Is Theresa May really going to spend the next six weeks repeating the terms 'strong

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

---

In fairness, she doesn't need to say much else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

---

**** off peter ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

---

.
It's called "staying on message", isn't it. I don't recall which clowns coined the term :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

---

Aren't all elections tedious?

Don't know why they don't just call an election and then vote about 2 days later. Does anybody really change their vote during the life of a campaign?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWv2

Aren't all elections tedious?

Don't know why they don't just call an election and then vote about 2 days later. Does anybody really change their vote during the life of a campaign?

---

Believe that it's more about persuading people that don't typically vote to cast a vote in the campaigner's favour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Believe that it's more about persuading people that don't typically vote to cast a vote in the campaigner's favour.

---

For once you make a decent and valid point Dick, however if these people are so gullible as to believe the claims or promises of a politician then surely there is an argument they should not be allowed to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Believe that it's more about persuading people that don't typically vote to cast a vote in the campaigner's favour.

---

More than that. It is about the notion (not currently fashionable, I admit) that people should and can make up their own minds on the basis of discussion and debate, and that political decisions that affect people's lives can be made on this basis.

Party loyalty is always a big factor, but so are floating voters who consider each campaign on its own merits. Judging May in May, as it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWv2

For once you make a decent and valid point Dick, however if these people are so gullible as to believe the claims or promises of a politician then surely there is an argument they should not be allowed to vote.

---

The problem, I believe, with this level of cynicism is that it taps into the prevalent notion that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote - as we saw in the fury following the EU referendum. The alternative is to be ruled forever by 'experts' and technocrats who claim to know what is best for other people.

A analogy could be made, if you will forgive me, to the view of Monty (and others) that football fans are too stupid to be allowed into the ground where their lack of understanding of the game, and possibly vocal pronouncements on that basis, can only damage the outcome of the match.

British poltitics once consisted of solely of the whims of a King. Slowly over the centuries power was wrested down the ladder, and now everyone has a vote. I believe this is not something that should be given away.

Democracy In!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

The problem, I believe, with this level of cynicism is that it taps into the prevalent notion that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote - as we saw in the fury following the EU referendum. The alternative is to be ruled forever by 'experts' and technocrats who claim to know what is best for other people.

A analogy could be made, if you will forgive me, to the view of Monty (and others) that football fans are too stupid to be allowed into the ground where their lack of understanding of the game, and possibly vocal pronouncements on that basis, can only damage the outcome of the match.

British poltitics once consisted of solely of the whims of a King. Slowly over the centuries power was wrested down the ladder, and now everyone has a vote. I believe this is not something that should be given away.

Democracy In!

---

Hang on, you're not actually denying that people are generally stupid, or, more specific to the topic being discussed, insufficiently engaged with politics to make informed voting decisions, are you? In fact I know many people who are engaged with politics who I believe are ill-equipped to make informed decisions - and I'd count myself among them (which is partly why I don't vote).

Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.

Equally, with football fans, yes I absolutely believe they are too stupid for their opinions to have any credibility or worth in terms of their actual substance, but I also recognise that without them football would be nothing and that therefore their freedom to attend matches and, alas, to voice their cretinious opinions, should and must be protected.