General Election Dec 2019 thread

[RevdTess]

My voting preferences go something like this:

Green (if they can win).
SNP (if they're standing).
Plaid (if they're standing).
Labour
Brexit Party
Lib Dem
Tory.

In other words I'll broadly go towards the eco-socialist left where I can. It may surprise some people that I put the BXP above the Libdems. It surprises me too, but I see so little in the LibDems to admire or desire. I don't trust them and Swinson doesn't impress or enthuse me in any way. Ironically I voted LibDem in 2017 and now regret it.

I am also somewhat influenced by my friend who is a PPC for the BXP assuming Farage doesn't change his mind and unilaterally withdraw from Tory Leave areas. My friend has convinced me that the BXP motivation is primarily pro-democratic rather than pushing a social and economic agenda to the right of the Tories as I suspected. So at the moment I'd be really happy to see the BXP do well and the Tories collapse.

Ultimately though, assuming there's no chance of a Green MP, and since I don't live in Scotland, it's Labour's agenda I want to see implemented. I'm not a great fan of Corbyn's leadership skills, but his ideas seem sound, and I'd be happier with his approach on Brexit than with BJ's deal, which I honestly don't really understand - (What happens after the implementation period?)

I'd also be overjoyed with any outcome that leads to electoral reform or a successful indyref2 for Scotland.

[RevdTess]

You have not got the faintest clue about the shit storm that is coming.

While there may well be violence if Brexit is cancelled, what do you expect the bourgeoisie to do? Change their minds to avoid the violence? That would be like giving in to terrorism. No one should change their view simply because violence is threatened or even merely predicted. If someone has to threaten violence to get their way politically, they have already become the terrorist.

[Little John]

You keep equating these positions are if they are morally equitable. One of them is fundamentally undemocratic and one is not. And yet, here you are, equating those on the democratic side with terrorists. Either you are ideologically blinded to the above or you are the worst kind of hypocritical, sneering, bourgeois liberal irrespective of whether you can actually admit that to yourself or not. Though, I suspect not since I am certain you think you are a "good" person...right?

As for the bourgeois, I could not give a flying F--k if they don't want to give up. They will either back off from f***ing with the democratic vote of 2016 or there will be violence at some point and there should be. Do I think they will use every arm of the state to quell it? Yes, of course I do. Will the democratic side win? I have no idea. But, this is not even about outcomes now. It is about being prepared to stand by what is right irrespective.

Bring the fucker on.

I am not alone in these sentiments, I can assure you.

[UndercoverElephant]

You keep equating these positions are if they are morally equitable. One of them is fundamentally undemocratic and one is not. And yet, here you are, equating those on the democratic side with terrorists. Either you are really, really stupid or you are the worst kind of hypocritical, sneering, bourgeois liberal irrespective of whether you can actually admit that to yourself or not. Though, I suspect not since I am certain you think you are a "good" person...right?

As for the bourgeois, I could not give a flying F--k if they don't want to give up. They will either back off from f***ing with the democratic vote of 2016 or there will be violence at some point and there should be. Do I think they will use every arm of the state to quell it? Yes, of course I do. Will the democratic side win? I have no idea. But, this is not even about outcomes now. It is about being prepared to stand by what is right irrespective.

Bring the fucker on.

I am not alone in these sentiments, I can assure you.

Yeah, but where do the sentiments go?

Unless the tories win what is now looking like a rather unlikely overall majority, there will be a second referendum without no deal on the ballot paper. Remain will win but supporters of no deal will claim it was a stitch-up.

At what point does the rioting or terrorism/assinationas actually start, and what could it achieve? I can't see what it could possibly achieve. Ultimately this can only be resolved at the ballot box, one way or another. And it is no use saying it already has been resolved at the ballot box, because we'd have left already if it had.

Either the people elect a parliament which will vote for brexit, or brexit won't happen. But the people won't (or can't because of FPTP) elect such a parliament.

There may be civil unrest, when brexit is finally pronounced dead, but it will stay dead. The brexit party will therefore remain very much alive.

[Little John]

The Brexit party and the likes of Farage will be the least of our worries if Brexit is overturned.

[clv101]

Either the people elect a parliament which will vote for brexit, or brexit won't happen. But the people won't (or can't because of FPTP) elect such a parliament.

Absolutely, this is one of the most sensible observations posted here in months. Failure to see this has underpinned most of the hopeless commentary over the last few years in the media and elsewhere.

[RevdTess]

You keep equating these positions are if they are morally equitable. One of them is fundamentally undemocratic and one is not. And yet, here you are, equating those on the democratic side with terrorists.

No, I'm equating 'those who advocate, threaten, or engage in violence as a way to make people change their minds politically' with terrorists. Because that is what they are.

Are you not warning of violence as a way to persuade us to change our minds? If not, then why say these things? Because you're angry? Get in the queue.

Seriously, since when do the English change their minds because someone threatens violence?

[UndercoverElephant]

The Brexit party and the likes of Farage will be the least of our worries if Brexit is overturned.

But that doesn't mean anything to me. I can see some massive political implications (such as the end of the tory party as we know it, and probably the end of two-party politics in this country). That shouldn't be taken lightly. But I can't see how violent protest can change anything. It's not like the poll tax riots, where the unrest led to the downfall of both the tax and Thatcher, because the only thing it can lead to the downfall of is the tory party. It can't make brexit happen.

[woodburner]

The English for the most part don’t have much of a mind to change. The majority believe the main stream establishment garbage. They are suppressed from opposing the actions of the authorities by the cunning chronic administering of chemical added to their environment. Do you use fluoride toothpaste? I won’t go through the whole list. In 2001, 176 countries agreed to ban 12 of the most persistent organic pollutants (agricultural chemicals) Codex Alimentarius brought back 7 of the 9 most potent, among them Dieldrin and Aldrin. Hiv was introduced as an attempt to reduce the African population by administering it with the smallpox “immunisation� (a completely misleading word) program.

Measles vaccine was another one, sure, it reduced the number of African children dying from measles, but they died at a faster rate from the other endemic diseases.

So who are the “terrorists�? The ones who commit overt violent threats and actions, or the “authorities� who are controlled by corporate interests to peddle their polluting products? There is already violence on the streets of the UK, caused by the policy of making drug taking (other than medical) illegal and so generating the circumstances for a flourishing trade for the opportunists, to the tune of £10billion a year. The users die, the pushers kill each other over territories.

[woodburner]

The Brexit party and the likes of Farage will be the least of our worries if Brexit is overturned.

But that doesn't mean anything to me. I can see some massive political implications (such as the end of the tory party as we know it, and probably the end of two-party politics in this country). That shouldn't be taken lightly. But I can't see how violent protest can change anything. It's not like the poll tax riots, where the unrest led to the downfall of both the tax and Thatcher, because the only thing it can lead to the downfall of is the tory party. It can't make brexit happen.

The tory, and other parties have changed substantially from what we thought we knew. They now appear to be mouth pieces for corporate lobbys, and will do anything or say anything they are paid for, or in some circumstances blackmailed for.

[Little John]

You keep equating these positions are if they are morally equitable. One of them is fundamentally undemocratic and one is not. And yet, here you are, equating those on the democratic side with terrorists.

No, I'm equating 'those who advocate, threaten, or engage in violence as a way to make people change their minds politically' with terrorists. Because that is what they are.

Are you not warning of violence as a way to persuade us to change our minds? If not, then why say these things? Because you're angry? Get in the queue.

Seriously, since when do the English change their minds because someone threatens violence?

So, the Brits were terrorists for fighting Hitler were they? Or, how about the Palestinians for trying to get their land back?

Yours is the very worst kind of pathetic, wet, liberal, Church of England hypocrisy. Made all the worse by the fact that its very existence rests on the blood, sweat and tears of those who were prepared to get their hands dirty so people like you could clutch your pearls in horror at the thought of it all.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quick election prediction:

I think this campaign is going to go tits up for Johnson when the manifestos come out, even though he won't have made any howling mistakes like May did. Labour's manifesto will be considerably more ambitious than the last one. It will absolutely horrify the tories, but will be surprisingly popular among the rest of the electorate. My prediction is that Johnson won't know how to react in a way that doesn't damage the tories. The very act of slamming the Labour manifesto will help Labour very much, and the polls will start shifting in Labour's direction.

[Potemkin Villager]

I will offer a prediction that Bojo will be parachuted into a safe seat to avoid the verdict of his grateful constituents in Uxbridge.

[eatyourveg]

Quick election prediction:

I think this campaign is going to go tits up for Johnson when the manifestos come out, even though he won't have made any howling mistakes like May did. Labour's manifesto will be considerably more ambitious than the last one. It will absolutely horrify the tories, but will be surprisingly popular among the rest of the electorate. My prediction is that Johnson won't know how to react in a way that doesn't damage the tories. The very act of slamming the Labour manifesto will help Labour very much, and the polls will start shifting in Labour's direction.

This is pretty much exactly what I was saying to wotsername yesterday. Let's see what happens then.

Also, I understand there is a website out there that lists the policies of each party but does not attribute them. The idea is you tick the ones you agree with as you go through them, and only when you have gone through them are you told which party proposes them.

An aid to decision making - anyone know the address of said website? Can't find it.

[UndercoverElephant]

I will offer a prediction that Bojo will be parachuted into a safe seat to avoid the verdict of his grateful constituents in Uxbridge.

I think that would be a terrible look. Sends out a message that he is scared.

I personally think he will contest Uxbridge, and may well lose it. Especially if Labour promises to cancel the Heathrow expansion in its manifesto.