[UK] General Election 2017 Superthread

[Shrillland]

Personally I have no idea who or what Theresa May is. She appeals to nothing. She has no clear ideology. She's a "stable pragmatist," which is actually something British people never vote for (although all the people they do vote for say that they are that). Since Atlee all long-term prime ministers have been people who actually pushed for substantial change to something or other. If Brexit is Theresa May's, then that would be unusual, since she has been a Remainer all her life except for this and half of last year.

The polls suggest she'll dominate a snap election and many people do think this is so that she can reign in parts of the Party that are rebellious, either whatever remains of the Remain Tories but mostly the Hard Brexit Tories. There's no reason to look at the issue like this. Theresa May wouldn't have a moral mandate to be PM (and remember that the Tories were very cross that Gordon Brown got to be PM even though it's perfectly constitutional) without an election so calling one now when she is winning and getting another five years is a good deal.

Remember that the mandate she'll get includes her position on the SNP, which is basically "fuck off."

I am going to vote Labour, although it makes little difference since my MP has a 7,000 vote majority and she is a Labour Remainer (and this is a Remain constituency, too). The Labour Party being a party of Brexit has something to do with this, but also I think Corbyn will go regardless of what people say after the election and then we might get someone who has a hope of beating the Tories in 2022, instead of somebody who has no hope in 2020. The ideal situation for Labour is an MP share increase, Corbyn leaving and someone more competent taking the party to victory in 2022. The worst situation is Labour MP share decrease, Corbyn stays and the Tories thrash him in 2022 and the Tories are in government from 2010-2027.

I honestly don't see Labour coming anywhere near Downing Street again as long as the SNP remains strong. Labour can't succeed without Scottish support, and Scotland really doesn't look like they want to go back to Labour at the moment. Whether or not Scotland actually leaves isn't too relevant in this instance because as long as the SNP can portray themselves as, at the very least, a regional interests party, then they can keep the Tories in charge for a very long time.

[Questers]

I think Scotland will eventually come around to Labour when Labour offers them concessions. The SNP are a useless party.

[Souseiseki]

Personally I have no idea who or what Theresa May is. She appeals to nothing. She has no clear ideology. She's a "stable pragmatist," which is actually something British people never vote for (although all the people they do vote for say that they are that). Since Atlee all long-term prime ministers have been people who actually pushed for substantial change to something or other. If Brexit is Theresa May's, then that would be unusual, since she has been a Remainer all her life except for this and half of last year.

may has pushed deporting foreign criminals so far she was willing to literally break the law. even after stepping down as home secretary she has it in for the ECJ and ECHR so she can roll in all the fun stuff that would have never flown in an EU member state. her first party conference was complaining about left human rights lawyers and hinting she she agrees the old government were elitists that sneered down on the public for their "illiberal" views on crime and punishment. from this, i'd say we can say she really does have a strong personal belief in this stuff, giving hear a clear ideology and vision in one area. it just so happens said vision is unspeakably bad.

she was at best a quiet remainer and has latched herself onto the brexit train. she's ms. brexit now. even now she's saying her election which may or may not have been just incase they lose seats after being found guilty of electoral fraud is about her great mandate to unite britain and get on with brexit.

[Questers]

If "I like surveillance" is your only ideology, that would be pretty lame.

[Souseiseki]

If "I like surveillance" is your only ideology, that would be pretty lame.

it's not just surveillance, it's a whole package!

more crimes
harsher punishments for said crimes
stronger grip on society so you can better detect and punish these crimes

the end goal is that hopefully everyone in society starts to conform to your idea of what is right, or else!!!

[Fartsniffage]

If "I like surveillance" is your only ideology, that would be pretty lame.

it's not just surveillance, it's a whole package!

more crimes
harsher punishments for said crimes
stronger grip on society so you can better detect and punish these crimes

the end goal is that hopefully everyone in society starts to conform to your idea of what is right, or else!!!

Because that's worked well before.....

[MERIZoC]

If "I like surveillance" is your only ideology, that would be pretty lame.

it's not just surveillance, it's a whole package!

more crimes
harsher punishments for said crimes
stronger grip on society so you can better detect and punish these crimes

the end goal is that hopefully everyone in society starts to conform to your idea of what is right, or else!!!

ingsoc when

[Atlanticatia]

You mean the guy who has repeatedly voted in favour of LGBT rights?

I find the claim that "there's no justification for someone with that view in [current year] to be given a national platform", but Theresa "list of government-approved sex acts" May, "government-approved number of fingers for insertion" May, "Afghani homosexuals can totes go back to Kabul because it's pretty safe, just pretend to be straight" May, "we'll only accept your LGBT persecution asylum claim if you provide video evidence of you being gay and even then, probs not and we might just deport you back to be killed anyway" May doesn't get a concurrent mention in the same post to be interesting.

May is abhorrent as well, probably moreso.

But I was commenting on an article. Theresa May being homophobic doesn't make Tim Farron's position any more acceptable. It isn't liberal to waver on the question of homosexuality being a sin, there is no correct answer other than 'no, homosexuality is not a sin and should be accepted by every person socially and legally'.

Imagine being a bullied LGBT teenager, for example, and hearing that a leading national politician (who leads a party meant to fight for their rights) be unsure on whether or not LGBT rights is a sin. If we allow Tim Farron to have that public position without challenging it, then it legitimises all the people who personally hold that position across Britain. If the leader of the Liberal Democrats can be personally homophobic, why not the neighbour, teacher, parent, etc?

Legal rights are only one small part of equality. Much of equality is actually about changing social attitudes and making bigoted points of view unacceptable to hold. Take 2nd-wave feminism for example: it wasn't just about banning discrimination, it was also (importantly) about making it unacceptable to view women as subordinate or unfit for professional careers, etc. Making it socially unacceptable to make unwanted sexual advances, to say as a politician that you think women belong in the home, etc.

[Vassenor]

I find the claim that "there's no justification for someone with that view in [current year] to be given a national platform", but Theresa "list of government-approved sex acts" May, "government-approved number of fingers for insertion" May, "Afghani homosexuals can totes go back to Kabul because it's pretty safe, just pretend to be straight" May, "we'll only accept your LGBT persecution asylum claim if you provide video evidence of you being gay and even then, probs not and we might just deport you back to be killed anyway" May doesn't get a concurrent mention in the same post to be interesting.

May is abhorrent as well, probably moreso.

But I was commenting on an article. Theresa May being homophobic doesn't make Tim Farron's position any more acceptable. It isn't liberal to waver on the question of homosexuality being a sin, there is no correct answer other than 'no, homosexuality is not a sin and should be accepted by every person socially and legally'.

Imagine being a bullied LGBT teenager, for example, and hearing that a leading national politician (who leads a party meant to fight for their rights) be unsure on whether or not LGBT rights is a sin. If we allow Tim Farron to have that public position without challenging it, then it legitimises all the people who personally hold that position across Britain. If the leader of the Liberal Democrats can be personally homophobic, why not the neighbour, teacher, parent, etc?

Legal rights are only one small part of equality. Much of equality is actually about changing social attitudes and making bigoted points of view unacceptable to hold. Take 2nd-wave feminism for example: it wasn't just about banning discrimination, it was also (importantly) about making it unacceptable to view women as subordinate or unfit for professional careers, etc. Making it socially unacceptable to make unwanted sexual advances, to say as a politician that you think women belong in the home, etc.

If he thinks LGBT rights is a sin why does he keep voting in favour of them?

[Pasong Tirad]

I'm seeing little support for Plaid Cymru there. Nobody cares about the Welsh?

[Philjia]

I find the claim that "there's no justification for someone with that view in [current year] to be given a national platform", but Theresa "list of government-approved sex acts" May, "government-approved number of fingers for insertion" May, "Afghani homosexuals can totes go back to Kabul because it's pretty safe, just pretend to be straight" May, "we'll only accept your LGBT persecution asylum claim if you provide video evidence of you being gay and even then, probs not and we might just deport you back to be killed anyway" May doesn't get a concurrent mention in the same post to be interesting.

May is abhorrent as well, probably moreso.

But I was commenting on an article. Theresa May being homophobic doesn't make Tim Farron's position any more acceptable. It isn't liberal to waver on the question of homosexuality being a sin, there is no correct answer other than 'no, homosexuality is not a sin and should be accepted by every person socially and legally'.

Imagine being a bullied LGBT teenager, for example, and hearing that a leading national politician (who leads a party meant to fight for their rights) be unsure on whether or not LGBT rights is a sin. If we allow Tim Farron to have that public position without challenging it, then it legitimises all the people who personally hold that position across Britain. If the leader of the Liberal Democrats can be personally homophobic, why not the neighbour, teacher, parent, etc?

Legal rights are only one small part of equality. Much of equality is actually about changing social attitudes and making bigoted points of view unacceptable to hold. Take 2nd-wave feminism for example: it wasn't just about banning discrimination, it was also (importantly) about making it unacceptable to view women as subordinate or unfit for professional careers, etc. Making it socially unacceptable to make unwanted sexual advances, to say as a politician that you think women belong in the home, etc.

The essential principle of classical liberalism is not to ensure that everyone holds a permissive viewpoint; it is to ensure that everybody is free to think and act as they wish regardless of the thoughts of others. Farron may think that homosexuality is a sin, but he is not a theocrat; he wants people to have the right to choose.

[Frank Zipper]

I'm seeing little support for Plaid Cymru there. Nobody cares about the Welsh?

Wales really isn't as awful as everyone says it is.

[South Schleswig]

I think Scotland will eventually come around to Labour when Labour offers them concessions. The SNP are a useless party.

I'm not sure there's much Labour can offer Scotland that the SNP won't. Labour aren't seen as the standard-bearers of unionism anymore, that mantle has passed to Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Tories and there's no reason for progressively-minded moderate nationalists to switch to Labour when the SNP are presenting themselves - falsely or not - as a party of the left.

[Imperializt Russia]

I find the claim that "there's no justification for someone with that view in [current year] to be given a national platform", but Theresa "list of government-approved sex acts" May, "government-approved number of fingers for insertion" May, "Afghani homosexuals can totes go back to Kabul because it's pretty safe, just pretend to be straight" May, "we'll only accept your LGBT persecution asylum claim if you provide video evidence of you being gay and even then, probs not and we might just deport you back to be killed anyway" May doesn't get a concurrent mention in the same post to be interesting.

May is abhorrent as well, probably moreso.

But I was commenting on an article. Theresa May being homophobic doesn't make Tim Farron's position any more acceptable. It isn't liberal to waver on the question of homosexuality being a sin, there is no correct answer other than 'no, homosexuality is not a sin and should be accepted by every person socially and legally'.

Imagine being a bullied LGBT teenager, for example, and hearing that a leading national politician (who leads a party meant to fight for their rights) be unsure on whether or not LGBT rights is a sin. If we allow Tim Farron to have that public position without challenging it, then it legitimises all the people who personally hold that position across Britain. If the leader of the Liberal Democrats can be personally homophobic, why not the neighbour, teacher, parent, etc?

Legal rights are only one small part of equality. Much of equality is actually about changing social attitudes and making bigoted points of view unacceptable to hold. Take 2nd-wave feminism for example: it wasn't just about banning discrimination, it was also (importantly) about making it unacceptable to view women as subordinate or unfit for professional careers, etc. Making it socially unacceptable to make unwanted sexual advances, to say as a politician that you think women belong in the home, etc.

Sin is a religious concept.

Not political or legal.

Farron could declare homosexuality a sin (he would be theologically incorrect to do so, of course), but it's irrelevant because his voting record shows that he doesn't consider it an issue in policymaking, because it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, May has an abysmal voting record on the topic. What's Gove's voting record like?

[Frank Zipper]

Theresa May will look rather foolish if she doesn't win a landslide.

Unless Corbyn can radically (hehe) change the narrative in the next month and a half, he and his party is fucked.

I think May's problem is that a lot of Tory voters might not see the need for this election. So whereas Cameron benefitted from shy tories, May might suffer from voter fatigue.

[Philjia]

Unless Corbyn can radically (hehe) change the narrative in the next month and a half, he and his party is fucked.

I think May's problem is that a lot of Tory voters might not see the need for this election. So whereas Cameron benefitted from shy tories, May might suffer from voter fatigue.

That's basically the only threat to her, mind.

[South Schleswig]

Unless Corbyn can radically (hehe) change the narrative in the next month and a half, he and his party is fucked.

I think May's problem is that a lot of Tory voters might not see the need for this election. So whereas Cameron benefitted from shy tories, May might suffer from voter fatigue.

Turnout might depress slightly but she's still got two large things working in her favour that will get out the Tory vote - 1. Middle Englanders who don't want a loony left^TM socialist like Jeremy Corbyn in power and 2. Leave voters who don't want to see Brexit handed over to the Remainer progressive left.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Have to say I agree that this "Farron is anti-LGBT" line is turning into an annoying forced meme. True, I like him even less as a person knowing this about his personal views, but his actual political views - as reflected by his voting record - and his party's stated positions on LGBT issues are miles better than the Tories, and in some cases better than those of Labour.

I won't be voting for his party because I think they're wrong on Brexit and I don't trust them because I view them to be spineless numpties who will fold at the slightest whiff of a potential coalition quicker and more nimbly than a sheaf of paper at an origami convention. But this particular angle of criticism...nah.

[The Wolfiad]

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... party-will

Well Corbyn only sightly mucked it up by not affirming democratically agreed policy would be in the manifesto, but at least he hasn't done something like commit to unilateralism today. Trident renewal will continue to be party policy. Phew.

[Vassenor]

Nine Conservative policies we would do well to remember.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Nine Conservative policies we would do well to remember.

What purpose does showing this serve?

[The Archregimancy]

I'm seeing little support for Plaid Cymru there. Nobody cares about the Welsh?

Pesda was a very active supporter of PC - and a native Welsh speaker. However, she doesn't currently seem to be active. Which is a shame; though we inevitably didn't always agree (particularly over nationalism and secessionism) she provided a constructive voice on Welsh issues, particularly when it came to issues important to Welsh-speaking communities.

[The Archregimancy]

I think it's very fair for you to make this point.

However, I didn't discuss anything in the Independent, because I wasn't passing a substantive comment on the content of either article - I was just voicing my distaste for the Spectator's writing style, which I struggle to describe as anything but "anti-left-wing propaganda". Even the Guardian's guest opinion pieces have less sneer and so does Salon too, somehow.

That's a fair enough point in return.

One of NSG's more irritating habits is when individuals summarily dismiss any story that comes from a medium in opposition to their own politics; in some cases this is arguably warranted, but the trend has been growing to the extent that even more mainstream right- and left-of-centre media are now dismissed out of hand for 'bias'. That's why I used two contrasting sources here. By focusing so narrowly on the Spectator and ignoring the Independent, you did perhaps give the impression that you were dismissing the entire story on the basis of disagreeing with the Spectator's political perspective. However, I accept this was inadvertent, and you only meant to comment on the specific medium, not on the actual substance of the story.

[Frank Zipper]

I thought at first the Paul Nuttall was asking for a burger van, but it turns out it is a burka ban he is after. Does anybody support importing that French idea here?

[Eastfield Lodge]

I thought at first the Paul Nuttall was asking for a burger van, but it turns out it is a burka ban he is after. Does anybody support importing that French idea here?

This is somewhat relevant.