The usual suspects signalling their virtue hard on facebook :hehe:

[Sir C]

Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.

Can't think of anything less democratic, really.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.

Can't think of anything less democratic, really.

I like the talk that Labour have now sunk so low under Corbyn that they're considered something of a protest vote in this election :hehe:

[Burney]

Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.

Can't think of anything less democratic, really.

I do struggle with the idea that a politician seeking maximum advantage for her party by calling an election with the permission of Parliament is somehow considered to be cheating. It smacks of 'You can't call an election because we'll lose horribly and that's not fair!'

[Peter]

Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.

Can't think of anything less democratic, really.

The EU? Surely that is less democratic, having an unelected executive and all that. We would never permit such a thing here ;)

[SWv2]

I do struggle with the idea that a politician seeking maximum advantage for her party by calling an election with the permission of Parliament is somehow considered to be cheating. It smacks of 'You can't call an election because we'll lose horribly and that's not fair!'

Is the general annoyance not stemming from TM going back on an earlier claim that she would not do exactly what she has done in respect of calling an early election?

Mind you if one follows politics, which to be annoyed by it all would surely be the case, then to be annoyed by a politician making a complete U turn on an earlier claim or promise is surely not ground breaking.

It is times like this where Jorge is missed as he fumes and rages at the social injustices of a Conservative led Britain.

[Peter]

I do struggle with the idea that a politician seeking maximum advantage for her party by calling an election with the permission of Parliament is somehow considered to be cheating. It smacks of 'You can't call an election because we'll lose horribly and that's not fair!'

Well, it is just *******s isn't it. There is constitutional legislation that permits her to do precisely what she is doing.

[World's End Stella]

Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.

Can't think of anything less democratic, really.

And - according to that virtue signaler extraordinaire Ian Harvey - she's a liar. And she doesn't want the NHS. And she will tax the rich less. I was shocked he didn't go down the 'she hates the poor' path.

Good ole Ian :hehe:

[Burney]

Is the general annoyance not stemming from TM going back on an earlier claim that she would not do exactly what she has done in respect of calling an early election?

Mind you if one follows politics, which to be annoyed by it all would surely be the case, then to be annoyed by a politician making a complete U turn on an earlier claim or promise is surely not ground breaking.

It is times like this where Jorge is missed as he fumes and rages at the social injustices of a Conservative led Britain.

The Prime Minister's job is to do what she believes to be best for the country first and her party second. She can make a good case that both are best served by her calling an election, so she is entitled - even obliged - to do so. It's not like it was some sort of manifesto pledge or as if the PM has any obligation not to pīss off the opposition. The only people objecting are her opposition, who themselves are doing so for purely party political reasons themselves. Besides, they have the option of voting against this election if they're that bothered - but they're not going to do it.

In short, the objections to her calling an election are böllocks.

[Burney]

Well, it is just *******s isn't it. There is constitutional legislation that permits her to do precisely what she is doing.


Quite. If that is the best they have to throw at her, they are truly fùcked.

[Luis Anaconda]

The Prime Minister's job is to do what she believes to be best for the country first and her party second. She can make a good case that both are best served by her calling an election, so she is entitled - even obliged - to do so. It's not like it was some sort of manifesto pledge or as if the PM has any obligation not to pīss off the opposition. The only people objecting are her opposition, who themselves are doing so for purely party political reasons themselves. Besides, they have the option of voting against this election if they're that bothered - but they're not going to do it.

In short, the objections to her calling an election are böllocks.

Typical bird really - changing her mind all the time. Quite why she vehemently denied she was going to do it so many times is the mystery.

[Burney]

And - according to that virtue signaler extraordinaire Ian Harvey - she's a liar. And she doesn't want the NHS. And she will tax the rich less. I was shocked he didn't go down the 'she hates the poor' path.

Good ole Ian :hehe:

Well Ian and his ilk are about to be confronted with the horrible reality of what their little lefty fantasia of the last two years is about to do to the Labour Party and I don't think they fancy it much,

[Burney]

Typical bird really - changing her mind all the time. Quite why she vehemently denied she was going to do it so many times is the mystery.

I would agree. Why rule it out? Unless it was to encourage Labour complacency and division until she felt they'd reached a nadir of unpopularity.

[Luis Anaconda]

I would agree. Why rule it out? Unless it was to encourage Labour complacency and division until she felt they'd reached a nadir of unpopularity.
Did they need encouragement? Certain ex-awimnber was still playing the Corbyn has sensible middle of the road policies card rather leaving out the cost of the whole "plan" would bankrupt the country

[eastgermanautos]

Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.

Can't think of anything less democratic, really.

Can the opposition call an election anytime they like? :rubchin: Well then, totally undemocratic. Not that I care, or that it's any of my bidness. Nevertheless, I will be coming over to drink yalls beer on the 25th.

[Ash]

Can the opposition call an election anytime they like? :rubchin: Well then, totally undemocratic. Not that I care, or that it's any of my bidness. Nevertheless, I will be coming over to drink yalls beer on the 25th.

The guvmint used to be able to call one when they wanted, but since 2011 they need a two thirds majority in parliament, I think.

[AFC East]

The Prime Minister's job is to do what she believes to be best for the country first and her party second.

Yes, supposedly, but i can't recall a single politician who didn't reverse that order. It might be fair to say that they put themselves first, then their party, then their country.

[Luis Anaconda]

Yes, supposedly, but i can't recall a single politician who didn't reverse that order. It might be fair to say that they put themselves first, then their party, then their country.

Cameron! CAMEROON - that's you he's talking about

[Burney]

Yes, supposedly, but i can't recall a single politician who didn't reverse that order. It might be fair to say that they put themselves first, then their party, then their country.

I imagine they would argue that what is best for the party best qualified to run the country is ipso facto what's best for the country.

[Burney]

Cameron! CAMEROON - that's you he's talking about

Ah, Cameroon. Never a bad time to remind oneself of this masterpiece of the tackler's art


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeRlJJbtdHc

[Peter]

I imagine they would argue that what is best for the party best qualified to run the country is ipso facto what's best for the country.

Unfortunate cirmstances tend to arise from confusing party with country, namely dictatorship- or 'one party democracy' if you prefer.

[Sir C]

Unfortunate cirmstances tend to arise from confusing party with country, namely dictatorship- or 'one party democracy' if you prefer.

But if you don't believe that your party is the best option for the country, you shouldn't be trying to achieve power, agreed? By the same token, if you believe that your party is the best option for the country, you have a duty to try to achieve power, surely?

[Peter]

But if you don't believe that your party is the best option for the country, you shouldn't be trying to achieve power, agreed? By the same token, if you believe that your party is the best option for the country, you have a duty to try to achieve power, surely?

Of course. The problem stems from believing that the interests of party and country are the same thing. Political parties are built to gain power, not to exercise it. So while it is May's job to run the country it is the Party Chairman's job to win the next election.

This was not her decision alone.

[Burney]

Unfortunate cirmstances tend to arise from confusing party with country, namely dictatorship- or 'one party democracy' if you prefer.

I don't seem to remember you chaps minding the old party über alles attitude back when you were in charge. You called it being 'on message', didn't you?

[Peter]

I don't seem to remember you chaps minding the old party über alles attitude back when you were in charge. You called it being 'on message', didn't you?

Not really sure what you mean.....

[Burney]

Of course. The problem stems from believing that the interests of party and country are the same thing. Political parties are built to gain power, not to exercise it. So while it is May's job to run the country it is the Party Chairman's job to win the next election.

This was not her decision alone.

But surely effective politics is predicated on the idea that the interests of party and country are the same thing? Otherwise you end up with Labour's situation, where the party takes a near-deliberate holiday from power in order to fight over what its different factions believe is best for it.

[Ash]

Of course. The problem stems from believing that the interests of party and country are the same thing. Political parties are built to gain power, not to exercise it. So while it is May's job to run the country it is the Party Chairman's job to win the next election.

This was not her decision alone.

I think there's a case to say that it is better for the country that the end of Brexit negotiations land in the middle of a term than close to the end.

[Ash]

But surely effective politics is predicated on the idea that the interests of party and country are the same thing? Otherwise you end up with Labour's situation, where the party takes a near-deliberate holiday from power in order to fight over what its different factions believe is best for it.

Labour has only achieved power in four decades by effectively being a centrist faction of the conservative party anyway. If conservative government (whichever party does it) is what the voters want then so be it.

[AFC East]

I imagine they would argue that what is best for the party best qualified to run the country is ipso facto what's best for the country.

I agree, they would argue that. I just don't believe it's true and I doubt they believe it's always true.

[Burney]

Not really sure what you mean.....

I mean that Labour had spent nearly 20 years getting itself into electable shape for what its leaders believed was best for the country and then spent much of its time in power ruthlessly enforcing internal party discipline in order to stay there - because they believed that was what was best for the country.

In other words, parties act in their best interests because (we must assume) they sincerely believe that is how they best serve the interests of the country.

[Peter]

But surely effective politics is predicated on the idea that the interests of party and country are the same thing? Otherwise you end up with Labour's situation, where the party takes a near-deliberate holiday from power in order to fight over what its different factions believe is best for it.

Effective politics, perhaps. Effective government, not so much. Difficult/unpopular decisions are frequently believed to be in the best interests of the country but rarely the party. The whole point of political spin is to make these unfavourable acts seem heroic/necessary/wise etc.....

This election has very little to do with the good of the country and is designed to capitalise on Labour's weakness to strengthen the government's hand over Brexit. Call it national interest if you like. It doesn't bother me either way, if I was her I would do it as well. Her only mistake was being so clear on her refusal to do it earlier. Makes her look a bit of a ****.

[Peter]

I mean that Labour had spent nearly 20 years getting itself into electable shape for what its leaders believed was best for the country and then spent much of its time in power ruthlessly enforcing internal party discipline in order to stay there - because they believed that was what was best for the country.

In other words, parties act in their best interests because (we must assume) they sincerely believe that is how they best serve the interests of the country.

Its merely how you win an election and how you govern. I'm not sure you can read too much more into that. Or what May is doing.

My only point is that the interests of party and country should not be considered to be the same thing.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I do struggle with the idea that a politician seeking maximum advantage for her party by calling an election with the permission of Parliament is somehow considered to be cheating. It smacks of 'You can't call an election because we'll lose horribly and that's not fair!'


I like the talk that Labour have now sunk so low under Corbyn that they're considered something of a protest vote in this election :hehe:

The point surely is that the silly coalition fixed term act means that the decision is de facto in Compo's hands. So if anyone should be getting the blame, it's my party leader. As usual.

Still, hopefully this will kill his movement and we can elect that nice Chuka chap in his place. Sensible voice, sensible suit, sensible policies. Heaven. Once we get him as leader, power will only be ten years away.

[eastgermanautos]

The guvmint used to be able to call one when they wanted, but since 2011 they need a two thirds majority in parliament, I think.

:thumbup: Just don't Beerxit, ya dumb englishers. I have deep thirst.

[redgunamo]

Typical bird really - changing her mind all the time. Quite why she vehemently denied she was going to do it so many times is the mystery.

As you say, typical bird; they *do* move in mysterious ways their wonders to perform. Anyway, there's no real harm in a dull, stolid crone springing the odd surprise or two. You know, just to keep the thing interesting.