Snap General Election called

[Mikey Brown]

Was it really even support? I just feel like if you’re choosing to be the biggest cunt in the world then of course somebody is going to have a disproportionate/inappropriate reaction to it.

I agree it’s not at all helpful, but I’m struggling to care much either way, as it seems to have been dealt with.

It might increase the use of the phrase “so much for the tolerant left” I suppose, which is pretty annoying to be fair.

[Puja]

What precedent is being set? Haven’t people been arrested for it?

Yes and that’s a good thing. But considering the support on here for throwing a milkshake over Farage last weeks, I’m curious where the red line is.

I'd say the red line is the same place I put it last week - a milkshake is an embarrassing and messy form of protest. I would also accept (uncanned) soup, water, and bubble bath. Anything which has the potential to hurt or damage is clearly unacceptable.

Why would you think the red line would be anywhere else?

Puja

[Sandydragon]

What precedent is being set? Haven’t people been arrested for it?

Yes and that’s a good thing. But considering the support on here for throwing a milkshake over Farage last weeks, I’m curious where the red line is.

I'd say the red line is the same place I put it last week - a milkshake is an embarrassing and messy form of protest. I would also accept (uncanned) soup, water, and bubble bath. Anything which has the potential to hurt or damage is clearly unacceptable.

Why would you think the red line would be anywhere else?

Puja

I don’t regard assault n any form as acceptable, which would include throwing a milkshake over someone else. Even for someone like Farage. That’s my red line.

[Which Tyler]

Personally, I condemned the throwing of the milkshake, but asking those who condone, or don't care, where their red line is, is surely disingenuous.
It's bloody obvious.

There's a huge difference between "something harmless" and "something harmful".

[Puja]

Personally, I condemned the throwing of the milkshake, but asking those who condone, or don't care, where their red line is, is surely disingenuous.
It's bloody obvious.

There's a huge difference between "something harmless" and "something harmful".

Nail -> Head and articulated much better than I said it.

I should have said, "Why would you think *my* red line would be anywhere else?" as that would've been much clearer.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Please tell me that's a deep fake - it has to be, surely.

Is he really blaming D-day for being a few minutes late to his interview?

[Puja]

Just an absolute car crash. The panic in his eyes as the interviewer asks, "So what did you have to without? Can you give me an example of something you sacrificed," as he babbles and tries to extemporise, and then settles on "Sky TV" as an example of his underprivileged upbringing, before desperately swerving back to his preprepared lines of dialogue.

With the way ITV are trailing this, I'm wondering if they have even worse material and this interview is a Prince Andrew level of debacle. Even if they haven't, "Famously Sky TV" is easily as bad as "Running through fields of wheat."

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

If any of you are thinking about (re)watching The Thick of It, now is a good time. Still painfully on point. There's a bit in the first episode I think where they almost schedule a press conference that clashes with the two minutes silence for remembrance day.

[Sandydragon]

Please tell me that's a deep fake - it has to be, surely.

Is he really blaming D-day for being a few minutes late to his interview?

Christ almighty. If that's true then how tin eared can one person be?

[Sandydragon]

If any of you are thinking about (re)watching The Thick of It, now is a good time. Still painfully on point. There's a bit in the first episode I think where they almost schedule a press conference that clashes with the two minutes silence for remembrance day.

Yep. I routinely rewatch the Thick of It and also Yes Minister, both of which remain painfully on target in so many ways.

[Puja]

Please tell me that's a deep fake - it has to be, surely.

I'm not sure bad actors can get a word in edgeways. Who's gonna pay attention to a deep fake when the actual man will fuck up worse in a few minutes anyway?

Even more rumblings that they might ditch him before the election, but I can't work out who the fuck they think they'd ditch him for - not like they can have a leadership election or that there's any kind of consensus candidate that they'd rally around. They already picked the runner up in their last leadership contest to sub in. I suppose maybe Mordaunt would be acceptable to enough MPs, but would she really want it for what would be a maximum of 2 months?

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Please tell me that's a deep fake - it has to be, surely.

I'm not sure bad actors can get a word in edgeways. Who's gonna pay attention to a deep fake when the actual man will fuck up worse in a few minutes anyway?

Even more rumblings that they might ditch him before the election, but I can't work out who the fuck they think they'd ditch him for - not like they can have a leadership election or that there's any kind of consensus candidate that they'd rally around. They already picked the runner up in their last leadership contest to sub in. I suppose maybe Mordaunt would be acceptable to enough MPs, but would she really want it for what would be a maximum of 2 months?

Puja

The Independent are reporting this and suggesting that the footage was released by ITV. Not seeing any denial yet.

[Zhivago]

Reform just passed tories in the latest poll. I appreciate the tories imploding but I am starting to get slightly concerned that farage could become the opposition, which would legitimise them.

[Mikey Brown]

Reform just passed tories in the latest poll. I appreciate the tories imploding but I am starting to get slightly concerned that farage could become the opposition, which would legitimise them.

Yeah I’m surprised how unbothered a lot of people are by this. He’s seen how well Trump’s messaging has worked over the last few years and is far, far smarter.

I saw a round of quick polls with kids at a festival the other day and a whole bunch of them were saying reform “I’m not totally sure but why not try something different”. I don’t imagine they’re overwhelmingly the types to actually go out and vote, but I don’t think we should assume it’s only old racists and basement dwelling incels that will be swayed by the far right.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Reform just passed tories in the latest poll. I appreciate the tories imploding but I am starting to get slightly concerned that farage could become the opposition, which would legitimise them.

Yeah I’m surprised how unbothered a lot of people are by this. He’s seen how well Trump’s messaging has worked over the last few years and is far, far smarter.

I saw a round of quick polls with kids at a festival the other day and a whole bunch of them were saying reform “I’m not totally sure but why not try something different”. I don’t imagine they’re overwhelmingly the types to actually go out and vote, but I don’t think we should assume it’s only old racists and basement dwelling incels that will be swayed by the far right.

Some thoughts:

1) with FPTP, Reform are still going to get almost no seats, even if they surpass the Tories. Their vote is too spread out. Obviously if they took a lot more of the Tory vote that would change but I imagine their vote share would need to be in the high 20s for that to start to happen.

2) this is now. People are still giving a protest vote to the pollsters (remember Cleggmania?). Come the election at least some of that Reform vote will return to the Tories (Labour too, since Reform seem to have shaved a few % off the Labour vote too).

3) if the young are getting fooled by the fascists (just like in the EU) then Starmer may think twice about lowering the voting age. It's not like Starmer has any youth appeal, unlike Corbyn.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm not particularly concerned about Reform sweeping this upcoming election from under everyone, but I'm worried if Starmer's complete nothing policy on anything at all doesn't inspire a bit of progress (even superficial) in the next few years there is still a lot of potential for Farage's way of thinking (whatever the name of the party) to make an impact.

The Tories will surely only go further right from here?

Simply appeasing the conservatives and hoping for 'steady incremental change' while we're swimming in literal rivers of shit surely isn't going to cut it. He'll be labelled a radical leftist, transgender, communist who hates our country by anyone that benefits from it, but without actually enacting any policies that help the average person.

I thought I was in a fairly positive mood today but I guess not. Maybe I've just been drawn in to a load of non-existent, clickbait nonsense. Hopefully.

[Puja]

I'm not particularly concerned about Reform sweeping this upcoming election from under everyone, but I'm worried if Starmer's complete nothing policy on anything at all doesn't inspire a bit of progress (even superficial) in the next few years there is still a lot of potential for Farage's way of thinking (whatever the name of the party) to make an impact.

The Tories will surely only go further right from here?

Simply appeasing the conservatives and hoping for 'steady incremental change' while we're swimming in literal rivers of shit surely isn't going to cut it. He'll be labelled a radical leftist, transgender, communist who hates our country by anyone that benefits from it, but without actually enacting any policies that help the average person.

I thought I was in a fairly positive mood today but I guess not.

Agreed. While it won't give them a large amount of MPs this election, it will legitimise them as a political force, instead of just Nigel Farage's private company for bolstering his ego. It's fun to think of the Tories dropping to third place, but an unassailable majority is only useful if there is the ambition to do something with it.

Puja

[Stom]

Reform just passed tories in the latest poll. I appreciate the tories imploding but I am starting to get slightly concerned that farage could become the opposition, which would legitimise them.

Yeah I’m surprised how unbothered a lot of people are by this. He’s seen how well Trump’s messaging has worked over the last few years and is far, far smarter.

I saw a round of quick polls with kids at a festival the other day and a whole bunch of them were saying reform “I’m not totally sure but why not try something different”. I don’t imagine they’re overwhelmingly the types to actually go out and vote, but I don’t think we should assume it’s only old racists and basement dwelling incels that will be swayed by the far right.

Some thoughts:

1) with FPTP, Reform are still going to get almost no seats, even if they surpass the Tories. Their vote is too spread out. Obviously if they took a lot more of the Tory vote that would change but I imagine their vote share would need to be in the high 20s for that to start to happen.

2) this is now. People are still giving a protest vote to the pollsters (remember Cleggmania?). Come the election at least some of that Reform vote will return to the Tories (Labour too, since Reform seem to have shaved a few % off the Labour vote too).

3) if the young are getting fooled by the fascists (just like in the EU) then Starmer may think twice about lowering the voting age. It's not like Starmer has any youth appeal, unlike Corbyn.

There is a HUGE difference between the young people who are now 21-25 years old, and the kids who are 15-19...the type of media they grew up on as teenagers is worlds apart, and the right wing's strangehold on media coverage has done incredible damage. For a youth who haven't grown up in a world where Joe Rogan isn't a household name, the world looks a very different place.

I said it first a good 6 years ago, but the exporting of America's libertarian views has been the most damaging thing Europe has had to deal with since Thatcherism.

[Stom]

I'm not particularly concerned about Reform sweeping this upcoming election from under everyone, but I'm worried if Starmer's complete nothing policy on anything at all doesn't inspire a bit of progress (even superficial) in the next few years there is still a lot of potential for Farage's way of thinking (whatever the name of the party) to make an impact.

The Tories will surely only go further right from here?

Simply appeasing the conservatives and hoping for 'steady incremental change' while we're swimming in literal rivers of shit surely isn't going to cut it. He'll be labelled a radical leftist, transgender, communist who hates our country by anyone that benefits from it, but without actually enacting any policies that help the average person.

I thought I was in a fairly positive mood today but I guess not. Maybe I've just been drawn in to a load of non-existent, clickbait nonsense. Hopefully.

I still have faith that his nothing policy will disintegrate after the election. He will have 3 years of grace to shovel the shit, so you'd hope they can actually have some impact during that time and quash the Farage nonsense with thought and deed.

If that faith is misplaced, though...

Well, here in Hungary, we're going to have to rely on Hungarians to take to the streets to keep our city free from Fidesz.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Sigh.

In case anyone else is interested in what a "real" democracy can look like, Fidesz put forward some celebrity influencer woman as their mayoral candidate for Budapest. Meanwhile, a former left-wing party, called "Politics Can Be Different" put forward a former Fidesz minister... hmmm...

Suddenly, two days before the election, the influencer pulls out and asks everyone to vote for the former minister.

Come the results, the incumbant non neo-nazi, Mr. Christmas (yes, that's his name) won by 300 odd votes.

Obviously, the former government minister demands a recount, and shock horror, he's seen the ballots! Where there were 20 odd THOUSAND votes for the Fidesz candidate who had withdrawn (but not soon enough for her name to be removed from the ballots). Her name had been pasted over with a thick black line in all the Mr. Christmas stronghold districts, and all the other districts...it was either a literally pen line, or a line of some description.

Of course, the former minister is saying all those votes should be his.

Meanwhile, the government shipped in almost 1,000 Venezuelans (that have been discovered) and gave them residency so they could vote for the former minister (Vitezy).

Welcome to democracy.

[Which Tyler]

I've seen this posted, but not referenced. Assuming its accuracy, I thought it was quite interesting:

Since 1974 there have been 12 UK general elections. The EU referendum was also included in this analysis for a total of 13 national votes.

If you were born in the period 1951-1956, you have voted in all 13. The majority of your age cohort has in every case voted for the winning side.

If you were born in 1991, on the other hand, you've voted in five of those contests. Your age cohort has never once supported the winning side. If you were born later, you've voted in fewer contests, but again, never for the winners.

The closest point to equilibrium is 1981, when you would have been on the winning side three times (1997, 2005, and 2010) but would have been on the losing side consistently in the four votes since.

So the gist is: if you are 33 or younger, you've probably never voted for the winning side. If you're in your 70s, your generation has been running the entire country all your life.

We all know this, of course, but it's a good illustration of why younger voters might get frustrated and why politicians pander to the retired vote so much. [/quote

[Son of Mathonwy]

I've seen this posted, but not referenced. Assuming its accuracy, I thought it was quite interesting:

Since 1974 there have been 12 UK general elections. The EU referendum was also included in this analysis for a total of 13 national votes.

If you were born in the period 1951-1956, you have voted in all 13. The majority of your age cohort has in every case voted for the winning side.

If you were born in 1991, on the other hand, you've voted in five of those contests. Your age cohort has never once supported the winning side. If you were born later, you've voted in fewer contests, but again, never for the winners.

The closest point to equilibrium is 1981, when you would have been on the winning side three times (1997, 2005, and 2010) but would have been on the losing side consistently in the four votes since.

So the gist is: if you are 33 or younger, you've probably never voted for the winning side. If you're in your 70s, your generation has been running the entire country all your life.

We all know this, of course, but it's a good illustration of why younger voters might get frustrated and why politicians pander to the retired vote so much.

I really thought I would get to vote for the winning party this time, for the first time. I must read the main manifestos first (to be thorough) . . . but I'm thinking I'm unlikely to vote for Labour now. Starmer's just demolished most of the reasons I had for voting Labour. And the Gaza stance just proves his utter lack of moral compass - something you can't just lose and maybe find again. And I'm a labour party member! Cray-zee

There's always a chance Starmer might rip up his manifesto, just like he ripped up his pledges, and do something substantially different from the Tories. But I think it's unlikely. The way I see it, he'll be battered by the media mercilessly for all the things that are wrong with the country now, which will prove very difficult to fix without departing from the Tory script, till he loses to 1) best case, a newly-centrist Tory party, or 2) worst case, Farage, leading whatever the party of the right will be called in 5 years.

NB I have the 'luxury' of living in a strong Labour seat, so can be chilled about my vote, which will be wasted (ie it won't change the outcome) whatever I do with it.

[Stom]

I've seen this posted, but not referenced. Assuming its accuracy, I thought it was quite interesting:

Since 1974 there have been 12 UK general elections. The EU referendum was also included in this analysis for a total of 13 national votes.

If you were born in the period 1951-1956, you have voted in all 13. The majority of your age cohort has in every case voted for the winning side.

If you were born in 1991, on the other hand, you've voted in five of those contests. Your age cohort has never once supported the winning side. If you were born later, you've voted in fewer contests, but again, never for the winners.

The closest point to equilibrium is 1981, when you would have been on the winning side three times (1997, 2005, and 2010) but would have been on the losing side consistently in the four votes since.

So the gist is: if you are 33 or younger, you've probably never voted for the winning side. If you're in your 70s, your generation has been running the entire country all your life.

We all know this, of course, but it's a good illustration of why younger voters might get frustrated and why politicians pander to the retired vote so much. [/quote

Technically...I've voted for the loser every time, as I've always voted for Lib Dems tactically. Lol. Add Brexit and that's 6 votes I've never had a chance in. (yes, technically, I would have voted Labour in 2005 if it'd been under PR, so I guess...)

[Sandydragon]

I've seen this posted, but not referenced. Assuming its accuracy, I thought it was quite interesting:

Since 1974 there have been 12 UK general elections. The EU referendum was also included in this analysis for a total of 13 national votes.

If you were born in the period 1951-1956, you have voted in all 13. The majority of your age cohort has in every case voted for the winning side.

If you were born in 1991, on the other hand, you've voted in five of those contests. Your age cohort has never once supported the winning side. If you were born later, you've voted in fewer contests, but again, never for the winners.

The closest point to equilibrium is 1981, when you would have been on the winning side three times (1997, 2005, and 2010) but would have been on the losing side consistently in the four votes since.

So the gist is: if you are 33 or younger, you've probably never voted for the winning side. If you're in your 70s, your generation has been running the entire country all your life.

We all know this, of course, but it's a good illustration of why younger voters might get frustrated and why politicians pander to the retired vote so much. [/quote

The obvious counter to that is that the older generation will actually vote.

[Zhivago]

I've seen this posted, but not referenced. Assuming its accuracy, I thought it was quite interesting:

Since 1974 there have been 12 UK general elections. The EU referendum was also included in this analysis for a total of 13 national votes.

If you were born in the period 1951-1956, you have voted in all 13. The majority of your age cohort has in every case voted for the winning side.

If you were born in 1991, on the other hand, you've voted in five of those contests. Your age cohort has never once supported the winning side. If you were born later, you've voted in fewer contests, but again, never for the winners.

The closest point to equilibrium is 1981, when you would have been on the winning side three times (1997, 2005, and 2010) but would have been on the losing side consistently in the four votes since.

So the gist is: if you are 33 or younger, you've probably never voted for the winning side. If you're in your 70s, your generation has been running the entire country all your life.

We all know this, of course, but it's a good illustration of why younger voters might get frustrated and why politicians pander to the retired vote so much.

I really thought I would get to vote for the winning party this time, for the first time. I must read the main manifestos first (to be thorough) . . . but I'm thinking I'm unlikely to vote for Labour now. Starmer's just demolished most of the reasons I had for voting Labour. And the Gaza stance just proves his utter lack of moral compass - something you can't just lose and maybe find again. And I'm a labour party member! Cray-zee

There's always a chance Starmer might rip up his manifesto, just like he ripped up his pledges, and do something substantially different from the Tories. But I think it's unlikely. The way I see it, he'll be battered by the media mercilessly for all the things that are wrong with the country now, which will prove very difficult to fix without departing from the Tory script, till he loses to 1) best case, a newly-centrist Tory party, or 2) worst case, Farage, leading whatever the party of the right will be called in 5 years.

NB I have the 'luxury' of living in a strong Labour seat, so can be chilled about my vote, which will be wasted (ie it won't change the outcome) whatever I do with it.

If he's not stupid he'll regulate our media properly.

[Zhivago]

This one is old but still relevant

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/vi ... ends-video