Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Necrothurge]

Just watched the Question Time and some of the stuff Corbyn says upsets me just because it's so wrong. The way he evaded really simple questions, too.

"Was the IRA terrorists?" Just a simple yes or no.

Why does he do this?

[Reelya]

If your constituency is like 90% Labour garaunteed or something, voting for any other party will still send a message. A very small one, admittedly, but still a message. Green and UKIP being very different messages.

what will one vote do dilemna more generally

It is true that one vote won't make a difference generally. But it's important that people generally don't reason this way, obvs. Also, there's a very small chance of making a large difference. Voting is worth doing.

It's not that one vote in this election, the big issue with the "what does my vote count" argument is that the effect happens over multiple elections to shape who's turning up to vote, and what messages are sent. If your demographic doesn't tend to vote then they will start cutting allocatable resources to your demographic and target them to lure likely voters instead. This is how it works.

[NJW2000]

Corbyn evading questions? That's some interesting mental acrobatics there.

despite it being perfectly natural to prioritise the well-being of yourself, your family, your neighbours and countrymen over that of someone half a world away.

Btw, naturalistic fallacy dude. You have to give better justification for your arguments than "it's normal".

Also, I thought Corbyn did say that the IRA were terrorists at some point. Weird how he gets asked questions like that but May never gets pressed on gay adoption etc. BBC, huh




Anyways, people catch Philip Hammond on the no tax raising thing? Don't think it's been run past May; perhaps he reckons he's screwed either way and that a return to Thatcherism is the only thing that'll keep the Tories in.

[Reelya]

Falklands is an expensive White Elephant however, it's entirely symbolic. 60+ million pounds per year to protect a symbol of the glory days of the Empire.

Yeah, let Argentina have at it, then use that 60 million quid for something actually in the UK. People will forget about Falklands within an election or two, but the money saved is forever.

Falklands is a symbol but does it have so much value that's it's worth the money? Brits don't get some daily boost by remembering the Falklands, they only remember about it when it's in the papers.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/falkland-islands-cost-2012-2?r=US&IR=T
61 million pounds, with an annual increase of about 3 million pounds.

And when you count that as per-Falklander then it's about 25000 pound per person. You could hand that to Argentina, then offer all Falklanders an ongoing cash payment if they want to relocate, and still save money. After all they'll be spending that money in the UK.

[Sheb]

Falklands is an expensive White Elephant however, it's entirely symbolic. 60+ million pounds per year to protect a symbol of the glory days of the Empire.

Yeah, let Argentina have at it, then use that 60 million quid for something actually in the UK. People will forget about Falklands within an election or two, but the money saved is forever.

Falklands is a symbol but does it have so much value that's it's worth the money? Brits don't get some daily boost by remembering the Falklands, they only remember about it when it's in the papers.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/falkland-islands-cost-2012-2?r=US&IR=T
61 million pounds, with an annual increase of about 3 million pounds.

And when you count that as per-Falklander then it's about 25000 pound per person. You could hand that to Argentina, then offer all Falklanders an ongoing cash payment if they want to relocate, and still save money. After all they'll be spending that money in the UK.

How dare you suggest using the money to help people at home rather than people half a world away! :p

(No, I don't actually agree with you, because hte Falklanders overwhelming wants to stay British)

[Necrothurge]

Corbyn.

[Necrothurge]

Another terrorist attack.

They're discussing suspending the election.

[Starver]

Another terrorist attack.

They're discussing suspending the election.

They shouldn't. I don't like the stupid election but I utterly dislike 'rewarding' those who doubtless did this at this time. The message should be to pause party campaigning but continue to tell people to vote.

[martinuzz]

There's arguments for both sides.

You can argue that the elections must go on as planned, we will not be intimidated, or you can argue to postpone the elections a week so the outrage of the moment can settle down a bit. Making important decisions in an emotional state is generally ill advised.

Then again, for all we know there could be another attack next week, and the week after that, and then you'd be postponing idefinitly.

[NJW2000]

Pausing campaigning is rewarding them to some degree. Perhaps the elections should be postponed as long as the pauses last.

[Starver]

Let's take the argument further. Let us look at what happens if this sort of attack were to be perpetrated at a polling station on the day of the vote. Or even multiple such locations, those responsible somehow having the resources and planning to do so. And do so again the next polling date. And again the next.

Now, I'm pretty sure that this won't happen to me, ever, so consider it false bravado if you will, but even if it did become a possibility then what good would it do to suspend, postpone or otherwise shy away from elections? If there are enough potential perpetrators out there to cause significant disruption to nullify all attempts to get an electoral result then we have problems many magnitudes greater than we have now.  Until then, our admittedly flawed and imperfect system should soak up the efforts of the disruptive elements, and if it gets to the point of police and military guards at every ring of steel around each and every primary school being used to vote in, metal/explosive-detecting archways puntuating their perimiter to allow access to the thoroughly swept and scanned grounds (manholes welded shut, attic spaces examined in millimeter-wave, IR, X-ray backscatter, the works), overlooking buildings examined for snipers, all non-essential air-traffic cancelled, anti-drone hawks on standby, anti-hawk drones too...  If all that has to happen, then our problem is not that we didn't postpone the prior electoral processes early enough "until we know what the hell is going on".

The conceptual terrain between here and there is too broad a field to plough in one day.  Right now the answer is to Keep Calm And Carry On Voting, and I would say the same if another outrage happened today, tomorrow, and right up to the day itself. To seriously contemplate otherwise just does not compute... But it's not for me to say, only to opine.

(re: Pausing campaigning, it needs to be across the board, by agreement, replace all partisan soapboxing with "vote for whoever, but vote" for the statutory 24 hours, and let the voters punish those that try to break that truce, but I'll let the party machines work out their responses and responses to the other responses, then the public work out who had the moral best way of dealing it, if it's enough to swing things. As above, if the perpetrators earn a delay, by their actions, that's bad.  A day of contemplative thought is not so bad, and may even be good.)

[smjjames]

Another terrorist attack.

They're discussing suspending the election.

Theresa May chose to start the snap elections, she should continue with it.

[martinuzz]

Corbyn hit May pretty hard in a speech this evening, calling her a hypocrite for saying that the UK must increase it's fight against extremism, when she herself cut the police budget and caused the firing of 20.000 police officers as a minister.

[Starver]

Her response to the terrorist attack was basically "Yeah, internet encryption shouldn't be a thing any more" which, to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of how the internet works, should be a major sign of her bloody idiocy.

Also "Enough is enough". As in, Manchester wasn't enough? Westminster Bridge wasn't enough? Tough words, but rather a non-sequitur when you think about it.

The election is only May's to lose, so long as Corbyn doesn't overreach himself and create a new folly of his own.

(And I haven't seen Martinuzz's reported speech, but those words will only have hurt him so much in the group of people who intrinsically dislike him already, by my estimation, so no loss there.)

[Neonivek]

Is May becoming unpopular? or is this like... Trump where he was "unpopular"