The Next General Election.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Jo Swinson is currently getting a grilling on GMB on ITV!

[Raja Clavata]

On 04/12/2019 at 19:14, Mr_Nobody said:

I like to think I do.

Remainers are afraid of losing money, either personally or as part of the UK GDP. You're afraid of losing political influence across the globe. Very bluntly you're afraid of changing the status quo.

I'm not even afraid to say they could be correct in some of their assumptions.

What I don't understand is their willingness to overturn a democratic decision (Yes I know "it's just more democracy"). To overturn it makes a mockery of our so called democratic society, which to my mind would be indefensible. 

I think it's easy for all of us to fall into the trap of generalising at times.

Personally, I have no issue embracing change but normally advocate doing so when the positives outweigh the negatives - I don't see that happening with Brexit.

As I have stated before, for me the big lesson on Brexit is that it has highlighted that the EU and Brexit are, or at least might, quite possibly be the least of our concerns.

Besides the overturning of a democratic decision, I don't see where the tangible benefits for the common man will come from in Brexit, I wonder if deep down it's now more to do with being a matter of principle. 

[grrclark]

6 hours ago, Scully said:

🙂 He’s anything but subtle. Great to watch! Missed the end as OH is getting a bit sick of politics now, so it was turned over for something nice and fluffy like Welcome to the Chateau, or similar! 😃

It was only the end that I actually caught.  I’ve not seen any of the interviews so far, just read snippets about them afterwards.

I am by any measure an enthusiastic current affairs and politics follower, but there is simply nothing new being discussed on any of these shows and so i’ve not bothered watching any of them.  Not even seeing Sturgeon and Corbyn squirm is worth it.  I am also entirely unconvinced that it makes a difference.

I suspect that we are going to see a particularly poor turnout for this election as there is so much political fatigue, i also think there is a general fear that we will remain politically deadlocked so folk are resigned to that and not bothering also.  I hope i’m wrong.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

It was only the end that I actually caught.  I’ve not seen any of the interviews so far, just read snippets about them afterwards.

I am by any measure an enthusiastic current affairs and politics follower, but there is simply nothing new being discussed on any of these shows and so i’ve not bothered watching any of them.  Not even seeing Sturgeon and Corbyn squirm is worth it.  I am also entirely unconvinced that it makes a difference.

I suspect that we are going to see a particularly poor turnout for this election as there is so much political fatigue, i also think there is a general fear that we will remain politically deadlocked so folk are resigned to that and not bothering also.  I hope i’m wrong.

I only caught the first ten minutes or so, and all I have seen of the others was a thirty second stint of AN’s brutal mauling of Sturgeon regarding alcoholism in Scotland etc, before turning it over. 
I too am usually quite keen to see politicians squirm, but am also convinced it means nothing ultimately. I’ve even given up on Question Time, which I used to enjoy enormously.

My only concern about voter apathy, and this GE, is that if polls put any particular party out front with a significant lead, voters will consider it a done deal and not bother. 

[Retsdon]

I've come to the conclusion that journalists like Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman are part of the problem. It's one thing for interviewers to stop politicians dissembling, or parroting sound bites instead of answering the question put to them. Of course that's fine. That's their job. It's quite another thing though when 'star' interviewers, from the outset, simply bait their political guests purely for the ghoulish amusement of viewers. When every question is an elephant trap, and when every guest's attempts to try and answer with nuance or to explain that things aren't always so black and white is met with the repeated hammering of some 'trick' question, then the democratic process gets undermined.

It does so in several ways. Firstly, the public never gets a chance to actually hear what the politician has to say because he or she never gets to develop a theme before they're being set upon. Secondly, (as if there were any need for their stock to sink lower) politicians are made figures of fun and contempt. And whatever one might think of some of them that's not healthy for anyone. The people who run the country should, unless they've actively forfeited the privilege , be granted at least a modicum of respect. Otherwise the whole country becomes like a sink estate school. Thirdly, and most importantly, if politicians are routinely going to be treated with contempt, bullied on national TV, and made figures of fun - then what kind of normal person would ever choose to pursue a political career? You're going to end up with only sociopaths and self-serving climbers. Why would anyone who was decent and with any dignity subject themselves to this ritual national humiliation? 

I'm no fan of Boris Johnson's but I can see his point in telling Andrew Neil to stick his show.

[KB1]

27 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I've come to the conclusion that journalists like Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman are part of the problem. It's one thing for interviewers to stop politicians dissembling, or parroting sound bites instead of answering the question put to them. Of course that's fine. That's their job. It's quite another thing though when 'star' interviewers, from the outset, simply bait their political guests purely for the ghoulish amusement of viewers. When every question is an elephant trap, and when every guest's attempts to try and answer with nuance or to explain that things aren't always so black and white is met with the repeated hammering of some 'trick' question, then the democratic process gets undermined.

It does so in several ways. Firstly, the public never gets a chance to actually hear what the politician has to say because he or she never gets to develop a theme before they're being set upon. Secondly, (as if there were any need for their stock to sink lower) politicians are made figures of fun and contempt. And whatever one might think of some of them that's not healthy for anyone. The people who run the country should, unless they've actively forfeited the privilege , be granted at least a modicum of respect. Otherwise the whole country becomes like a sink estate school. Thirdly, and most importantly, if politicians are routinely going to be treated with contempt, bullied on national TV, and made figures of fun - then what kind of normal person would ever choose to pursue a political career? You're going to end up with only sociopaths and self-serving climbers. Why would anyone who was decent and with any dignity subject themselves to this ritual national humiliation? 

I'm no fan of Boris Johnson's but I can see his point in telling Andrew Neil to stick his show.

Fair point👍

[Rewulf]

If channel 4 can get away with it... 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

16 hours ago, Retsdon said:

I've come to the conclusion that journalists like Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman are part of the problem. It's one thing for interviewers to stop politicians dissembling, or parroting sound bites instead of answering the question put to them. Of course that's fine. That's their job. It's quite another thing though when 'star' interviewers, from the outset, simply bait their political guests purely for the ghoulish amusement of viewers. When every question is an elephant trap, and when every guest's attempts to try and answer with nuance or to explain that things aren't always so black and white is met with the repeated hammering of some 'trick' question, then the democratic process gets undermined.

It does so in several ways. Firstly, the public never gets a chance to actually hear what the politician has to say because he or she never gets to develop a theme before they're being set upon. Secondly, (as if there were any need for their stock to sink lower) politicians are made figures of fun and contempt. And whatever one might think of some of them that's not healthy for anyone. The people who run the country should, unless they've actively forfeited the privilege , be granted at least a modicum of respect. Otherwise the whole country becomes like a sink estate school. Thirdly, and most importantly, if politicians are routinely going to be treated with contempt, bullied on national TV, and made figures of fun - then what kind of normal person would ever choose to pursue a political career? You're going to end up with only sociopaths and self-serving climbers. Why would anyone who was decent and with any dignity subject themselves to this ritual national humiliation? 

I'm no fan of Boris Johnson's but I can see his point in telling Andrew Neil to stick his show.

I see it as all part of the General election build up for the people of Britain, don't like it don't watch it!

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

I've come to the conclusion that journalists like Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman are part of the problem. It's one thing for interviewers to stop politicians dissembling, or parroting sound bites instead of answering the question put to them. Of course that's fine. That's their job. It's quite another thing though when 'star' interviewers, from the outset, simply bait their political guests purely for the ghoulish amusement of viewers. When every question is an elephant trap, and when every guest's attempts to try and answer with nuance or to explain that things aren't always so black and white is met with the repeated hammering of some 'trick' question, then the democratic process gets undermined.

It does so in several ways. Firstly, the public never gets a chance to actually hear what the politician has to say because he or she never gets to develop a theme before they're being set upon. Secondly, (as if there were any need for their stock to sink lower) politicians are made figures of fun and contempt. And whatever one might think of some of them that's not healthy for anyone. The people who run the country should, unless they've actively forfeited the privilege , be granted at least a modicum of respect. Otherwise the whole country becomes like a sink estate school. Thirdly, and most importantly, if politicians are routinely going to be treated with contempt, bullied on national TV, and made figures of fun - then what kind of normal person would ever choose to pursue a political career? You're going to end up with only sociopaths and self-serving climbers. Why would anyone who was decent and with any dignity subject themselves to this ritual national humiliation? 

I'm no fan of Boris Johnson's but I can see his point in telling Andrew Neil to stick his show.

 

Got to agree. The electorate decides who will win, not Andrew Neil. This campaign has been run on presidential lines.

[Retsdon]

Interesting blog post today from Richard North. He looks at s a growing factor in British politics that it's impolite to talk about. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87448#disqus_thread

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Interesting blog post today from Richard North. He looks at s a growing factor in British politics that it's impolite to talk about. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87448#disqus_thread

Its not really a 'growing' factor , its been like this for 20 odd years.

And its not 'impolite' to talk about it, its downright dangerous in these PC times, no one DARES  mention it in the media, for fear of being tarred with the racist brush.

What is massively important, is labours loss of the Jewish endorsement , something they seem to care little about ?
I will say it outright, labour have gone for the Muslim vote over the Jewish, purely on a numbers basis, knowing they cant keep both.

[Mice!]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

What is massively important, is labours loss of the Jewish endorsement , something they seem to care little about ?
I will say it outright, labour have gone for the Muslim vote over the Jewish, purely on a numbers basis, knowing they cant keep both.

Makes sense, there was something on the telly last week saying how the black and Asian vote was huge but the group generally had a very poor turn out, they gave the group a name using initials but I can't remember what the others were.

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Makes sense, there was something on the telly last week saying how the black and Asian vote was huge but the group generally had a very poor turn out, they gave the group a name using initials but I can't remember what the others were.

Do you mean BAME or the new version BME.?

Black or minority ethnic, a buzz phrase to differentiate between whites and non whites, from the same people who bleat about inclusivity and equality. 

If you treat someone differently because of race ,religion  or colour, that's not being inclusive or furthering equality,  you are creating mental ghettos, and division.

Both sides use this as a vote catcher, but labour have always tried to target the diversity vote, its got tired , and in recent years they've had to lose one section , as that section is in conflict with another.

For the many , not the few...a cynical numbers game, riddled with hypocrisy. 

[Mice!]

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Do you mean BAME or the new version BME.?

Black or minority ethnic, a buzz phrase to differentiate between whites and non whites, from the same people who bleat about inclusivity and equality. 

If you treat someone differently because of race ,religion  or colour, that's not being inclusive or furthering equality,  you are creating mental ghettos, and division.

Both sides use this as a vote catcher, but labour have always tried to target the diversity vote, its got tired , and in recent years they've had to lose one section , as that section is in conflict with another.

For the many , not the few...a cynical numbers game, riddled with hypocrisy. 

Might have been BAMI black asian muslim Indian but I'm not sure. 

[panoma1]

(BAME) Black and minority ethnic!

[ditchman]

(N.L.F.)....Norfolk Liberation Front

[Scully]

26 minutes ago, ditchman said:

D(N.L.F.)....Norfolk Liberation Front

😂😂👍It probably isn’t that funny ( but it tickled me ) but I’m in the the pub! 🙂

Edited December 7, 2019 by Scully

[Raja Clavata]

13 hours ago, Rewulf said:

If channel 4 can get away with it... 

 

The one with JRM in the same pose is far more apt.

[Rewulf]

8 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

The one with JRM in the same pose is far more apt.

Mogg doesn't associate with terrorists and despots though. 

Whilst proclaiming a failed political ideology to be the way forward. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Jo Swinson on BBC Breakfast this morning the absolutely UNDEMOCRATIC, NON LIBERAL, Liberal Democrat Leader spouting her carp!

[Rewulf]

Corbyns won an award! 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-group-names-uks-corbyn-top-anti-semite-of-2019/

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Corbyns won an award! 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-group-names-uks-corbyn-top-anti-semite-of-2019/

The party must be very proud!

It would appear that the whole of the BBC has gone to Crewe in order to fill air time with the General Election carp.

Surely there cannot be many voters who haven't made up their minds?

[Mice!]

16 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

The party must be very proud!

It would appear that the whole of the BBC has gone to Crewe in order to fill air time with the General Election carp.

Surely there cannot be many voters who haven't made up their minds?

I'm watching Jeremy Vine having breakfast,  people are calling in saying Labour, and hoping for a hung parliament???

We were out yesterday at a kids party, some of the parents were very disillusioned with the election,  probably because Brexit has gone on for so long, now its another Election,  could it be a poor turnout?

[hedge]

47 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I'm watching Jeremy Vine having breakfast,  people are calling in saying Labour, and hoping for a hung parliament???

We were out yesterday at a kids party, some of the parents were very disillusioned with the election,  probably because Brexit has gone on for so long, now its another Election,  could it be a poor turnout?

I think that when you watch other people having their breakfast they call that Voyeurism 😉

As for the election - they said on the radio this morning that it's really just a Brexit based election and all the other manifesto pledges are less likely to influence voters.

A lot of voters may be apathetic about it (who'd blame them) but I think it is vital that we get a majority Govt who can at least get Brexit done or revoked. It needs sorting and another hung parliament gets us nowhere. The uncertainty is causing economic stagnation and businesses just want to know either way what is happening.

It does feel like the `best of a bad bunch` and I don't warm to any of the leaders. I do know who I don't want in charge and that has influenced me and may cause other protest votes. Who knows. I think it is currently a very open election, although apparently some polls suggest less so.

I'm hoping for a high turnout but who knows. If we get a turnout of less than 60%, the 40% who didn't vote can't really complain.

 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, hedge said:

I think it is vital that we get a majority Govt who can at least get Brexit done or revoked.

Agree we need a majority - and it needs to be one to get Brexit done - simply to close of the loop on the outcome of the referendum.  I voted Remain, but you cannot just ignore a referendum that was approved my a larger majority of Parliament and participated in by a large turnout of voters and gave a clear (if not huge) decision.

3 minutes ago, hedge said:

It needs sorting and another hung parliament gets us nowhere.

Exactly

4 minutes ago, hedge said:

The uncertainty is causing economic stagnation and businesses just want to know either way what it is happening.