General Election 12 December.

[tinfoilhat 11]

34 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

 

Its been going on over THREE years , how much time do you want ? 

For a deal (Not a withdrawal agreement)? 7 years maybe? 10? Could be more than that with the USA - maybe 12.

 

You didn't believe Boris did you? Silly billy!

[Longcol 602]

5 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

For a deal (Not a withdrawal agreement)? 7 years maybe? 10? Could be more than that with the USA - maybe 12.

 

You didn't believe Boris did you? Silly billy!

I think Penny was even stupider and believed Farage.

[Anna B 1,414]

I think the problem is that Brexit has become so polarised it's become a contest about Democracy; the will of the people vs the politicians. The details of the various deals have become almost an irrelevance which is a very stupid position to be in. If Boris gets a majority he can stick almost anything in and it will be waved through without debate. 

 

Then he will take an even bigger axe to services.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Anna B

[Baron99 795]

Re:  the Green's party political broadcast on Tuesday evening.  It reminded me of one of Alan Bennett's 'Talking Heads' dramas. 

 

Single, close up, black & white shot of Caroline Lucas' face with her blethering on for 5 minutes but saying nothing of substance & certainly avoiding any references to the Green's manifesto. 

 

No mention, (as I've just heard on the BBC's election podcast, 'Reality Check' section), about the plans to spend £100 billion per year for the next 10 years to make the UK carbon neutral by 2030, £90 billion of which is to be BORROWED? 

 

As the BBC's 'Reality Check' stated, to put this level of borrowing in to context, the current government borrows around £50 billion. 

 

Clearly while Lucas was going on about how the young are an inspiration to her, (Green's also going to clear the full student debt, manifesto costing £30 billion), she's hoping that they & the rest of us don't notice the massive debt the UK is going to end up with. 

 

Clearly the Green's are hoping for votes off the back of the current environmental bandwagon but their manifesto needs further scrutiny & lack of mention in their party political broadcast just leads one to believe that they don't want thorough scrutiny to take place. 

 

Furthermore, according to the BBC this morning, independent experts in the environmental field are stating that the time frame of 2030 is totally implausible.  Do we really want to put the country back into further financial difficulties? 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Baron99

[whiteowl 54]

None of the parties appeal to me, do I not bother voting or go and spoil the paper by writing "none of the above" ? 

 

Depends if it's raining on the 12th or not I guess 🤔

 

Having said that, I can't see Sheffield Heeley's 14000 labour majority getting overturned any time soon so I guess it's a moot point. Democracy eh ?

[Baron99 795]

1 hour ago, whiteowl said:

None of the parties appeal to me, do I not bother voting or go and spoil the paper by writing "none of the above" ? 

 

Depends if it's raining on the 12th or not I guess 🤔

 

Having said that, I can't see Sheffield Heeley's 14000 labour majority getting overturned any time soon so I guess it's a moot point. Democracy eh ?

I've long thought there should be an option for 'None of the above.'  Much better than spoiling a ballot paper, a good indication of how the electorate feel about the candidates they are faced with & what an embarrassment if some candidates secured less votes than the 'None of the above.' 

[alchresearch 214]

7 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

I've long thought there should be an option for 'None of the above.'  Much better than spoiling a ballot paper, a good indication of how the electorate feel about the candidates they are faced with & what an embarrassment if some candidates secured less votes than the 'None of the above.' 

The three candidates in my area all do a lot locally and are worthy of a vote.

 

But we all know that isn't how things work.    Nationally I don't want to vote for any of the big three, I'm sick of them all.

[apelike 10]

Though I'd just post this on here as well, news on the latest representative polls and not including the twitter voting exercise.

 

According to the FT poll tracker updated today to include the TV debate it puts the Conservatives on 42%, Labour 29% and Lib Dems 14%.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/263615ca-d873-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

 

 

 

[melthebell 863]

so, democracy, since brextremists have been banging on about democracy or lack of, since their insane desires are being thwarted currently.

 

There is NO democracy, more and more i am now seeing deceit, lies, propaganda hidden in plain sight.

 

We are seeing reports of the Tories changing their twitter to "pretend" to be an official factcheckuk organisation.

We are seeing yougov mistakenly announce that Boris Johnson won the debate (over 1 hour before the debate started), and then being outed as Tory backers.

We are seeing facebook ads that look on the face of it as fair and truthful but when you look under the surface are yet more tory backers on a devious mission to deceive and con the british people.

 

Like the fair tax campaign (being purchased by Alex Crowley) who is actually a former Johnson aide "and Tory alongside employees of the lobbying firm run by Sir Lynton Crosby, the Australian political strategist who helped run three Conservative general election campaigns"

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/05/ex-johnson-aide-behind-banned-brexit-facebook-ad-worked-on-fake-grassroots-campaign

 

It looks like it tells you whats fair and not fair about tax affairs, BUT these ads only seem to tell you whats about about Labour and their policies and looking at whos behind it, is that surprising?

 

I'd also recently read about another 3 of these companies behind facebook ads which seem very none tory on the face of it but are actually run by Tories to discredit Labour policy without you knowing who is pulling the strings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50458111

 

A former Conservative minister Richard Tracey is behind Parents' Choice.

And Daily Express journalist James Bickerton founded the Campaign against Corbynism in the summer after becoming convinced Labour "had been taken over by people with an at best questionable attachment to core liberal-democratic values".

 

 

[Robin-H 11]

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

so, democracy, since brextremists have been banging on about democracy or lack of, since their insane desires are being thwarted currently.

 

There is NO democracy, more and more i am now seeing deceit, lies, propaganda hidden in plain sight.

 

We are seeing reports of the Tories changing their twitter to "pretend" to be an official factcheckuk organisation.

We are seeing yougov mistakenly announce that Boris Johnson won the debate (over 1 hour before the debate started), and then being outed as Tory backers.

We are seeing facebook ads that look on the face of it as fair and truthful but when you look under the surface are yet more tory backers on a devious mission to deceive and con the british people.

 

Like the fair tax campaign (being purchased by Alex Crowley) who is actually a former Johnson aide "and Tory alongside employees of the lobbying firm run by Sir Lynton Crosby, the Australian political strategist who helped run three Conservative general election campaigns"

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/05/ex-johnson-aide-behind-banned-brexit-facebook-ad-worked-on-fake-grassroots-campaign

 

It looks like it tells you whats fair and not fair about tax affairs, BUT these ads only seem to tell you whats about about Labour and their policies and looking at whos behind it, is that surprising?

 

I'd also recently read about another 3 of these companies behind facebook ads which seem very none tory on the face of it but are actually run by Tories to discredit Labour policy without you knowing who is pulling the strings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50458111

 

 

 

 

 

That is categorically untrue. You're not helping your argument about the spread of misinformation. 

 

The YouGov page was set up prior to the debate to ensure they could populate it with the result of the survey shortly following the debate closed. They did not announce that Boris won the debate over an hour before the debate started. 

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/itv-debate-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-opinion-shared-before-false-1310553

 

" Jeremy Corbyn supporters are making the false claim that a YouGov poll conducted immediately after the event, which resulted in a 51-49 split in favour of Boris Johnson ahead, was actually conducted before the debate. A post, apparently time-stamped and showing the post was uploaded more than two hours before the televised debate ended is circulating widely." 

 

"YouGov confirmed to i that the page was uploaded as a placeholder, originally without the data or the headline, but that it was updated when the data came in after the debate. That means when the headline was updated, the time stamp was not, giving the post the appearance of being pre-planned." 

[melthebell 863]

10 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

That is categorically untrue. You're not helping your argument about the spread of misinformation. 

 

The YouGov page was set up prior to the debate to ensure they could populate it with the result of the survey shortly following the debate closed. They did not announce that Boris won the debate over an hour before the debate started. 

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/itv-debate-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-opinion-shared-before-false-1310553

 

" Jeremy Corbyn supporters are making the false claim that a YouGov poll conducted immediately after the event, which resulted in a 51-49 split in favour of Boris Johnson ahead, was actually conducted before the debate. A post, apparently time-stamped and showing the post was uploaded more than two hours before the televised debate ended is circulating widely." 

 

"YouGov confirmed to i that the page was uploaded as a placeholder, originally without the data or the headline, but that it was updated when the data came in after the debate. That means when the headline was updated, the time stamp was not, giving the post the appearance of being pre-planned." 

well if its wrong i hold my hands up, i have only seen articles that say it was true, ill read your link and alter my judgement on the matter as i do try to be fair and honest and balanced, i do think theres a lot wrong with hidden propaganda on both sides in this election which is a horrible indictment of the times, but what i have seen hidden Tory bias and propaganda is a lot more prevalent.

 

after reading your link, if its a placeholder did it not have an updated date / time stamps as most news articles etc ive read they alter the time as and when they are updated

Edited November 20, 2019 by melthebell

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, melthebell said:

well if its wrong i hold my hands up, i have only seen articles that say it was true, ill read your link and alter my judgement on the matter as i do try to be fair and honest and balanced, i do think theres a lot wrong with hidden propaganda on both sides in this election which is a horrible indictment of the times, but what i have seen hidden Tory bias and propaganda is a lot more prevalent.

Exactly. Misinformation from both sides.