I'd really like to see a "none of the above" box on the ballot paper so we can get a better picture of just how many voters are disillusioned with the candidates they're presented with. I think it could be pretty powerful to see how many people actually exercise their democratic right to vote, but not for any specific individual. It would also be a huge ****ing slap in the mush for those that currently think being elected on 40% of the vote of a 60% turnout constitutes a resounding majority and a decisive mandate.
It would be really interesting to see how many votes "none of the above" gets. Maybe a constituency win for "none" could force a rerun of that ballot. Re your second para. We all know that's just what they say, but they know it's not true. Saying it allows them to carry out a set of policies that their minority (but winning) supporters want and to ignore the mass majority of losers.
According to he Times, internal Labour Party reports have them losing 65-95 seats, and only doing well in London. Elsewhere the balance of the wildly contradictory polls would point to a result very similar to what we have now, small Tory majority, ironically shored up by them winning a few seats from the SNP in Scotland, with votes for Ruth Davidson rather than Theresa May.
Yeah, I had heard that Corbyn's surge was mainly in seats that were already safe Labour seats. Depressing. I've booked Friday off work in the hope that I might be enthused enough by the results to stay up through the night. **** it, I'll get pissed one way or another anyway.
Diane Abbott has 'stepped aside' from her position as shadow Home Secretary. A bit bleeding late now.
While off sick yesterday she was photographed in Oxford Circus tube station and was later pranked into responding to a fake email admitting she was not comfortable telling 'easily disprovable' untruths about her health. Idiot is generous.
She'll win with a 50-60 seat majority; which when facing down the worst shadow front bench in living memory, takes some doing. A united opposition with a sensible leader (i.e. with Corbyn's far left baggage) and the same policies would have defeated them. I think the electorate is much more fluid now after the direct votes of the referendums - people don't believe the half truths from any politican. We're continually told we're the world's 5th biggest economy - and yet in the same breath they tell us we cant afford to keep Police at the current staffing levels or we must close hospitals? I disagreed with the outcome, but that might be one positive of the direct EURef - people think they can change things by voting. Instead of wheeling out Project Fear every time - politicians might be forced to actually improve people's lives
Is Diane Abbot actually unwell? BBC reporting she's clearly ill, and Emily Thornberry telling everyone they should be ashamed of themselves. If so, my sympathies. If not, a shameful and duplicitous con. We'll see...
I would imagine she is under a large amount of stress because she is clearly dangerously out of her intellectual and political depth, so I would guess she has a stress related illness. As for physically unwell, who knows. Now replaced by someone called Lyn Brown as Shadow Home Secretary.
Perhaps, but it could be the opposite. Older voters are pretty determined, and statistically youngsters need all the encouragement they can get to vote. May be the thought of free tuition will be enough
Might sway a few undecideds away from the Tories. Elections are generally called when the weather is nice as it's thought to put people in a better mood about their current situation and more likely to vote for the party in power. So just the 50 seat majority for Chairman May.
Not sure if I should post this on here or the London Bridge Attack thread as it's fairly relevant to both..... As we've had rammed down our throats for the last few days resources are an issue for both the Police and Security Services as opined by Labour, Lib Democrats, Greens, SNP in fact by everyone in the opposition parties, however on RTE radio last evening they were talking to some Dr who lectures in Security issues at University College London and they asked him to break down the resources required to keep 1 suspect under surveillance for 24 hours and his answer was 20 people....... So we know that at present there are 20000 odd suspects of interest of which 3000 odd are of significant interest and 300 or so are of high interest to the Security Services. To keep the 300 under 24 hour surveillance requires 6000 security personnel, 3000 requires 60000 security personnel and to keep the 20000 under surveillance would require 400000 security personnel, I'm not sure an extra 5p on the tax rate on the top earning 5% in the country would fund these sort of resources. Just something to think about when listening to those spouting about lack of resources.......
