The 2017 GE & Politics Thread

[formatzero]

As interesting as the TV debates were to watch, they added very little to things other than give a headline to the Daily Mail. Remember in 2010 when Nick Clegg was amazing on TV when no-one had heard of him, and his party got a crap load of votes based purely on that rather than any actual depth to the LD policies? Yeah, look how that ended up: People then realised just *why* no-one had ever voted for them in decent numbers after seeing the nonsense they came out with! IMHO debates about policies and who you should be voting for is something that should be taken at face value going on previous history and what is actually written down, not soundbites and how well someone comes across on TV.

 

TM seems a far stronger leader than DC to me, and whilst I didn't necessarily agree with her actions as Home Secretary she's appears to be significantly better and more forthright as a party leader. As I've said, I don't think this was the right call for a snap GE, however I'd much rather have a PM that is flexible enough to realise when something isn't really working and needs changing, rather than stick blindly with something just because they don't want to be seen as 'going back on their word'. That is the kind of useless nonsense that has to be erased from modern politics, as all it does it leave us stuck in the stone ages.

 

 

As for a TV debate without the PM, that debate then loses all credibility and given that the other parties broadly agree that the Tories are evil, it won't be much of a debate if they all just stand there and agree with each other all night!

e

 

I agree with this,we have been force fed so much politics recently we must surely know what the parties policies are without yet another debate.Tories to the right,Labour as far left as you can get,Lib dems trying to be the middle ground,S.N.P objecting to anything from Westminster

[Stutopia]

For me, the debates are not about knowing the policies, they've not changed for years, blue for small state, unregulated capitalism and red for larger state, socialism; with a few swingers in the middle to try and tempt the oppo voters. Also the manifestos will be available in PDF for our viewing pleasure anyway.

 

In the last GE debates I liked seeing how they reacted to small bits of off piste discussion, having their anger piqued, occasionally getting the briefest glimpse of what they're like when things wander away from the scripted responses and they have to be borderline honest. Clegg did come over fairly well and got a bounce, which was good, he seemed like the closest one to a rough approximation of a human.

 

May seems quite a capable speaker, so I'm not really sure why she's wet her knickers on this, other than she struggles when not reciting the gibberish like "Brexit means Brexit" and "God told me chocolate eggs are Christian".

[Ekona]

Probably because she has the most to lose. No point putting yourself in a risky position if you really don't need to.

[coldel]

As Stu says, the TV debates bring a different element to a multi-element reason to voting for a party. Can you vote just by reading the manifesto? Or just by meeting your local Councillor, and so on and so forth? Many people do I know, but in my view that's wrong, what I think is right is getting to see the leader who ultimately ticks or crosses the box on macro decisions on this country perform against their opposite numbers as a leader, not as a script reader - anyone can practice a script long enough to stand up and read a statement and come across as leader material.

 

I think in Clegg, you saw someone who had conviction and great knowledge in what he debated - sure the LDs couldnt influence government but they did keep some of the Tories killer polices off the table - problem was people misunderstood what exactly the LDs could execute in the coalition.

[Ekona]

I think Clegg proved the opposite: He's a showman that can talk a good job, but ultimately has no record of running at the top level so was well out of his depth. Nice guy, I've no doubt about that, but a rubbish politician. Same with Corbyn, I'm sure he's a really good bloke but otherwise incompetent at what he does.

 

For balance, I can think of some Tories who have neither personality nor competence *cough* GOVE *cough*.

[BobbyZ]

I think calling the GE is the right decision - May needs a solid position to negotiate Brexit from. As she mentioned, all the other parties trying to shoot her down at every turn will only turn the whole thing into a mess (or rather, ensure that it stays as one).

 

I quite like May as a leader as well - I think so far she seems to be doing a decent job, although of course the real judgement will come a few years down the line. I also think she's a fairly good public speaker so I'm not sure she would fair that badly in TV debates, but she does seem to be quite reserved with a preference for avoiding the circus that modern politics has become (a good thing IMO). For me TV debates are a bit of a gimmick anyway, and of limited use in showing the value of someone as a leader.

 

I'll be voting Conservative (as usual) - they're the most closely aligned to my values, and also the only credible political party in the country at this moment in time IMO.

[coldel]

Unfortunately we will never know with Clegg, as he never actually had any power to lead or run anything, the coalition gave the Tories enough seats to take government, the LDs never had enough seats to actually influence the policy making towards their own policies - Clegg was never in charge or running anything it was a Tory manifesto that played out.

 

Corbyn clearly is thick skinned and pretty cut throat as we have seen in terms of binning people off - he seems a tough guy under it all, but comes across as someone so out of touch with the modern world and a lot of people in this country he has become unelectable.

 

Its interesting, but there is a dearth of genuine 'leaders' out there in the political spectrum at the moment.

[Ekona]

I don't think Corbyn is a tough guy at all, and I think that as a world leader he'd be utterly useless. He's had little choice but to bin off most of his shadow cabinet twice, but even with a three line whip his MPs are still voting against him! That's just unheard of.

 

The sad thing is that I don't entirely disagree with his view of how the world should be: Yes, we absolutely should be spending more on social care, and help to those that need it, and the NHS & education. The trouble we have is that we simply cannot afford to right now, and I don't believe we should be borrowing any more to accommodate that. Taxing the middle-class and high earners even more isn't the solution, there needs to be serious changes in to how these services are provided in the first place.

 

I do not believe for one second that Corbyn would be capable of getting us the best Brexit deal. It might well be a softer Brexit, but it would also give too much away that the British public voted to take back in the first place. The more I read into the Brexit process, the more I'm convinced that a hard Brexit is the way to go. And I voted to Remain!

[BobbyZ]

I think with Corbyn it's as much a problem with his image as his values and policies. The guy looks like a hobo, and is about as inspirational as a derelict ****house. Fair play to him for sticking to his principles though.

[Jay84]

I must say we're all being terribly adult about this thread, politics has a way of getting out of hand on forums. I was discussing it with the wife last night who is a teacher and she was appalled by my choice in vote. But as has been said JC although has good ideals, comes off as being soft with no backing from his peers.

[Jetpilot]

Did anyone in the Tv debates actually get their question answered, No, just more spin without actually answering, usual answer was just divert and try to blame the opposition, absolute waste of time and if someone really needs their vote confirming from a debate, they probably shouldnt have a vote imho.

[coldel]

But the TV debates are not for answering questions (ironically) its more about how capable these potential leaders look when under the spotlight and comparing across. Then you put this with all the other sources of information you have to make a final call on who to vote for, why exclude it, why not listen and make your own call?

[Ekona]

I'm in the middle of a good debate on FB at the moment with a mate of mine, discussing whether or not it should be a legal requirement to vote. I say yes, as my view is that if you don't vote you don't ever have a right to complain. His view is no, as many people don't care about politics until they find something really passionate to argue about.

 

For me, his reason kind of argues my point for me. If you're not going to pay an overall interest in how your life is run (which is what government basically does), then why should you ever be able to complain when they do actually do something you really don't like? There's so many websites out there now that let you tick a box to show which policy you agree with and then basically tell you who to vote for at the end, that it's inexcusable to not vote. Everyone has an opinion, might as well do something with it.

[Jetpilot]

But the TV debates are not for answering questions (ironically) its more about how capable these potential leaders look when under the spotlight and comparing across. Then you put this with all the other sources of information you have to make a final call on who to vote for, why exclude it, why not listen and make your own call?

 

For me is nothing to do with the leaders, its the party politics, i havent yet seen a leader who i thought, i just couldnt give my vote to them even though i agree with their policies.

 

Ref a legal requirement to vote, i see both sides, its like on here when someone asks a question, dont ask if you dont like the answer, same goes for politics, if you dont vote, you have no right to moan as you say

 

I guess you can say its not a "fair" representation if "x" number havent voted, but being as they would just spoil their ballot paper anyway if forced, whats the point in making them?

[Ekona]

That's the real shame, some people choosing not to vote on purpose because they think all politicians are the same. They'd be better off spoiling their paper on purpose, as that way it gets shown in the official count and if enough people did that then it might make them stop and think.

[Jetpilot]

But if they think they are all the same, regardless of the fact they arent, its a mute point, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink.

[BobbyZ]

I'm in the middle of a good debate on FB at the moment with a mate of mine, discussing whether or not it should be a legal requirement to vote. I say yes, as my view is that if you don't vote you don't ever have a right to complain. His view is no, as many people don't care about politics until they find something really passionate to argue about.

 

For me, his reason kind of argues my point for me. If you're not going to pay an overall interest in how your life is run (which is what government basically does), then why should you ever be able to complain when they do actually do something you really don't like? There's so many websites out there now that let you tick a box to show which policy you agree with and then basically tell you who to vote for at the end, that it's inexcusable to not vote. Everyone has an opinion, might as well do something with it.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Unless you can force everyone to make an informed and well judged vote (which is hard enough even for intelligent people who care), it's just ridiculous to make it mandatory. Bear in mind that it could, in theory, result in literally any party getting in, no matter how abhorrent their policies, especially as it's inevitable that some of the 'reluctant' voters will inevitably vote for someone just for a laugh.

 

Furthermore, does turning up to tick a random box just because you have to make your complaints any more or less valid? I don't see how it could.

[coldel]

But the TV debates are not for answering questions (ironically) its more about how capable these potential leaders look when under the spotlight and comparing across. Then you put this with all the other sources of information you have to make a final call on who to vote for, why exclude it, why not listen and make your own call?

 

For me is nothing to do with the leaders, its the party politics, i havent yet seen a leader who i thought, i just couldnt give my vote to them even though i agree with their policies.

 

Ref a legal requirement to vote, i see both sides, its like on here when someone asks a question, dont ask if you dont like the answer, same goes for politics, if you dont vote, you have no right to moan as you say

 

I guess you can say its not a "fair" representation if "x" number havent voted, but being as they would just spoil their ballot paper anyway if forced, whats the point in making them?

 

Is it not the opposite though? That you believe a leader of a party to actually have the capability to lead and implement what they have planned in their manifesto? If you go to look at a car that on paper sounds great then the owner walks out, makes stuff up about cars that you know is rubbish, gets in and slams the door hard shut, starts the car and guns it down the road without a second to warm up - would that knowledge not make you think twice about what was written on the paper? (ok as best a relevant example as I could think of!)

 

For me I need to buy in to the whole thing, top to bottom. There is absolutely nothing to lose by seeing what these leaders are made of put face to face, there is nothing to lose as a voter looking for a more informed view.

[Ekona]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Unless you can force everyone to make an informed and well judged vote (which is hard enough even for intelligent people who care), it's just ridiculous to make it mandatory. Bear in mind that it could, in theory, result in literally any party getting in, no matter how abhorrent their policies, especially as it's inevitable that some of the 'reluctant' voters will inevitably vote for someone just for a laugh.

It's spectacularly easy to make an informed choice. Everyone has access to the internet, go to the website, tick the boxes of the policies you agree with, they tell you which way to vote. Job's a carrot.

[BobbyZ]

I'm not familiar with these websites - who runs them?

 

There's also the question of whether people would bother to use them, if they couldn't be bothered to vote unless forced.

[Ekona]

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

 

That's the one that springs to mind. Run by volunteers, not associated with any party. Not been updated yet for this year, but I've no doubt it will be.

[coldel]

Interestingly this justifies the point - that you could easily do this survey (its just an attitudinal segmentation survey a doddle to create) and come up labour then say 'no way am I voting for Corbyn' - shows how important the leadership and figurehead of any 'proposal' is.

[Ekona]

Which is why people need to remember they're not voting for PM, they're voting for their local candidate.

[BobbyZ]

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

 

That's the one that springs to mind. Run by volunteers, not associated with any party. Not been updated yet for this year, but I've no doubt it will be.

 

Well I don't like the idea of using a website to tell you who to vote for, although I'll concede that in many cases it's only as bad as looking to the media for guidance. Additionally, even if that one is legit, you can bet that if they catch on there will be a lot popping up that will skew results towards one party or another.

 

Even if we assume that the websites provide genuine guidance, I still maintain that you could force people to vote, but you couldn't force them to make an informed and well meaning vote.

[coldel]

Which is why people need to remember they're not voting for PM, they're voting for their local candidate.

 

I was referring more to macro decision making - local candidates do not control these as much as we like to think so, Richmond voting for Sarah over Zac makes bugger all difference to what airport gets extended, they can both shout about it, they do not make the decisions though.