UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

How do you intend to vote in the 2019 General Election if eligible?

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 30 4.3%
  • Conservatives

    Votes: 73 10.6%
  • DUP

    Votes: 5 0.7%
  • Green

    Votes: 23 3.3%
  • Labour

    Votes: 355 51.4%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 58 8.4%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 1.3%
  • SNP

    Votes: 19 2.8%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 6 0.9%
  • Independent

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • Other (BNP, Change UK, UUP and anyone else that I have forgotten)

    Votes: 10 1.4%
  • Not voting

    Votes: 57 8.3%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 41 5.9%

  • Total voters
    690
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Research shows very little evidence of this relief incentivizing activity. Research commissioned by HMRC showed that just 8% of respondents who claimed the relief were influenced by it at the point of investment (page 24).

https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/663877/HMRC_Report_456_CGT_ER.pdf

And the OTS found " ... no evidence that Entrepreneurs’ Relief encourages further investment in new business ventures." Page 41.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...99972/OTS_Business_Lifecycle_report_final.pdf

You're being disingenuous. Half of all people aware of Entrepreneurs' Relief at the time of their investment say that said investment was influenced by the relief. Over a quarter (28%) of them say it was the reason they invested in the first place.

You can also guess who the people are who're aware of the relief. They aren't someone opening a candle shop on the high street who never even considered the possibility of such a relief being relevant to them (or that they would ever create meaningful wealth/jobs). They're people investing serious money into industry that without said relief could/would go elsewhere.

This is why the studies you quote are redundant. Anyone with substantial money to invest is aware of ER and anyone aware of ER realises it's importance to investment.

It's like saying Labour will win a huge majority based on a Redcafe poll.

/Edit: I'd also question the respondents. I imagine by the very nature of the type of (lengthy) study a disproportionate amount of people with modest investments would respond compared with very wealthy investors.
 
Last edited:
Johnson was better than I expected - he must have stayed off the booze last night and remembered to say “get Brexit done” 45 times. Corbyn failed to land any big punches. Why did he not go for the jugular by quoting some of Johnson’s racist/homophobic lines, his paternal irresponsibility, the Russian connections or his misuse of public money with that pole dancer/ IT consultant?
 
Johnson was better than I expected - he must have stayed off the booze last night and remembered to say “get Brexit done” 45 times. Corbyn failed to land any big punches. Why did he not go for the jugular by quoting some of Johnson’s racist/homophobic lines, his paternal irresponsibility, the Russian connections or his misuse of public money with that pole dancer/ IT consultant?
Hasn't this been Labour policy since Brown? Just let people talk shit about you but don't fight back.
 
Johnson was better than I expected - he must have stayed off the booze last night and remembered to say “get Brexit done” 45 times. Corbyn failed to land any big punches. Why did he not go for the jugular by quoting some of Johnson’s racist/homophobic lines, his paternal irresponsibility, the Russian connections or his misuse of public money with that pole dancer/ IT consultant?
I don’t think he’d lose any popularity if people knew he’d used public money to bang that American bird. She’s tidy. If politicians are going to spunk away the taxpayers money (literally) then it might as well be put to some damn jolly good use
 
Because he didn't feck it up and now he's only got to avoid the press for 6 days and he's PM again with a majority.
That's a pretty low bar, Corbyn didn't mess up either.

If the Tories stay in power then I don't think it's down to debates like these, but rather the way we fail to keep the electorate clear on what is true and what is nonsense and the wider issue of society's values as a whole. We have a party in power, having also won elections during this time, who have seen the people who caused the recession and apparent need for austerity get richer whilst life gets worse for the poorer in society. Who have underfunded public services and spent years messing up brexit and it's now their main selling point that they are the only ones who can get it done.
Then we have people who think Johnson will make a better leader despite being the guy who hopped on the brexit bandwagon with a bus full of lies and then went awol when the leadership spot first became available.

Corbyn might not be some great magical leader (and also sounds a bit too much like the evil leader guy in v for vendetta) but he comes across as a guy who wants to make a genuine difference to make things better for people. If are dismissing these sort of politicians just because they don't get catty then we're screwed.

On the subject of debates, why are these things not done with live fact checking? It takes a 30 second Google search to find out half these things are lies.
 
Factcheck

Claim: Brexit will allow a Conservative government to cut VAT on sanitary products, Johnson claims.

Reality: EU rules do currently prevent a UK government from reducing VAT on sanitary products from the current rate of 20% to anything below 5%, so the statement is correct. However, new rules proposed by the EU will allow governments to introduce a 0% rate on these products.

(Guardian)
 
This is a rather admiring portrait of Johnson by Andrew Sullivan which is interesting nonetheless:

Boris’s Blundering Brilliance
Brexit has given the U.K’s self-seeking Prime Minister the opportunity to show he actually knows what he’s doing

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/boris-johnson-brexit.html

What Cummings and Johnson believe is that the E.U., far from being an engine for liberal progress, has, through its overreach and hubris, actually become a major cause of the rise of the far right across the Continent. By forcing many very different countries into one increasingly powerful Eurocratic rubric, the E.U. has spawned a nationalist reaction. From Germany and France to Hungary and Poland, the hardest right is gaining. Getting out of the E.U. is, Johnson and Cummings argue, a way to counter and disarm this nationalism and to transform it into a more benign patriotism. Only the Johnson Tories have grasped this, and the Johnson strategy is one every other major democracy should examine.

What Boris is offering as an alternative is a Tory social democracy rooted in national pride and delivered with a spoonful of humor and entertainment.



Seriously? It's a bit like Stalin saying he'll do some reforms to keep away the real communists!
 
John Major, Heseltine and Ken Clarke all think Boris is a danger and that the NHS wouldn't be safe under him. Tommy Robinson backs him.

How can those of you which are long standing Tories not feel very concerned by that?

Labour are not getting a majority, if you hate this version of your party you need to vote tactically to enforce a hung parliament. Pretending it'll all just go back to normal soon is not going to work.
 
Whether they are true or false doesn't matter as long as they are Russian -similar reaction after WikiLeaks got Hillary's emails, and the blatantly obvious danger for the left of Russia hysteria.
 
You're being disingenuous. Half of all people aware of Entrepreneurs' Relief at the time of their investment say that said investment was influenced by the relief. Over a quarter (28%) of them say it was the reason they invested in the first place.

You can also guess who the people are who're aware of the relief. They aren't someone opening a candle shop on the high street who never even considered the possibility of such a relief being relevant to them (or that they would ever create meaningful wealth/jobs). They're people investing serious money into industry that without said relief could/would go elsewhere.

This is why the studies you quote are redundant. Anyone with substantial money to invest is aware of ER and anyone aware of ER realises it's importance to investment.

It's like saying Labour will win a huge majority based on a Redcafe poll.

/Edit: I'd also question the respondents. I imagine by the very nature of the type of (lengthy) study a disproportionate amount of people with modest investments would respond compared with very wealthy investors.

I don't think its disingenuous at all. We're talking about the macro effect of the policy on job creation etc, so of course we look at the behaviour of everyone starting these businesses.

Also, regarding the 28%, I think you've read it wrong. If you're referring to Section 6.2 that's the breakdown of those who were influenced, so its 28% of the 8%. So in total, ~2% of all people said it was the main reason they invested in the first place.

As for the data, maybe the study has some limitations, they always do. But you haven't provided anything but your personal opinion to support your arguments so far. If you can provide some data I'll happily take it on board. Otherwise your view carries little weight.
 
The bare fact in the election is that Corbyn has been given documents proving that his opponent lied about the 2 main topics of the election - Brexit (the Irish border) an the NHS. Now, if there was a mildly competent and mildly impartial media, this would be pretty much the only story of the election.

But Corbyn and his team know as well as anyone that the media won't do that job. It is *his* responsibility to push the message that Boris is lying with every syllable he utters. I didn't watch the debate but he apparently didn't call him a liar. This is malpractice.

The RW press promised us a Stalinist Corbyn with unreconstructed advisor Seamus Milne, and here we see this nonsensical politeness. He might as well havebeen Hillary Clinton with Robby Mook as his adviser.
 
The one issue I have throughout the whole of Corbyns tenure as leader is the passive nature.
Throughout his whole political career, Corbyn has built a reputation as an underdog battling bigger forces, he's never been one to back down.
Yet this election buildup has been so passive, Boris has give him ample opportunity to shoot him down but there's been no sustained prolonged attack from JC.
That will lose him the election.
 
The bare fact in the election is that Corbyn has been given documents proving that his opponent lied about the 2 main topics of the election - Brexit (the Irish border) an the NHS. Now, if there was a mildly competent and mildly impartial media, this would be pretty much the only story of the election.

But Corbyn and his team know as well as anyone that the media won't do that job. It is *his* responsibility to push the message that Boris is lying with every syllable he utters. I didn't watch the debate but he apparently didn't call him a liar. This is malpractice.

The RW press promised us a Stalinist Corbyn with unreconstructed advisor Seamus Milne, and here we see this nonsensical politeness. He might as well havebeen Hillary Clinton with Robby Mook as his adviser.

To be fair they have been big themes in this election. I fear on here that you are viewing the election entirely through a particular lens of the left. I don't think that you're in the UK anyway.

On the Northern Ireland issue: Boris really hit back at Corbyn effectively with the IRA narrative in the debate last night. Regardless of any impartial historic assessment on the troubles, the fact is that in many of our lifetimes the IRA were bombing mainland England on a fairly regular basis. When I was a kid they murdered two 12 year old kids in a town near me by blowing them up with bomb in a bin. For an English audience, Corbyn's historic alignment with the Republican cause will be seen as more troublesome. As Boris pointed out, Corbyn and McDonnell long supported a cause that would've been the ultimate anathema for the Unionist cause in NI so his apparent concern for the DUP now was easily framed by Boris as being deeply hypocritical.

'Trust' and Boris being a liar has also been a very big theme as well and he has been called out on it time and time again by the media. The election has largely been framed as a choice between two unpalatable leaders for most of the electorate, an election that will likely ultimately be defined by the Brexit issue. Brexit has completely consumed this country since the referendum like no other political issue I can remember. And not by a little bit, its several orders of magnitude greater by consumption than any other issue in my lifetime. The electorate know that Boris is entitled, self serving and a cad but I do feel that his irritating mantra of 'get Brexit done' will see him over the line, especially when Corbyn has done his best to hide from the issue and has a weak policy around it.

The media is bias against Corbyn but he made a conscious choice not to even try and engage the likes of Murdoch like Blair did. I accept that he wouldn't really have much to offer Murdoch without giving up many of his principals but those are the conditions in the UK. His faction in Labour thought they could prevail regardless, that they could redefine how to cut through with political messages, so if they don't then you'd have to perceive that as a strategic failure. Lets not forget that Corbyn's movement have even had a hostile position towards the Guardian at times.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? It's a bit like Stalin saying he'll do some reforms to keep away the real communists!

I’ve not followed his career particularly closely, certainly not enough to assign him credit along the lines suggested in the bits of the article you’ve quoted there, but do you really believe Johnson is actually far-right?
 
Nope... Because by now most people have also realised what Corbyn is like as well and judging by the polls whilst neither is massively popular Corbyn is much more unpopular

Losing to Boris after over 10 years of austerity and an awful mess of Brexit will be a very bad reflection on the failure of Labour to regain government.
However, it is vital that they re-think their whole strategy and appointment someone who is able to lead them to become a serious challenger.
 
I don't think its disingenuous at all. We're talking about the macro effect of the policy on job creation etc, so of course we look at the behaviour of everyone starting these businesses.

Also, regarding the 28%, I think you've read it wrong. If you're referring to Section 6.2 that's the breakdown of those who were influenced, so its 28% of the 8%. So in total, ~2% of all people said it was the main reason they invested in the first place.

As for the data, maybe the study has some limitations, they always do. But you haven't provided anything but your personal opinion to support your arguments so far. If you can provide some data I'll happily take it on board. Otherwise your view carries little weight.

I was focusing on the 8% because they're the people who actually matter. The people aware of ER are the people investing significant amounts of money (with half of them saying their investment was influenced by the relief and 28% essentially saying they wouldn't have invested without it.

The study needs to split it per £ of investment rather than per person. From an economic point or view a 55 year old retiree investing £10k in a candle shop and selling it for £100k 10 years later isn't the same as someone investing £1m and selling their business for £10m a decade later.

The former would have no idea about ER as they wouldn't be thinking about selling when they invested and the amount it'd save them even if they did would be tiny. The latter would absolutely be aware of ER and as your stats show it would influence half of those people and cause 3/10 of them not to invest that £1m (as it would for me and a few people I know).

Add in the fact that Corbyn wants to increase CGT in line with IT also and an entrepreneur goes from paying under £500k on his £5m sale to paying near £2.5m. if you don't believe that would kill investment then I don't know what to tell you.
 
Last edited:
I’ve not followed his career particularly closely, certainly not enough to assign him credit along the lines suggested in the bits of the article you’ve quoted there, but do you really believe Johnson is actually far-right?
Absolutely. I think he and the current incarnation of the tories are further to the right than Le Pen, AFD or PiS. Just imagine the AFD or Legia Nord installing a policy called "hostile environment" with the expressed goal of getting rid of foreigners. All while calling them "letterboxes", "watermelon smiles" etc.

Also he has no relation to the truth, which is useful if you don't have any principles to begin with. Tell lies long enough and you can literally not distinguish anymore. It's what's behind his inability to name anything that an ordinary person could relate to in him. He didn't know what to lie about.

(I'll try putting together something more coherent later, I've pulled an all nighter and just realised this post is a bit of a mess. But essentially he's been on a long path of deceit to get his premiership and I see no signs of that letting up should he get a majority now. I don't necessarily think he'd to racist or fascist stuff for the sake of it being racist or fascist, but if he saw it as being politically useful I have no hope that he wouldn't do it, and the same is true of Trump, Orban etc.)
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. I think he and the current incarnation of the tories are further to the right than Le Pen, AFD or PiS. Just imagine the AFD or Legia Nord installing a policy called "hostile environment" with the expressed goal of getting rid of foreigners. All while calling them "letterboxes", "watermelon smiles" etc.

Also he has no relation to the truth, which is useful if you don't have any principles to begin with. Tell lies long enough and you can literally not distinguish anymore. It's what's behind his inability to name anything that an ordinary person could relate to in him. He didn't know what to lie about.

And he can hide his racism a bit better than Trump, but not a whole lot better.

I think that's a pretty selective take. His article on Burqas was a sly dog whistle but defended the right for them to be worn. They are are banned in numerous European countries, included France. This could rightfully be perceived as oppressive and racist but you frame Boris as further right than Le Pen because of the article when it's their pro-European centrist government that's enforcing this legislation.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a pretty selective take. His article on Burqas was a sly dog whistle but defended the rights for them to be worn. They are are banned in numerous European countries, included France. This could rightfully be perceived as oppressive and racist but you frame Boris as further right than Le Pen because of the article when it's their pro-European centrist government that's enforcing this legislation.

@2cents

I think he is totally devoid of ideology, but since the far-right is what has fueled his rise to PM, t's what he will go with. And he has shown he has no problems with them or with a bit of dabbling -


When he became the editor of the conservative Spectator, the magazine had an openly racist columnist on staff, Taki Theodoracopulos. And I do not mean “openly racist” in any debatable sense. His columns literally contained racial slurs. Theodoracopulos referred to Puerto Ricans in New York as:

A bunch of semi-savages … fat, squat, ugly, dusky, dirty and unbelievably loud. They turned Manhattan into Palermo faster than you can say “spic.”… There has never been—nor will there ever be—a single positive contribution by a Puerto Rican outside of receiving American welfare and beating the system.
At the time Johnson became his editor, Theodoracopulos was known to “peppe[r] his conversation with words like ‘wop,’ ‘yid’ or ‘dago.’” Of Africa, he wrote: “Democracy is as likely to come to bongo-bongo land as I am to send a Concorde ticket to my children.” Here is a writer’s 2012 report on what it was like to dine with Theodoracopulos:

During lunch, Mr. Theodoracopulos employed a number of epithets for various ethnic and racial groups. The n-word rolled off his tongue. He was unapologetic about his use of such terms, and made us uncomfortably complicit by leaning in conspiratorially and smiling while saying some of the more horrific things we’ve ever heard outside of a Quentin Tarantino film. He expressed disgust for professional athletes: “They have 12 kids and beat up on their wives, and she can’t go to court because she’s black and doesn’t have an education.” He praised Robert E. Lee and condemned Abraham Lincoln as “a murdering traitor.” He chuckled as he told us the story of a controversial Sunday Times editorial he once wrote: “I said that I thought I saw a gorilla once at Wimbledon. It was Venus Williams.”
Theodoracopulos was such a racist that he appointed Richard Spencer as managing editor of Taki’s Mag, his online journal that became an outlet for white nationalism. Last year, Theodoracopulos published a column called “In Praise of the Wehrmacht” in Johnson’s former magazine arguing that “the real heroes of D-Day were the German soldiers.”

When he became editor of the Spectator, Johnson knew Theodoracopulos was an infamous racist and anti-Semite, and there was public pressure on Johnson to fire him. Johnson refused. He said that sacking Theodoracopulos “would be such a contemptible thing to do” and that if forced to do it he would resign himself. Instead, he said of Theodoracopulos that: “I really think that, at his best, he is a hugely entertaining columnist of exemplary professionalism.” A journalist reports asking Johnson about Theodoracopulos’s use of the word “sambo”:

Johnson looks thoughtful. “Yah. Mmm. In what context did he say ‘sambo’? Was he quoting Little Black Sambo?” No, he was discussing a black man who wanted to be involved in the upbringing of his child: “Good for sambo,” wrote Taki. “Go for it sambo.

“Well. I dunno.” [said Johnson.] “I wasn’t editing then. I can’t remember the piece. But you’re right, on the whole, I’m not mad for that stuff.”
So Theodoracopulos continued to provide his signature brand of “exemplary professionalism” under Johnson’s leadership. In 2003, Theodoracopulos wrote a column praising Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech, saying it was “prophetic as well as true, and look what the bullshitters of the time did to the great man.” Theodoracopulos’s article included the lines:

Only a moron would not surmise that what politically correct newspapers refer to as “disaffected young people” are black thugs, sons of black thugs and grandsons of black thugs … West Indians were allowed to immigrate after the war and multiply like flies.
When a black lawyer publicly complained about the article, he immediately began receiving death threats from racists, leading Johnson to be investigated by the British police on suspicion of inciting racial hatred. No charges were filed, and Johnson kept Theodoracopulos on staff, where he continued to produce his “hugely entertaining” and professional column.

It is unsurprising that the most Johnson could bring himself to say about his openly racist columnist was that he was “not mad for that stuff.” Johnson himself wrote columns like “Africa is a mess, but we can’t blame colonialism,” discouraging Brits from feeling bad about their imperial past—saying “the best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty”—and used offensive terms about Africans. (Ah, but he was using the term “piccaninny” ironically, you see.) In the 1990s, he published a sympathetic interview with the last Apartheid-era South African president F.W. de Klerk, and wrote of “the majority tyranny of black rule.” (Of de Klerk, he asks: “did he realize that the gig was up for white rule, that dark thumbs were about to close on the National Party’s windpipe?”) Johnson declined to apologize for having called gay men “tank topped bum boys.” Instead he simply said that if you go through his writings, “there is no doubt you can find things that can be made to seem offensive.” Made to seem.

there's a long article that (i think) pogue posted about what an amoral husk he is (focusing on his college days).
 
@finneh I think you've missed some crucial info with your comments regarding Entrepreneurs Relief changes. Corbyn doesn't just plan on scrapping it, he is also proposing that capital gains rates are to be the same as his new income tax rates. If you bear in mind that he's now introduced a 'Super-rich' rate of 50% for people earning over £120k; anyone who would have had substantial gains from a disposal qualifying for Entrepreneurs Relief will pay tax at a rate of 50% when they would have paid it at a rate of 10% pre-Corbyn. As a tax professional I'd have to say that their overall tax policy is at best radical and wreckless.

If you're interested about each parties tax proposals for the election, the Chartered Institute of Tax have a good graph comparing them all below.
Screen%20Shot%202019-12-05%20at%2009.56.39.png
 
I think that's a pretty selective take. His article on Burqas was a sly dog whistle but defended the rights for them to be worn. They are are banned in numerous European countries, included France. This could rightfully be perceived as oppressive and racist but you frame Boris as further right than Le Pen because of the article when it's their pro-European centrist government that's enforcing this legislation.
I don't think banning Burqas is racist in itself but there's a argument to be made that it's oppressive (if one doesn't view them as oppressive in themselves). However using a insult to describe them, which I have little doubt Le Pen would do too, is something different. (A bit of a false equivalency, but: IMO it's not racist or oppressive for majority muslim countries to ban alcohol, however it's racist to portray all european alcohol drinkers as bums/alcoholics etc.)

However my main reason for saying the tories are further to the right than those other parties is the level of disinformation they have come out with, that stunt masquerading as factchecker being the icing on the cake. I've not seen anything like it in any 'western' country. There's little doubt in my mind that if Boris thought he could gain support by putting kids in cages like his idol we'd be seeing pictures of kids in cages...
 
I don't think banning Burqas is racist in itself but there's a argument to be made that it's oppressive (if one doesn't view them as oppressive in themselves). However using a insult to describe them, which I have little doubt Le Pen would do too, is something different. (A bit of a false equivalency, but: IMO it's not racist or oppressive for majority muslim countries to ban alcohol, however it's racist to portray all european alcohol drinkers as bums/alcoholics etc.)

However my main reason for saying the tories are further to the right than those other parties is the level of disinformation they have come out with, that stunt masquerading as factchecker being the icing on the cake. I've not seen anything like it in any 'western' country. There's little doubt in my mind that if Boris thought he could gain support by putting kids in cages like his idol we'd be seeing pictures of kids in cages...

On the Burka issue: I do think its racist, by UK law at least, which defines religious discrimination as racism. Personally I find the burka to be oppressive and sinister from the point of view of my own values but one of the corner stones of my values is individual freedom. This is a value that I thought was also a cornerstone of modern Western democracies too. I don't think the government has any right to dictate to people what they wear on their head, even out of a religious context. I feel that such an intervention is authoritarian.

I agree that the direction of British politics is deeply concerning. A part of me even grieves a bit for the Tory party. They used to represent a certain idea of Britishness, for good and bad don't get me wrong, but the erosion of the respect for the rule of law and democratic processes saddens and worries me.
 
@finneh I think you've missed some crucial info with your comments regarding Entrepreneurs Relief changes. Corbyn doesn't just plan on scrapping it, he is also proposing that capital gains rates are to be the same as his new income tax rates. If you bear in mind that he's now introduced a 'Super-rich' rate of 50% for people earning over £120k; anyone who would have had substantial gains from a disposal qualifying for Entrepreneurs Relief will pay tax at a rate of 50% when they would have paid it at a rate of 10% pre-Corbyn. As a tax professional I'd have to say that their overall tax policy is at best radical and wreckless.

If you're interested about each parties tax proposals for the election, the Chartered Institute of Tax have a good graph comparing them all below.
Screen%20Shot%202019-12-05%20at%2009.56.39.png

Thanks for that - I did edit my post comparing someone with a £5m entrepreneurial gain now (c. £500k tax) with someone under Corbyn (c. £2.5m tax).

As someone who is considering setting up a business in the future that would require a mid six figure investment I can guarantee I wouldn't bother under this tax regime. Add in the fact that I'd only be considering opening a business and working 80 hours a week for several years to ensure my children and grandchildren are 100% comfortable and that Corbyn also wants to increase IHT and I can't see why anyone with large potential investment would bother. The risk would be nowhere near worth the hugely reduced potential gain.

His manifesto will slash investment and has recession written a over it.
 
People questioning Corbyn’s lack of aggression and tenacity.....is it just a possibility he’s run out of steam? The guy’s 70, had a long political career, probably works 16 hours a day 7 days a week, plus he’s under immense scrutiny from a hugely biased press. He might well just be fecked
 
Losing to Boris after over 10 years of austerity and an awful mess of Brexit will be a very bad reflection on the failure of Labour to regain government.
However, it is vital that they re-think their whole strategy and appointment someone who is able to lead them to become a serious challenger.
I'm hoping Jess Phillips... But I'm expecting a momentum mouthpiece instead... Wrong daily, pidcock, or burgon
 
On the Burka issue: I do think its racist, by UK law at least, which defines religious discrimination as racism. Personally I find the burka to be oppressive and sinister from the point of view of my own values but one of the corner stones of my values is individual freedom. This is a value that I thought was also a cornerstone of modern Western democracies too. I don't think the government has any right to dictate to people what they wear on their head, even out of a religious context. I feel that such an intervention is authoritarian.

I agree that the direction of British politics is deeply concerning. A part of me even grieves a bit for the Tory party. They used to represent a certain idea of Britishness, for good and bad don't get me wrong, but the erosion of the respect for the rule of law and democratic processes saddens and worries me.
It's remarkable isn't it. Britain's historic view of itself as the high lords of 'playing fair', despite centuries of colonialism and divide and rule, and now it's sliding into a Trumpian autocracry.
 
I'm hoping Jess Phillips... But I'm expecting a momentum mouthpiece instead... Wrong daily, pidcock, or burgon

Imagine that :lol:

Bring Andy Burnham back in from the cold I say.
 
Frankie Boyle's take: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...on-countdown-praying-prorogue-next-parliament

some snippets said:
Brexit supporters are surely among the most likely to get out and vote, especially now Jeremy Kyle isn’t on in the daytime any more. It was impossible to predict that the whole country would be thrown into crisis by middle-aged men outraged about Europe making decisions for them (these are people whose wives buy their socks)

[...]Essentially, Brexit has proved impossible to deliver: turns out it’s tricky for English voters to take back control of their borders when one of them is in someone else’s country.

[...]The Conservatives seem to have focused on the phrase “Get Brexit Done”, which has all the conviction of your dad hitting the arms of his chair and saying, “Right…” We also seem to be hearing a lot about “Unleashing Britain’s potential”, despite most of our potential being for food riots, and perhaps some kind of race war. The Conservative manifesto contains elements of both Thatcherism and Reaganism, in that it seems to have been written by someone with dementia. There was probably a discussion about whether to release a manifesto at all or simply airdrop scratchcards over key marginals.

[...]Boris Johnson, who looks like something you’d keep your pyjamas in, and who no reasonable person would choose to lead them into a chorus, has a strangely hunched demeanour; perhaps from all the time he spends crammed inside married women’s wardrobes, like a randy jack-in-the-box.

[...]It’s perfectly obvious why Johnson has been able to take power: he has an instinctive grasp on Brexit as rightwing eschatology, and he’s used to getting his own way, be it in the halls of Westminster or elbowing siblings off of nanny’s nipples.

[...]Someone else who will still be here after the Rapture is the Brexit party’s Nigel Farage. I thought one of the advantages of the Brexit vote was that he might disappear; having him back in public life is a bit like watching a suicide bomber doing a comeback tour.

[...]As for the Lib Dems – well, I thought we’d really miss Tim Farron, bumping around the country on a deserted coach and performing Blue Peter tasks in front of people terrified that he might start talking about gay sex.

[...]Jo Swinson has grown on me, and seems to exist as a satisfying, subtle and damning satire of humanity. Swinson’s election started out relatively positively, possibly because people hadn’t heard her speak yet. It quickly became clear that she had the gravitas of a re-education camp supply teacher, and was launching a kind of charm retreat that seemed to involve loans for renting flats and permanent austerity. Some might see misogyny in this reaction to her, but I’m fairly sure I just hate her for being from Milngavie.

Labour’s idea to run an election campaign on policy in the middle of all this is a little bit like reciting your poetry at an orgy. Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps weighing up whether he could have more influence by simply dying and haunting his successor, has benefitted from becoming slightly calmer over the course of the campaign. Aggression isn’t a good look for him, shifting Corbyn from Rabbit in Winnie the Pooh towards the territory where you’d expect his face to be captioned with “police suspect the real figure may be much higher”.

[...]Before the campaign, there seemed to be a belief among Labour party members that it fared better in elections because of rules about electoral media balance, perhaps because they misconstrued the establishment complacency at the last election. Of course, Labour has been monstered in the media throughout the campaign, and largely been judged by different standards than the Conservatives. Even the gold standard of scrutiny that Johnson dodged was just being interviewed by his former boss at the Spectator.

Media plurality is an issue we need to address in this country: the alternative is living in a timeline where, because Corbyn has wonky glasses, in a couple of years you’ll be living in a tent city outside an Amazon warehouse trying to GoFund a tonsillectomy. The Tories calling Corbyn a communist and a threat to national security after handing nuclear power plants to the Chinese is a bit like getting a bollocking off Charles Manson for putting down slug pellets.

[...]You won’t be surprised to learn that I won’t be voting Tory on Thursday, for much the same reasons that I won’t be spending the day kicking children and pensioners into traffic. It’s depressing to think how many polling stations are in schools, and how many people will vote Conservative after walking past a motivational rainbow.
 
Last edited:
John Major, Heseltine and Ken Clarke all think Boris is a danger and that the NHS wouldn't be safe under him. Tommy Robinson backs him.

How can those of you which are long standing Tories not feel very concerned by that?

Labour are not getting a majority, if you hate this version of your party you need to vote tactically to enforce a hung parliament. Pretending it'll all just go back to normal soon is not going to work.
Because Boris doesn’t lead the classical Conservative party. He has morphed his gang into a single policy BrExit party, hoping that 52% of electorate hate the EU more than any other electoral issue.

That’s his play. To his credit it’s ballsy and very transparatent. And this time next week we’ll know if it was an inspired too.
 
When did reddit become a credible and legitimate source?! It’s a gossip forum!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.