....

[desensitized43]

5 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

And put into legislation of having  fixed term parliaments not dissolved at the whim of the prime minister.

Oh wait.....

The FTPA was only ever designed as a method to keep the coalition together. Having the ability to call an election when the situation demands one is actually something pretty good about our system....there aren't many!

[tonyh29]

I'm kinda torn on this thread  , I do kinda like the old election thingy's and the late night posting on election night  , the Brexit vote was surprisingly compelling viewing , as was the last US election  , even Boris's landslide which caught me out a little  ,mainly as I when saw loads and loads of queues at every polling booth I went past , I took them be lefties galvanised into voting for Corbyn not secret Tories galvanised into keeping Corbyn out 

but equally , it gets a but tedious just seeing the word scum , how can anyone with a moral compass vote for them and all the other righteous bollocks  ( or should that be lefteous bollocks  ) 

anyway , toe dipped in the water 

on the debate thing , although he's more wooden than Pinocchio , Starmer is a better speaker then Sunak , so its a surprising strategy , guess Sunik's team are hoping there will be some gottcha moments on Palestine ,  immigration that might score him some points .. or the are so far behind they have nothing to lose 

Presumably Sunak will want to avoid the BBC for the debates though ,  as they will pack the audience with left wing students and party member like they always do with their political bias  

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24 by tonyh29

[ml1dch]

I thought this was very interesting on the "why now?" question:

Quote

 

It would be easy just to say “he’s a squillionaire, it doesn’t matter to him, he’ll get a tech job in California” but that on its own probably isn’t the only thing he cares about. Legacy, when you’re a less than one term Prime Minister who will probably lose an election is a complex idea, but it must still be important to him.

...

After the election the Tories will have a big fight on their hands over whether the surviving MPs lean into the hard-right populist nativism epitomised by Suella Braverman or something that is still just about in the mainstream. Sunak has pandered to the harder right elements in his party but it’s pretty clear that he’s more comfortable closer to the centre (I would’t overdo this: he is just a bit closer to the centre). And this is where the new podcast Quiet Riot offered a valuable insight. On it, panelist Luke Tryl explained that with a surprise election announcement and many Conservative MPs standing down, but the candidates for the coming election not yet all selected, the job of selection passes to the party leadership rather than the local party. This offers considerable power for Sunak to shape the future of his party by selecting candidates that match his outlook and ideology.

Had Sunak waited until October or even January he would not have had that power and the party activists would have picked candidates far more likely to be on the Braverman wing of the party. So perhaps the choice of date is the first round in the post-election battle for the future of the party.

 

 

[markavfc40]

30 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm kinda torn on this thread..........

but equally , it gets a but tedious just seeing the word scum , how can anyone with a moral compass vote for them and all the other righteous bollocks  ( or should that be lefteous bollocks  ) 

 

 

In fairness we are four pages into this thread and I don't think I've seen the word scum once (other than your post above and now mine) or anything else derogatory towards voting for any particular party. 

I fully expect there will be though towards those who have governed us over the last 14 years. We've had a government that has thrived on creating division, that has overseen huge rises in those living in poverty, including children, and an overall drop in the living standards for the masses, that has decimated our public services all whilst syphoning off money to their family, friends and donors. I think it is totally understandable that many people will see those responsible for that in a poor light and some choice words will deservedly be used towards them. They've been quite happy to spew out hateful bile and introduce divisive policies, a few derogatory words to describe them is not worth getting precious about. 

Edited May 24 by markavfc40

[bickster]

I can't work out why scum as an insult causes such an adverse reaction. In my lexicon its rather a mild insult.

I much prefer to use a phrase like haemorrhoid encrusted shit stain than just scum. I suppose the lack of creativity with scum might be an issue

But you are the layer of froth on top of a liquid is hardly the most hurtful thing is it?

[tonyh29]

16 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

In fairness we are four pages into this thread and I don't think I've seen the word scum once (other than your post above and now mine) or anything else derogatory towards voting for any particular party. 

I fully expect there will be though towards those who have governed us over the last 14 years. We've had a government that has thrived on creating division, that has overseen huge rises in those living in poverty, including children, and an overall drop in the living standards for the masses, that has decimated our public services all whilst syphoning off money to their family, friends and donors. I think it is totally understandable that many people will see those responsible for that in a poor light and some choice words will deservedly be used towards them. They've been quite happy to spew out hateful bile and introduce divisive policies, a few derogatory words to describe them is not worth getting precious about. 

tbh I meant general bolitics threads rather than this specific one , but as you say its only 4 pages long , you just need to be patient  

by all means call Sunik , Braverman , those responsible  etc a word removed if one so wishes  , the posts in those threads go way beyond that ..  for sure , being called scum by someone on the internet  isn't going to make my bottom lip wobble , but I just find it sad when you read posts (in those threads) suggesting that anyone who voted for or considers voting for them is a stain on society and should be rounded up for reduction in a camp or euthanised

I get politics is decisive , even myopic , for a site that boosts many that hate intolerance , those threads sure have a lot of intolerance

 

 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

for a site that boosts many that hate intolerance , those threads sure have a lot of intolerance

There's an absolute world of difference to hating something outside of peoples control (Like skin colour / sexuality etc), to hating things completely within their control (their poitics)

The Tories have been responsible for large scale premature deaths in this country but I should respect their opinions? Nah

[tonyh29]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

I can't work out why scum as an insult causes such an adverse reaction. In my lexicon its rather a mild insult.

I much prefer to use a phrase like haemorrhoid encrusted shit stain than just scum. I suppose the lack of creativity with scum might be an issue

But you are the layer of froth on top of a liquid is hardly the most hurtful thing is it?

it wasn't written in red , but does this mean mods are going to give a level of tolerance when one posts on another poster using this phrase   

I used scum as its the word of choice , but yeah in itself its not that big a deal , but  think the connotations of the use of the word Tory Scum are as much the problem rather than the word itself 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

those threads sure have a lot of intolerance

Intolerance of intolerance, perhaps?  Like you say, Bravermann and those throbby types deserve the labels they get. Same with the lockdown law breakers, the PPE profiteers, the liars, the parliamentary code breakers, the tractor porn viewers, the grifters, the drunken Johnson acolytes, the unlawful conduct crew…

”Scum” hurts because for many of them it’s piercingly accurate. For others, you’re right, it’s not.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

does this mean mods are going to give a level of tolerance when one posts on another poster using this phrase 

abuse of people posting on VT is not the same thing as people abusing public figures for actions they've done

Abusing people you are talking to / debating with as members of the site does not lead to a great discourse

Abusing for example Sue-Ellen Braverman for generally being a horrendous person with dreadful policies and opinions is not the same thing at all.

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Intolerance of intolerance, perhaps?  Like you say, Bravermann and those throbby types deserve the labels they get. Same with the lockdown law breakers, the PPE profiteers, the liars, the parliamentary code breakers, the tractor porn viewers, the grifters, the drunken Johnson acolytes, the unlawful conduct crew…

”Scum” hurts because for many of them it’s piercingly accurate. For others, you’re right, it’s not.

I'm thinking I didn't word my original  post correctly  , I've no problem with people calling those responsible anything they want ,  I was really referring to comments over the years aimed at people who have expressed being in favour of those parties , i.e voters  , or even those trying to offer counter arguments inside the old echo chamber  

at a slight tangent , but addressing your last sentence  ...  I'm sure you made some good arguments at the time for why someone could consider voting Leave , I know some other posters made similar reasoning ...Ok you ultimately decided those reasons weren't a strong enough case  to vote leave  , but indeed I actually voted leave based on those reason  , but thus I'm a throbber , a gammon , brexit nobber and so on , nobody cared that I voted leave based on the some of the very same reasons you yourself maybe considered  ..

that's the kinda one perspective that I'm sorta trying to put across in the last few posts , all be it not very well  

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm thinking I didn't word my original  post correctly  , I've no problem with people calling those responsible anything they want ,  I was really referring to comments over the years aimed at people who have expressed being in favour of those parties , i.e voters  , or even those trying to offer counter arguments inside the old echo chamber  

at a slight tangent , but addressing your last sentence  ...  I'm sure you made some good arguments at the time for why someone could consider voting Leave , I know some other posters made similar reasoning ...Ok you ultimately decided those reasons weren't a strong enough case  to vote leave  , but indeed I actually voted leave based on those reason  , but thus I'm a throbber , a gammon , brexit nobber and so on , nobody cared that I voted leave based on the some of the very same reasons you yourself maybe considered  ..

that's the kinda one perspective that I'm sorta trying to put across in the last few posts , all be it not very well  

Tony I don't think anyone would see you as that. Our politics have never appeared to align but I'd certainly not ever see you as any of those things.

I think the trouble with anything like this is that in the Brexit example any racist, xenophobe, little Englander who can often be described as gammon or a throbber etc would almost certainly have voted leave but it doesn't mean that everybody who did vote leave was also any of those things. I have sympathy as to why people get quite defensive as they feel that they are being tarred with an unjust brush.

Are all Tory voters scum, no of course not and it is quite clear that there are a lot of Tories who are appalled by the way their party have governed and in general acted in recent years and have zero intention of voting for them in the foreseeable future. There will also of course be those who don't think they've been nasty/xenophobic/destructive enough and are now looking further to the right to put their X. Again though it comes back to that some Tory voters are being tarred with that same nasty, selfish, racist etc element that do vote for them and I can see why they'd be upset about being aligned with those people. 

Bottom line is though, given what has happened over the last 14 years, how anyone in their right mind can step into a booth and vote Tory in this upcoming election, and therefore endorse what has gone before and sign up for more of the same, is totally bewildering to me and you'd have to seriously question the reasoning and character of anyone doing so. How does the saying go, fool me once shame on you fool me two, three, four times a whole heap of shame on me. 

Edited May 24 by markavfc40

[bickster]

 

[mjmooney]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

Well, she lost. So, yeah. 

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

abuse of people posting on VT is not the same thing as people abusing public figures for actions they've done

Abusing people you are talking to / debating with as members of the site does not lead to a great discourse

Abusing for example Sue-Ellen Braverman for generally being a horrendous person with dreadful policies and opinions is not the same thing at all.

I wasn't being serious , but  it kinda doesn't work when you quote me and leave out the   part of my post 

 

[The Fun Factory]

If he hasn't already been found that I think this GE campaign will do so for Sunak. He is a poor campaigner and speaker with no real philosophy. He only got the PM job due to lettuce Liz being such a disaster. 

No common touch and he doesn't even really like the media to be in his PR stunts either. Starmer isn't exactly Mr Charisma but looks far more a Prime Minister than Sunak already.

[Jareth]

Not sure I could last 1 debate between Starmer and Sunak - the pair are awful speakers.