Based on Labour and Tories being the only choice? Yes, because I think that it is simply a case of his "pretend to be in touch with regular people" lingo being **** rather than him actually believing it. If there was an actually credible 3rd party they'd get my vote over either Labour or Tories in a heartbeat though.
We don't elect presidents, we elect political parties with leaders and i for one have had enough of those leaders acting like dictators, passing down edicts from upon high, i can't even remember a PM who didn't act like that. EDIT: Just to clarify that remembering covers almost 30 years and something like 6 PM's from both sides of the fence.
Joke all you want but if my constituency (a Labour safe seat) has a Lib Dem candidate, I'll probably vote for them. Our current Labour MP is actually quite decent, but I can't vote for him because of the boost-by-association it will give Corbyn. And although I consider myself a centrist with homeopathic degree of leaning to to the right, there is no way I could vote for the loony-right Tories and their cynical appeaser-in-chief (& shameless opportunist) May. Say what you want about Cameron, or even Blair, I'd take either of them ahead of Corbyn or May. I'm not a Farron fan particularly either, but he and his party are marginally less odious than the others. I think the most achievable best-case outcome of the election would be for no increased Tory majority (May fails), a drop in Labour support (Corbyn fails) and an increase in independents, and other parties. It would mean no great mandate for May's sell-out of the country (so hopefully a softer brexit), and the fall of Corbyn and the election of a opposition leader who can actually oppose the government. If the Tories win a landslide, then the hard-brexit car crash will still happen. If Labour win, a (hard) Brexit will still happen. Sadly, I think we are screwed regardless. [PS. Why is this threat not in Serious?]
Sixth largest economy. Possibly preferable to a failed Home Secretary (who lucked into PM-ship only because the alternatives were a buffoon and his backstabbing lunatic mate who weren't even serious about Brexit, and a woman who had a neurotic meltdown after her first interview with The Times), who wishes to give government unchecked powers to change laws at will and whose vision for a dynamic post-Brexit Britain geared to a modern economy comes down to: "Let's have grammar schools again". Jesus Christ. Who says I'm joking?
Today the SNP, Labour and Plaid Cymru just announced repealing the Trade Union Act if they get into power.....
It is sad to see the idiot twitter users out in force in reply to UKIP - 1/2 of Europe has some level of policy in place regarding wandering around with your face covered, you don't see bee keepers walking down the champs elysees do you.....
I think that UKIP should come up with some policies that focus on a direction for a successful post-Brexit economy. But as usual they haven't got a ****ing clue so let's hate on Muslims instead. EDIT: Now they are proposing mandatory checks of FGM on schoolgirls. Do they even think before opening their mouths?!?
I see absolutely zero wrong with grammar schools. Why should the intelligent be held down with those who aren't as smart/don't wan't to learn? Why lower everything to lowest common denominator.
Because schools in general are struggling with sufficient funds. Wouldn't it make sense to focus first on keeping those functioning? Raise everybody to a higher standard so the UK does not end up stuck with a low/unskilled workforce without an economy to employ them? Moreover how do grammar schools fit in a post-Brexit UK in a modern global economy? If you split children into a small group of high-achieving grammar school students and a large group of low-achieving hoi polloi, what are you going to do with that large unskilled labour force? Put them to work in the fields and factories to do the jobs the Romanians used to? Good luck getting them to do that (and anyway, good luck competing on price with manufacturing in India and China). Put them to work in hospitality? In social care? Let's see how customer friendly and a compassionate carer they make on the typical wages they'd get paid. If the UK wants to become like Switzerland: a high technology design, engineering and science powerhouse exporting high-value specialist goods and services; if it wants to stop its reliance on EU skilled immigrants in science, engineering and construction, should it not focus on developing some really good technical education? Come to think of it, does approving even more faith-based free schools and scrapping the current rules requiring religious free schools to keep at least half of their places open to all local children irrespective of religion or belief, help to promote a more integrated society and lower the risk of fundamentalist faith radicalisation? The government's current educational policies not only make no sense, they are actually counterproductive to what the UK needs.
Of course that just makes the problems worse, just look at Northern Ireland where schools affiliating themselves with a religion is a common occurrence. I've said it before, stopping religious indoctrination of kids is crucial.
Understandably IMO as it's a bit rich expecting higher standards than those imposed on yourself, when you can govern a country with less than 25% of the eligible vote and change peoples live forever telling workers they must have 40-50% before they can withdraw a service comes across as being a bit anti worker rights.
It was nice that PMQs turned out to be the usual pantomime as I wasn't here at Christmas. Anybody would think this was a Presidential election about a second EU stay/leave vote the way they were talking. Give me strength...
We just had an election and still didn't get a government from it, Can't you mainlanders sort this one yourselves? Westminster elections seem completely pointless from the NI perspective. I really don't see how any of our elected ones benefit anyone. In my area it will either be DUP, UUP or Sinn Fein that get in. DUP and UUP side with conservative, Sinn Fein don't take their seats but do take the pay check. Bexit, Local elections now Westminster and possibly local elections again I really CBA with this one. My wife's a teacher and her experience of faith schools in Liverpool and here is that they have been the better schools to teach in. Integrated schools are by far the worse not just pupil intake but the toxic atmosphere the staff create. The problem in NI that defines everything is "streaming" ie Grammar vs secondary schools. The general push is towards integrated everything (no single sex schools, no schools connected to churches, no schools catering to the community, no schools based on children's ability). Education seems a topic that no one has any idea about what works and what doesn't. It would be a great starting point in deciding what they want the education system to achieve and going in that direction rather changing things with the goal of making them different than before.
So a topic that came up on Question Time last night was about tactical voting, it seemed a lot of the people thought it was acceptable, it's your vote so i agree people can vote however they want. However it did make me wonder what you good folks on BT thought about it, is it an acceptable (morally or ethically) way of voting and if you have, or would, vote tactically?
I have never voted tactically but there again i rarely vote. I think it is long overdue that there should be an extra tick box which has something along the lines 'None of the above.' It might help politicians to rethink they way that they are 'economic with the truth' when it comes to electioneering. Though to be honest most if not all and that includes my local councillors could not give a sh*** what the people in the poorer parts of theirs towns and cities think. We have local elections here in Edinburgh next week and I have not got a clue who is running for election but I do know that the incumbent councillors made it pretty clear to me when I approached them with issues that they were not particularly interested and if I got more than a one line response to my email I should consider myself fortunate indeed.
Interesting that there's a moral or ethical question over tactical voting. I don't see or understand how voting or not voting poses a moral issue how people would have any moral conflict putting a mark on a bit of paper. The thought process or lack there of that goes into putting a mark in the box has no ethical or moral question but is purely gamesmanship and attempting to get a desired outcome based on what you conclude is best given the most likely outcomes. ie. I want this party or I don't want this party so I'll vote to try and limit their power. Framing it as a moral question sounds to me like a manipulation tactic to get people to vote with the heard. As to voting for someone who you don't fully agree with or has little moral values (the common attribute of politicians these days closely followed by attended Eton)...well no one would vote then. I'm not responsible for someone else's moral compass and if they choose to follow it. The way they conduct themselves does reflect in the decision making process under the heading of trust and competence (serving themselves vs the country). Again this poses me no personal moral conflict. Top it off with the fact your voting for a faceless party no matter how much individuals see themselves as important.
I got the impression that some people saw tactical voting as gaming the system (cheating) and/or possibly voting for a party whose policies they don't agree with, like voting for Lib Dem in Eastbourne even if you don't agree with their policies. The morals thing wasn't about MP's morals, or the lack of them, it was about the morals of the person casting the vote and how comfortable people would be voting for a party they don't agree with in the hope that doing so would produce a specific result.
