Who is going to win?

More hypocrisy over the matter of Theresa May calling an election on various threads since she became PM.

The same voices were predominant in their view Theresa May was NOT eligible to PM because she was NOT VOTED for but she was shoo - in by the party.

The same voices as I have posted before didn't have the same concern when Gordon Brown wasn't voted for but was a shoo - in by the party. The politics of spin and bias for you.

What a good memory you must have POGS, to remember who was on GN at the time of Gordon Brown, and what opinions they all expressed.

Did GN exist then???

"Labour failed to turn up, abstained or voted with the Tories."

That's what's baffling me about Labour - they seemed to do very little opposing of the Tories, so how do we know they are actually any different?

My prediction? I don't have one but I would like to see a small majority for whoever wins and more cooperation on what's good for the country, instead of adversarial posturing.

GB was 2007 - no, GN didn't start until 2011. Labour has never been in power while GN's been in existence.

Granny23
It's true they were a better opposition than Labour last year in Westminster, but I don't see it happening in reality.Of course it could, with a hung parliament but I think the Conservatives will win, but by how much is anybody's guess as all the polls vary wildly.

Agreed norose4

?Ladygracie

I read today that most of the newly registered young people who are backing Corbyn, are living in very safe Labour constituencies anyway.
So perhaps nobody should be relying on them to swing it.

Young people do attend his momentum arranged public appearances but as these are held in safe labour seats is he reaching the young in middle England?

POGS Wee Nicky Sturgeon was not voted for when she took over the snp after Alex Salmond threw his teddy out of the cot when he lost the Scottish Independence Referendum.

That's a good point grannypiper. I'd forgotten that no-one else was nominated to stand as SNP party leader at that time.

FarNorth Sun 04-Jun-17 11:52:06

"What a good memory you must have POGS, to remember who was on GN at the time of Gordon Brown, and what opinions they all expressed."

I didn't say at the time Gordon Brown was PM!

I thought my post post was obvious but I meant those who have made an issue of the fact Theresa May was not elected by having a General Election and have called her a shoo - in, is unelected, appear to find that was not a problem until it was a Conservative Party decision.

I'm hardly likely not to know Gordon Brown 'succeeded' Tony Blair in 2007 in ' an uncontested election '. After all that was when Gordon Brown signed the bloody ' Lisbon Treaty' having rejected calls for a referendum !!!!

Well, I'm sorry POGs, but I have carefully read your post of 11.45 and I cannot make head or tail of it.

More hypocrisy over the matter of Theresa May calling an election on various threads since she became PM.

Can you tell me what that means please? Theresa May called an election on various threads? eh?

The same voices as I have posted before didn't have the same concern when Gordon Brown wasn't voted for but was a shoo - in by the party.

That sounds to me exactly as if you were criticising Gnet posters for not objecting to Gordon Brown being a shoe-in. Yet Gnet didn't exist at the time. Should they have done it retrospectively as soon as they'd signed up to the new Gnet forum?

I am seriously baffled...

It's obvious to me what POGS means! On lot's of threads there have been moans that T May is unelected by the country, but were there any moans about Gordon Brown being similarly unelected at the time ( not on GN )but from left wing members of society who are now on GN.
It really wasn't difficult to follow you know.

As in real life Lib Dems, left wing Labour supporters say they are very liberal and tolerant of all people until you disagree with them.

If that was what POGS meant, rar, then s/he must have a crystal ball to the past, to see what left wing members of society who are now on GN were saying and moaning about when Gordon Brown was not elected.
It's crystal clear to me now.

I am a liberal and tolerant of people who disagree with me ninny but not so tolerant of those who do damage to our country.

The country has already become a laughing stock worlwide because of the crazy brexit vote, but now TM and her "brexit at any price" policy looks like damaging us even more.

Never a truer word [ninny]

ninny

We are all liberal and tolerant of the opposing views we are happy to be liberal and tolerant about.

I have yet to meet a liberal and tolerant person that didn't have great swathes of views that they were anything but liberal or tolerant about, they always justify them by saying that the views they oppose are so deeply damaging to the body politic, the freedom of the individual or the welfare of the country or some such that they have to be opposed with every fibre of their body.

Do you suggest that they shouldn't do that M0nica and should instead be liberal and tolerant of anything and everything?

"Paradox of tolerance" is the philosophical term for it.

If intolerant views really are damaging to the body politic, the freedom of the individual or the welfare of a country, even the tolerant have a right to be intolerant.

No, my comments refer only to those who like to proclaim they are Liberal and tolerant, and usually follow it up by an outrageously intolerant remark on a subject that does not justify their intolerance.

For example, 'I am a Liberal and tolerant person but I really do not think older people should be allowed to vote after they reach 70.'

Those who are liberal and tolerant feel no need to advertise that fact.

Oh well!

I'm voting Liberal (as in the political party).

Not following it up with anything.