Jump to content

Predict outcome of June 2017 UK General Election here

predict outcome of June 2017 General Election here  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. predict outcome of June 2017 General Election here

    • ***
      0
    • Conservative majority 100 +
      4
    • Conservative majority 76-100
      6
    • Conservative majority 51-75
      7
    • Conservative majority 26-50
      19
    • Conservative majority 1-25
      8
    • Conservative no majority, but largest party
      6
    • Labour and Conservative equal number of seats
      1
    • Labour no majority, but largest party
      1
    • Labour majority 1-25
      2
    • Labour majority 26-50
      1
    • Labour majority 50 +
      3
    • ***
      1


Recommended Posts

Well it's the same Anna that has supported Corbyn through thick and thin, and the same Anna who has helped made it possible for candidates like O'Mara to be elected.

 

Up and down the country there are a couple of hundred thousand people just like Anna who never gave up and my guess is that Jared O'Mara would gladly buy each and every one of them a pint if he could.

 

I agree it wasn't nice but to be fair to Anna it was retracted almost immediately.

 

My PC went belly up mid edit. My post above changed.

 

The divvy thing isn't the issue. The issue is describing something negatively and then backtracking when you get the extra info.

 

She could say, "I thought it wasn't inspiring at all. Others have bigger and better dreams for the differently abled community!" Maybe that's true?

 

She didn't. She decided that learning he had a disability changed her opinion of him. That's also fair enough. But, if she had listened to the speech he gave rather than just claiming she had, she WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!!

 

I've not listened to Harry Styles's new album. I'm going on amazon now to say its crap. Same thing isn't it?

Edited by Pinkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My PC went belly up mid edit. My post above changed.

 

The divvy thing isn't the issue. The issue is describing something negatively and then backtracking when you get the extra info.

 

She could say, "I thought it wasn't inspiring at all. Others have bigger and better dreams for the differently abled community!" Maybe that's true?

 

She didn't. She decided that learning he had a disability changed her opinion of him. That's also fair enough. But, if she had listened to the speech he gave rather than just claiming she had, she WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!!

 

I've not listened to Harry Styles's new album. I'm going on amazon now to say its crap. Same thing isn't it?

 

Explain why this is such a burning issue for you. I'm genuinely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain why this is such a burning issue for you. I'm genuinely interested.

 

Because I question everything Anna says. The things she wrote about what would happen if the Tories won were beyond hysterical. Unfounded ludicrous nonsense with no basis in reality. (You weren't much better I might add but without all the Bilderberg crap).

 

She also seems to have an issue with the mainstream media and tells us all we need check where we get all our information from. She seems to be a believer in New World Orders and Shadowy Government but at the same time has no clue what is actually going on. She said if Corbyn won the election, the civil service would make his life impossible. I asked, what, all 400,000 of them? She claimed a top few civil servants actually run the country and she knows a few civil servants who agree with her. Considering there are 400,000 civil servants in this country I think probably most of us know a few. The ones I know don't say the same things as Anna's paranoid friends that's for sure.

 

As an example of her seeming to know little about what is really going on in the world; she pondered if troops had been deployed in London during Operation Temperer. I don't know what media she views but every single item I saw relating to this showed troops IN LONDON. I cannot fathom how she cannot have known that they were deployed in London. She asked if Temperer was an act of theatre by the government. I pointed out it was standard procedure to free up police to do police work. I should have added Andy Burnham fully supported it.

 

Then she posted her comment about Jared O'Mara. I was genuinely curious about what she found uninspiring in his speech. And it soon became clear she didn't actually know anything about him and hadn't actually listened to it.

 

Basically I1L2T3, I don't trust a single word she says about anything. And as try I show here, neither should you.

 

That ok?

Edited by Pinkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I question everything Anna says. The things she wrote about what would happen if the Tories won were beyond hysterical. Unfounded ludicrous nonsense with no basis in reality. (You weren't much better I might add but without all the Bilderberg crap).

 

She also seems to have an issue with the mainstream media and tells us all we need check where we get all our information from. She seems to be a believer in New World Orders and Shadowy Government but at the same time has no clue what is actually going on. She said if Corbyn won the election, the civil service would make his life impossible. I asked, what, all 400,000 of them? She claimed a top few civil servants actually run the country and she knows a few civil servants who agree with her. Considering there are 400,000 civil servants in this country I think probably most of us know a few. The ones I know don't say the same things as Anna's paranoid friends that's for sure.

 

As an example of her seeming to know little about what is really going on in the world; she pondered if troops had been deployed in London during Operation Temperer. I don't know what media she views but every single item I saw relating to this showed troops IN LONDON. I cannot fathom how she cannot have known that they were deployed in London. She asked if Temperer was an act of theatre by the government. I pointed out it was standard procedure to free up police to do police work. I should have added Any Burnham fully supported it.

 

Then she posted her comment about Jared O'Mara. I was genuinely curious about what she found uninspiring in his speech. And it soon became clear she didn't actually know anything about him and hadn't actually listened to it.

 

Basically I1L2T3, I don't trust a single word she says about anything. And as try I show here, neither should you.

 

That ok?

 

No it's not ok.

 

That feels to me that you are singling out an individual poster.

 

Look, we all have disagreements on here. There are some posters I've never seen eye to eye with but every so often I, and almost always the poster I don't agree with, both find some time to share a joke or lighten things up a little. One year you will be at each other arguing, the next you could be allies of a sort - LooB and Obelix for example closely share my views on the EU but you'd never have guessed we had much in common 12 months ago.

 

I suggest you try and just lighten things a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bickering and name calling can cease now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it's not ok.

 

That feels to me that you are singling out an individual poster.

 

Look, we all have disagreements on here. There are some posters I've never seen eye to eye with but every so often I, and almost always the poster I don't agree with, both find some time to share a joke or lighten things up a little. One year you will be at each other arguing, the next you could be allies of a sort - LooB and Obelix for example closely share my views on the EU but you'd never have guessed we had much in common 12 months ago.

 

I suggest you try and just lighten things a bit.

Earlier, mate, earlier, the referendum is 12 months old and our common stance goes back well before it ;)

 

But we sure have had some proper political ding-dongs (I might have put you on ignore awhile back then, I daren't search :D) in times gone by.

 

Mostly because I took my time gravitating closer to the centre ground. Credit to you and a few others on here and elsewhere. Even to Anna, whose eyes I'll never stop trying to open: she means well, and is worth it by reason of same. Pinkman, take a leaf, freely and gladly given :)

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier, mate, earlier, the referendum is 12 months old and our common stance goes back well before it ;)

 

But we sure have had some proper political ding-dongs (I might have put you on ignore awhile back then, I daren't search :D) in times gone by.

 

Mostly because I took my time gravitating closer to the centre ground. Credit to you and a few others on here and elsewhere. Even to Anna, whose eyes I'll never stop trying to open: she means well, and is worth it by reason of same. Pinkman, take a leaf, freely and gladly given :)

 

Yes, this is true. It's 18 months or more we've been arguing against Brexit. Time flies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The divvy thing isn't the issue.

 

au contraire. I think it might be.

 

maybe the New Member for Sheffield Hallam is a divvy anyway, and the fact that he has cerebral palsy also, is totally irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier, mate, earlier, the referendum is 12 months old and our common stance goes back well before it ;)

 

But we sure have had some proper political ding-dongs (I might have put you on ignore awhile back then, I daren't search :D) in times gone by.

 

Mostly because I took my time gravitating closer to the centre ground. Credit to you and a few others on here and elsewhere. Even to Anna, whose eyes I'll never stop trying to open: she means well, and is worth it by reason of same. Pinkman, take a leaf, freely and gladly given :)

 

And I think you've hit the nail on the head. There are some posters on here who I am outright rude to in pretty much every post and to someone new to the forum who perhaps doesn't know the kinds of stuff that has been posted in past might think I'm being nasty, when really I'm just responding to years of hatred and bile from some posters and I cannot be anything other than exceptionally short with them. Equally some other posters I'll give a lot more time and energy too even if they post something that seems to be nasty, Anna is one of those. This is because I've read enough of her posts to know that at least on SF she isn't nasty or thoughtless. She might be a bit overly concerned by certain conspiracy theories but that doesn't make her nasty. This goes for posters of all political stances. I can disagree quite happily with most people!

 

I also understand the point you are making Pinkman in saying how can someone critique somethings if they haven't actually seen it. To be fair to Anna, that wasn't what she said. Let me quote her:

 

No, I wasn't paying attention, and only heard a bit of it as I was watching the other channel as well. I was in fact, defending Nick Clegg when someone was slagging him off after all he's done, by saying his replacement didn't look that great.

 

So she says she had it on but wasn't paying attention to it. So she made a quick judgement on someone she was watching not listening to. Something we all do every day. Once she finds out there is a reason why he looks uninspiring because his disability limits his physical prowess she admits it completely changes the context of what she saw, because it does.

 

Is there anything at all unreasonable about Anna's stance now? Or shall we continue to play your game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting statistics from the election:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40331136

 

According to YouGov, class is "no longer a very good indicator of voting intention", finding little difference among the different socio-economic groupings between the two largest parties.

 

In a reversal of the traditional class divide in British politics, Ipsos Mori found: "The middle classes swung to Labour, while working classes swung to the Conservatives."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't forget, Hallam was and really is, if it was in any other part of the country, a typical Tory seat which Labour for many many years thought was totally beyond their grasp. It must be the #1 seat in the country which voted Labour, but has the highest income levels, educational qualifications, and so on. Hallam is a big gain for Labour.

 

WRONG. Hallam is the #2 Labour seat in the country like that. The #1, is London West Kensington which Labour gained in 2017 by a 20 vote majority. It was the last result called of the 650.

 

a bloody good and a very interesting election, with scores of interesting individual counts and results. Historians will always wonder why May called it, when she had a comfortable parliamentary majority of 16 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a bloody good and a very interesting election, with scores of interesting individual counts and results. Historians will always wonder why May called it, when she had a comfortable parliamentary majority of 16 anyway.

Yes. I've heard tell that it was in order to wipe-out UKIP as a rival home for disgruntled Conservative anti-EU membership sentiment.

If that's so, it largely (but not entirely) succeeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.