General election 2017: Jeremy Corbyn says Brexit issue 'settled' - BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39852719



Oh, that I could dare to dream....

Yup, funny how this was a terrible idea when Labour had it in the 2015 election as well.

Corbyn is now having to say that he’s not a pacifists, because the electorate want to hear he’ll become a war-mongering despot like the rest of them are prepared to become. This country.

This is it, they apparently should have been ashamed and embarrassed that their manifesto was leaked, even though there's nothing shameful in it. What with it being by definition the draft of an almost finished public document!

Plus it was almost certainly leaked to test the water, no pun intended. Either to pressure Corbyn or see if the public didn't throw a fit.

'manifesto leaked! Shock and horror!'

What, the document they were going to publish for the entire country to read next week anyway, that document? Yeah, what a disaster. As it is there doesn't seem to be anything reasonably sane people (i.e. not newspaper headline writers) were able to profoundly disagree with in it and even if there were, labour could just say 'not finished mate, says so on every single page'

Certain parts of the media were desperate to cook up a storm over it - I saw a BBC correspondent waving a copy of it at the camera like it was about to catch fire or something - but people really seem to be not in the least bit bothered about the fact a document they were almost certainly not going to read anyway had been leaked.

General election 2017: 'Robin Hood tax' on City pledged by Labour - BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39910293

Have you noticed how the Tories are really going in for buzzwords and phrases like never before?

Their focus on controlling their message is absolute at the moment. All of the big names are using the same phrases over and over, and it's been happening blatantly at least since Osborne had to be wheeled out every so often, so it's not even Theresa Maybe She's Born With It's influence.

'I am clear that Labour's policies are *looks at notes* a shambles, and that what's needed is strong and stable leadership.'

We've even got the NI secretary of state doing it over here, James Brokensh1te.

General election 2017: Council housing increase promised by Tories - BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39911569

On that issue I'd say both parties really are full of sh1te, though at least Labour is prepared to give detail of it's optimistic pledges. The Tories seem to make the exact same promise every manifesto.

They need to withdraw right to buy otherwise this is useless

I'd rather have a party saying 'we're going to build more houses, it's going to cost X and we're going to get that money by doing Y' even if Y turns out to be quite tricky and may not happen, rather than a party saying 'We're going to build more houses and it's not going to cost an extra penny'. The former is optimistic and possibly naïve, the latter is [LIFTED] mental.

As for conservative promises, as far as I know they've promised both to remove the government deficit AND cut immigration down to under 10,000/year at least twice before each and completely failed to deliver anything on either. In fact I think even they've given up on the former promise this time round, because it's patently unachievable if your main economic and ideological aims put the economy in the toilet.

Labour promises though? Christ knows. There's not been a government in the UK with the kind of principles the current labour party are espousing since.. well, probably not since immediately post world war 2. I have no bloody clue if they'll be able to deliver or not, and probably nobody else does either, including most of them.

The most amusing thing of this election so far is the people tweeting out pics that show the enthusiastic crowd surrounding May in official photos is actually the same about 40 people every time who are travelling round after her on a coach.

Right now, there’s a dilemma where I live. It’s been a safe Tory seat since the 1980s, but the current incumbent has stood down, so there’ll be a new Tory vying for it. The thing is that if we want the Tories out here, the tactical thing would be to vote LibDem. Voting tactically has always seemed wrong to me - I’ve tended to go with my convictions in a positive fashion.

This time, though, I’m not so sure. It’s a bugger of a dilemma, especially as I don’t like the LibDem’s key message which has always been “we’re the only chance you have of ousting the Tories here”. As it]s safe seat, the other parties really don’t bother. We won’t see hide nor hair of any of the candidates. The Tories assume they will win, the others assume they will lose.

I've often wondered along those lines because who wants a terrorist in a suit when you're a unionist... But I would bring it down to how good is the incumbent, then get into wider issues. Unless they've crossed a personal redline.

The incumbent is stepping down so there's will be no track record to go on.
I don't particularly like tactical voting but under FPTP it's your best bet if you want to effect change.

I was just wondering if the new guy had any history at all, though sometimes they don't.

Normally I'd be with you on the 'vote for who you actually want' line - after all , that is the purest form of democracy and if the person you voted for doesn't win, well, it's STILL the purest form of democracy - however arguable first past the post is very, very far from the purest form of democracy so the principle is undermined by the system itself.

Pragmatically, while you may have a choice of candidates, in the system we have (as in most safe seats) your choice actually boils down to 'whoever the dominating party feel like putting up, or whoever stands the most chance of beating them' - a vote for anyone else while valid and right, is effectively treated as null and void by the combination of a standing large majority and the FPTP system. In reality if you vote for 'third or worse' your vote counts, but isn't relevant.

Personally, my politics are well known here, so it would probably surprise you not at all if I said 'if the realistic choice is between tory and someone else, I'd vote for the someone else, on the principle of least harm.' But if you decided to stick to the pure principle of democracy and vote for your preferred candidate regardless of predicted result, I'd applaud you for doing so.

It’s a dilemma. The previous incumbent, while being a Tory, was actually fairly decent when it comes to replying to my questions. If there was a delay in getting an answer from another department, he always wrote to remind me that he’d not forgotten. The new Tory candidate is unknown, and I expect that apart from a couple of leaflets, there will be little contact form the. I think the Tories just assume they’ll win, and don”t try. Conversely, Labour assume they’ll do badly and so don’t try.

Elections are won and lost in the marginals, which is where all the concentrations of activities go. It would be a great ting to shake up the complacency - even if the majority is significantly reduced here.

My problem with voting for the person most likely to oust the incumbent parry is that (a) it compromises my position on the matter, and (b) it also skews the results. If the LibDems are voted in here because a lot of people voted for them to get the Tories out, then that will still be seen as an endorsement of their policies, not a rejection of the Conservative ones. An election is a system based on approval, not rejection.

It’s a toughie. I’ll be pondering it all the way to the ballot box.