Jump to content

General Election 2019 - Post Match Reaction

CB Fry

By CB Fry,
in The Lounge

 Share

SWF Exit Poll  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. SWF Exit Poll

    • Conservatives
      21
    • Labour
      12
    • Liberals
      6
    • Brexit
      1
    • SNP/Plaid
      0
    • Green
      0
    • Independant
      0

Recommended Posts

ecuk268

ecuk268

Posted
Posted
I will reply for him.

 

Pony. The Electoral Commission is full of pinkoes and the people we have drained out of the swamp. Ignore what they say. Get an ID system in place and insist that chicks reveal their breast size. Only chicks with big talents should be allowed to vote.

 

Would they have to prove their size at the polling station to make sure that there was no padding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
A new photo driving licence costs 34 quid assuming a new voter ID would have a similar cost. You want to spend £119000000 of public money to protect the country from electoral fraud. A problem so vast that two whole people have been convicted of it since 2017 pretty sure the country could spend that sort of money better elsewhere.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

The authorities have trialled voter ID schemes in a number of areas and found that the number of eligible voters turned away, including those who didn’t subsequently return, far exceeded the numbers convicted of voter fraud - and we’re talking about multiples of hundreds, if not thousands, if rolled out and applied at a national level. The figures, if anything, on the conservative side as the areas in which IDs were trialled were not especially representative of the socioeconomic or ethnic mix of the rest of the country.

 

The idea of free IDs is appealing in principle but it is no panacea in practice -leaving aside the cost to the taxpayer, they will still require paperwork and forms to be filled, creating further complexity which will put many off from applying. Past experience shows that some groups are disproportionately affected by changes in electoral rules given awareness and knowledge levels are not even across the population.

 

In sum, the usual chumps are being whipped into a frenzy by the elements of media and making a mountain out of a molehill. Unsurprisingly they have little to say about fraud relating to campaign offences such as spending despite it posing a more serious issue.

 

I see mr whatabout is drawing a characteristically f**kwitted parallel between voting and going to the cinema: voting is a fundamental democratic right and is intrinsically linked to a host of outcomes that affect our lives. Being turned away from an 18-rated film at a private establishment isn’t. As such there needs to be a much stronger justification for any change that interferes with the exercise of that right. The burden of proof is on government, not the other way around. It’s not a particularly complicated point.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Can you imagine the meltdown on here by certain individuals if Labour had put a bogus fact checker site up

 

They do

 

55f6cef3e471fff1c3701608ef388a75.jpg

 

Only slightly different. The Tory one had ;

CCHQ in the bio

CCHQ in the Twitter handle

CCHQ in cover image

 

Labour's fact-checker:

Doesn't tell you it's Labour in the name or handle

Doesn't tell you it's Labour in any of their branding.

 

Other than that, and the “fact” they started it in Sept, as opposed to Nov, they’re similar.

 

No doubt you’ll be consistent and be critical of Labour as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
They do

 

55f6cef3e471fff1c3701608ef388a75.jpg

 

Only slightly different. The Tory one had ;

CCHQ in the bio

CCHQ in the Twitter handle

CCHQ in cover image

 

Labour's fact-checker:

Doesn't tell you it's Labour in the name or handle

Doesn't tell you it's Labour in any of their branding.

 

Other than that, and the “fact” they started it in Sept, as opposed to Nov, they’re similar.

 

No doubt you’ll be consistent and be critical of Labour as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You mean apart from the bit where it says @UKLabour and insider.labour.org.uk in the profile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
So it’s the same then?

 

Cue the lefties explaining why it’s different

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Another gem from dopey duckhunter.

 

Nobody is questioning the Conservatives decision to put up "facts" or "rebuttals" to challenge Labour, however pony there are. They can do whatever they like.

 

The objection is that the Conservaties are using the same branding, identifiers, associations as independent factchecking sites (and in Channel 4's case, the same name), trading on their credibility. Insider has that none of that baggage (if anything, the name couldn't sound more partial and sounds like the type of s**tty transfer rumour site set up by billy no mates the wannabe football agent). Never mind UKLabour is far more known than CCHQ.

 

Do let us know when Twitter and the Electoral Commission warn the Labour Party....

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
They do

 

55f6cef3e471fff1c3701608ef388a75.jpg

 

Only slightly different. The Tory one had ;

CCHQ in the bio

CCHQ in the Twitter handle

CCHQ in cover image

 

Labour's fact-checker:

Doesn't tell you it's Labour in the name or handle

Doesn't tell you it's Labour in any of their branding.

 

Other than that, and the “fact” they started it in Sept, as opposed to Nov, they’re similar.

 

No doubt you’ll be consistent and be critical of Labour as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CCHQ is a recognised political party now is it? Fu ck's sake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted

“The Labour manifesto states they want to raise £80billion in tax revenue and that all of that will come from companies and people earning over £80k a year. That’s simply not credible. You can’t raise that kind of money in our tax system“ Paul Johnson, Institute of Fiscal Studies

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
“The Labour manifesto states they want to raise £80billion in tax revenue and that all of that will come from companies and people earning over £80k a year. That’s simply not credible. You can’t raise that kind of money in our tax system“ Paul Johnson, Institute of Fiscal Studies

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Pony

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashnats

ashnats

Posted
Posted
“The Labour manifesto states they want to raise £80billion in tax revenue and that all of that will come from companies and people earning over £80k a year. That’s simply not credible. You can’t raise that kind of money in our tax system“ Paul Johnson, Institute of Fiscal Studies

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

This Paul johnson?

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/08/no-deal-brexit-would-push-national-debt-to-levels-last-seen-in-60s

 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted

https://www.conservativehome.com/lef****ch/2019/11/six-of-the-best-burgonisms.html

 

What an asset Richard Burgon is to the Labour Party and to the TV media's comedy sector.:lol:

 

There's enough material for a "Carry on Voting" film, starring the likes of him, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry, Dawn Butler and the Marx brothers, Corbyn and McDonnell, among other incompetent clowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
https://www.conservativehome.com/lef****ch/2019/11/six-of-the-best-burgonisms.html

 

What an asset Richard Burgon is to the Labour Party and to the TV media's comedy sector.:lol:

 

There's enough material for a "Carry on Voting" film, starring the likes of him, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry, Dawn Butler and the Marx brothers, Corbyn and McDonnell, among other incompetent clowns.

 

Coming from you, the comedy king, that’s high praise pal :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
Old McDonnell getting in a bit of a mess today. Claims the IFS isn’t a credible organisation. Strange then that they’re quoted 17 times in his manifesto costings.

 

And to think there’s people on here going to vote for these charlatans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Given the bunch of charlatan’s you support, I suspect you didn’t actually type that whilst being able to keep a straight face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted

Sturgeon by some distance tonight, though she’s an afterthought politically. Johnson following the Saints strategy of recent years - perform utter s**t but hope there are candidates worse than you and/or not strong enough to overturn the conservatives built-in advantage in the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sturgeon by some distance tonight, though she’s an afterthought politically. Johnson following the Saints strategy of recent years - perform utter s**t but hope there are candidates worse than you and/or not strong enough to overturn the conservatives built-in advantage in the polls.
Boris doing just enough for CCHQ to win the election so all the CCHQ supporters will be delighted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint1977

saint1977

Posted
Posted
Sturgeon wins

 

Agree, she normally does on those events. I don’t agree with Nationalism but based on style, she engages with an audience far better than any of the others.

 

That said, her and Corbyn on balance did have the least difficult audiences to handle. Corbyn was reasonable on some questions and poor on others eg antisemitism where I found him evasive and lacking specificity. I’d like to have seen a better answer on broadband benefits on growth boosting tax revenues as well.

 

He just comes across like an experienced middle manager with some ‘out there’ views rather than a leader which is where Sturgeon cleaned up. Swinson struggled, a lot of Momentum and Brexit in the audience but was too defensive and not positive enough about what the LDs did achieve in the coalition rather than what they stopped Cameron doing. I felt the revoke policy if they got a majority was an albatross around the neck at the time of their conference.

 

Boris as robotic as May which really surprised and disappointed me. Thought he would have done OK tonight. Couldn’t relate to an audience in a moderate large northern city which doesn’t bode well for breakthroughs in Labour heartlands. Ironic that posters comparing him to Prince Andrew as he was every bit out of touch. Needs to get rid of Cummings, would have won that hands down when he was London Mayor, which he kept on referring back to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint1977

saint1977

Posted
Posted
Sturgeon by some distance tonight, though she’s an afterthought politically. Johnson following the Saints strategy of recent years - perform utter s**t but hope there are candidates worse than you and/or not strong enough to overturn the conservatives built-in advantage in the polls.

 

Like Saints, also prints/dictates a load of half truths and spin in the Telegraph to empty vessels such as Moore and Wilson.

 

Unlike Saints, there are enough worse outfits to keep him in a job. There’s no Chris Wilder in this election to upset the plan. Like Saints since 2017, incredibly limited though and no mind/authenticity of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saintandy666

Saintandy666

Posted
Posted

Well, I'm not one to normally buy into conspiracies about audiences, but the audience did seem Labour Remain leaning as a whole. So it was pretty hostile to Swinson and Johnson for starters. Out of the latter two, I actually think Swinson dealt with the hostility best, but wow it was an onslaught. Fair play to her. Sadly, I still think we are headed for an overall Johnson Majority, but hopefully it can be significantly reduced by good local performances.

Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...