[John Isbell]

If Theresa May is forced to call another snap election - I believe the last minority government, in 1974, lasted 90 days - do we have any predictions as to the outcome?
Mind you, I imagine the British public feel they've voted plenty in the past two years.

[Nigel Mace]

None more so than here in Scotland!
I left the count on Friday at 4.45 am to gallows humour remarks to the centre staff, recommending that they hang on to the lanyards - even though they were printed with "General Election 2017".

I remember 1974's elections very well and Heath was punished for trying it on then. The Tories would be really caned if they tried it again now - especially with pretty well any of the current 'leadership' and Corbyn would win fairly clearly in England and Wales.

Northern Ireland would see the current result entrenched, with all the border constituencies now solidly Sinn Fein.

As to Scotland, we are back to three party politics for Westminster elections, on a seat by seat basis, and only mugs predict in those circumstances but there would be a real risk, from my point of view, of the SNP being further 'squeezed' in some constituencies. On the other hand, the tactical voting experienced last time might bring a reaction in some places and, since there are plenty of narrow majorities, also see some reversals of Labour, LibDem and Tory results.

My best conclusion is that up here it would be a case of SMS (to use the technical term) 'search-me-sunshine'!

[John Isbell]

Thank you for those insights, Nigel - I've been out of the UK for years now and have no feel for the ground. It sounds like the roller coaster continues.

Cheers,
John

[Nigel Mace]

On the Scottish situation, I'd recommend the following extremely well-sourced and thought through article https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-knife-edgers/. I take that as pretty conclusive proof (as opposed to a great deal of anecdotal evidence) that there was some joined-up strategy by the three Unionist parties in Scotland, to create tactical voting/campaigning. The straw candidate from the LibDems in our area was so embarrassingly feeble as not to be credible - and the LibDem vote simply tumbled (c. 8,000 of it) into the Tory lap.
We will make sure that the public is better forewarned next time and some at least will resent having been played for mugs.

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by David Callin

Oh Bill. It's not like that (or as set out, at much greater length, in your previous post) at all. It really isn't.

What puzzles me is why you seem to have this pressing need to persuade yourself that it is. I'd have thought there was more than enough going on in the US for you to worry about, rather than indulging in ill-informed fantasies about another country.

This is said in all amity.

Cheers

David

Time will tell, David. And it is what it is. The U.K. is done for, unless some kind of resistance is mounted. Maybe not by 2025. But it will happen, like I said, unless some kind of major resistance is undertaken by rational people. The mayor of London is a polished politician who can sit there and lie to everyone and not feel the slightest bit of guilt over it. He is not interested in the well being of the populous of London, or of England. His agenda is obvious. He's sincerely worried about bikini ads on London transport, MORE than he is about three terror attacks inside the London area? Really? And I'm the one who is being unreasonable?

It is to laugh, as some cartoon character once said.

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Rob Stuart

Are you serious?

Ah, I see you thought better of the 'Notice none of this shit happens in the USA' bit and removed it. Good for you.

Yes, I am serious. And I'm glad you noticed that, Rob. Good on ya.

I removed it because it would have started a shit-storm. But maybe that's what's needed, to wake people up?

EDIT: Don't click if you're a lefty loony, because you'll melt away into a dew. Please click if you're interested in what's actually happening in the world, and would like to listen to people who still have their heads about them. Once again: snowflake warning. DO NOT LISTEN. It will invade your safe space, and the microaggression will be unbearable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UxpSViS6RY

I'm no longer concerned with the possibility of being banned from the Sphere, since it's patently obvious that the Sphere has lost all sense of reason and balance. Where the hell are those voices from the center and the right that we used to hear from? Like Tim Murphy, Jennifer Reeser? A short post here and there. No real engagement, because they probably have far more sense than I and know it's a lost cause.

Yes, I'm dead serious Rob. Thanks for noticing what I deleted in a moment of caution. Good on ya!

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

Maybe not by 2025. But it will happen, like I said, unless some kind of major resistance is undertaken by rational people. The mayor of London is a polished politician who can sit there and lie to everyone and not feel the slightest bit of guilt over it. He is not interested in the well being of the populous of London, or of England. His agenda is obvious. He's sincerely worried about bikini ads on London transport, MORE than he is about three terror attacks inside the London area? Really? And I'm the one who is being unreasonable?

Bill,

You've claimed that Sadiq Khan is more worried about bikini ads than terror attacks. As Rob pointed out, Khan voiced his concerns about the effect of these ads on body image a month before the terror attacks, and has not said anything (as far as I know) to give them impression that he thought they were more important. Now these seem like reasonable objections to me. In response, you have simply repeated your claim more emphatically.

Now, if I understand you, you think it's obvious that Khan's motives are to push an extremist Muslim agenda. That as a Muslim he's not concerned about terrorists attacks or sympathises with them, and that he has no interest in the well-being of his own country.

You've also claimed that Khan is a liar who can and does easily lie about his true agenda, therefore anything he says about his views and beliefs can be ignored. In other words, it seems that no matter what he says, you won't believe it, because everything he has said that contradicts your belief can be dismissed as a lie. So for example, his public support for gay marriage, can be seen as further evidence of his devious attempts to lull the public into ignoring his true Islamicist agenda.

I don't know Sadiq Khan anymore than you do. And to be clear, I don't hold a fixed view of the truth here. I'm open to being persuaded by facts and reason. But not simply by assertions that seem to be extrapolated from the fact that a) Khan is a Muslim, and b) you have certain fears and beliefs about Muslims/Islam as a threat to British society. So in response to your question, yes, at the moment it does seem to me like you are the one being unreasonable.

best,

Matt

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

So in response to your question, yes, at the moment it does seem to me like you are the one being unreasonable.
Matt

We shall see, Matt. I take all of your other points on the chin. Guilty as charged. Call me what you will. All I'm concerned about at the moment is saving innocent lives. No more innocent people being stabbed and/or killed in the name of the "peaceful" Allah. The time has come for a rational resistance.

Enough is enough.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

We shall see, Matt. I take all of your other points on the chin. Guilty as charged. Call me what you will. All I'm concerned about at the moment is saving innocent lives. No more innocent people being stabbed and/or killed in the name of the "peaceful" Allah. The time has come for a rational resistance.

Enough is enough.

The rational resistance to murder by broken, disenfranchised outliers manipulated by the weaponization of Islam is to work to lessen that sort of alienation and to empower factions within that faith to define (redefine) it in ways that make it inhospitable to killers. Unless you don't mind saving innocent lives by taking them en masse. But that is another type of rational.

[John Isbell]

To quote a Roman:

ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They make a desert and they call it peace.
Tacitus, Agricola.