May calls UK snap election

Ivysaur · Apr 20, 2017

Hands said:
https://www.channel4.com/news/exclu...er-30-people-including-tory-mps-over-expenses

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aign-result-overturn-battle-bus-a7689801.html

yeaaahhh i cant imagine it has anything to do with this, her collapsing Brexit deal or her massive failings as PM.

Both things aren't mutually exclusive - she wants a direct mandate for her "collapsing brexit plans" and wants to take the chance to get a bigger majority while she's leading at the polls before her failings catch up with her and make her lose the next actual election (cough Brown cough).

Hands · Apr 20, 2017

Ivysaur said:
Both things aren't mutually exclusive - she wants a direct mandate for her "collapsing brexit plans" and wants to take the chance to get a bigger majority while she's leading at the polls before her failings catch up with her and make her lose the next actual election (cough Brown cough).

She's simply not going to be taking a greater majority. She will lose Yarmouth, Waveney, Norwich N, Croydon and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale by landslides. There are several swing seats where Tory popularity is waning hard as well.

She's refused to go on live debates with the other leaders, saying she may consider a solo appearance with a studio audience. What does that tell you? ITV are going ahead with theirs, without her. She'll be an empty chair. Which in many respects is probably the best the Tories can hope for as even an empty chair will provide a more competent case than she would.

Mewtwolover · Apr 20, 2017

I wouldn't be surprised if this election is just a trick to stop the brexit process.

Ivysaur · Apr 20, 2017

Hands said:
She's simply not going to be taking a greater majority. She will lose Yarmouth, Waveney, Norwich N, Croydon and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale by landslides. There are several swing seats where Tory popularity is waning hard as well.

She's refused to go on live debates with the other leaders, saying she may consider a solo appearance with a studio audience. What does that tell you? ITV are going ahead with theirs, without her. She'll be an empty chair. Which in many respects is probably the best the Tories can hope for as even an empty chair will provide a more competent case than she would.

Poll aggregates show May winning about 60 seats (net Tory majority: 134 seats), with Labour losing more or less the same amount of seats. They place her in the same ballpark as Tony Blair was when his landslide 1997 campaign started. Look at the recent Copeland by-election: there was a 6-point swing towards the Tories. In a byelection. The Government NEVER wins seats in a byelection. This sort of thing is unheard of.

I know that your argument is "polls, schmolls", but seriously. This looks terribly bad. Labour is sleepwalking down a cliff. It's true that things may change -and the debate could be a good chance for that to happen-, but, as of today, it feels that the one who signed up for a humilliating defeat wasn't Theresa May, but a guy with a beard.

Mewtwolover said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this election is just a trick to stop the brexit process.

If the Lib Dems win, yes. Otherwise, well, Art. 50 is already in motion, and it can only be stopped by a majority vote in Parliament, something that won't happen if either May or Corbyn win the election. This is, in fact, an attempt from May to strengthen her hand during the upcoming negotiations with the European Council. So don't worry, the destruction of the UK is still very much in motion.

Hands · Apr 20, 2017

Ivysaur said:
Poll aggregates show May winning about 60 seats (net Tory majority: 134 seats), with Labour losing more or less the same amount of seats. They place her in the same ballpark as Tony Blair was when his landslide 1997 campaign started. Look at the recent Copeland by-election: there was a 6-point swing towards the Tories. In a byelection. The Government NEVER wins seats in a byelection. This sort of thing is unheard of.

I know that your argument is "polls, schmolls", but seriously. This looks terribly bad. Labour is sleepwalking down a cliff. It's true that things may change -and the debate could be a good chance for that to happen-, but, as of today, it feels that the one who signed up for a humilliating defeat wasn't Theresa May, but a guy with a beard.

My argument is Copeland is heavily influenced by the jobs created by Trident which Corbyn wants to scrap. Look at Stoke, which should have been a UKIP win but Labour fought them off. Labour has held the majority of seats in by-elections since 2015. A loss in Copeland is meaningless contextually, especially since we've been losing ground there rapidly since Blair's first term.

Let's look at Gt Yarmouth though since you consistently ignore the seats I mention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000717

Yarmouth is one of the most impovised areas in the UK, no one there has faith in Brandon Lewis, he faces calls daily on radio shows, local tv and local news to step down. Either UKIP or Labour will take Yarmouth in a landslide. He has done nothing for Yarmouth and the people there know it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/S14000014

The SNP will be taking Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale. 900 votes is a hairline victory and given the SNPs continued gains, it will be SNP come june.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000863

Norwich North will go to Labour, Smith is widely unpopular now in the city, both in her own constituency and in Norwich South, over her continued inaction over issues in the city.

But no, ignore seat by seat cases. Ignore how people in the constituencies feel. Rely on polls fielded by Tory donors and ex Tory nominees.

Kanzler · Apr 20, 2017

Hands said:
My argument is Copeland is heavily influenced by the jobs created by Trident which Corbyn wants to scrap. Look at Stoke, which should have been a UKIP win but Labour fought them off. Labour has held the majority of seats in by-elections since 2015. A loss in Copeland is meaningless contextually, especially since we've been losing ground there rapidly since Blair's first term.

Let's look at Gt Yarmouth though since you consistently ignore the seats I mention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000717

Yarmouth is one of the most impovised areas in the UK, no one there has faith in Brandon Lewis, he faces calls daily on radio shows, local tv and local news to step down. Either UKIP or Labour will take Yarmouth in a landslide. He has done nothing for Yarmouth and the people there know it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/S14000014

The SNP will be taking Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale. 900 votes is a hairline victory and given the SNPs continued gains, it will be SNP come june.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000863

Norwich North will go to Labour, Smith is widely unpopular now in the city, both in her own constituency and in Norwich South, over her continued inaction over issues in the city.

But no, ignore seat by seat cases. Ignore how people in the constituencies feel. Rely on polls fielded by Tory donors and ex Tory nominees.

What does this mean for the big picture? What happens if May doesn't get a majority?

Ivysaur · Apr 21, 2017

Hands said:
My argument is Copeland is heavily influenced by the jobs created by Trident which Corbyn wants to scrap. Look at Stoke, which should have been a UKIP win but Labour fought them off. Labour has held the majority of seats in by-elections since 2015. A loss in Copeland is meaningless contextually, especially since we've been losing ground there rapidly since Blair's first term.

Sure.

Let's look at Gt Yarmouth though since you consistently ignore the seats I mention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000717

Yarmouth is one of the most impovised areas in the UK, no one there has faith in Brandon Lewis, he faces calls daily on radio shows, local tv and local news to step down. Either UKIP or Labour will take Yarmouth in a landslide. He has done nothing for Yarmouth and the people there know it.

Click to expand...

GY history:

1997- LAB Majority of 18%
2001- Lab Majority of 11%
2005- Lab Majority of 7%
2010- CON Majority of 10%
2015- Con Majority of 14%

Boy, if a 32-point swing is not "quickly losing ground there since Blair's first term", I don't know what it is. Especially since Copeland's total swing between 1997 and 2010 had been smaller- 'just' a 22-point swing!
Also, I'm not sure how hated Lewis is, considering that he increased his majority between 2010 and 2015. Maybe he has massively dropped the ball in these past two years, but considering it was a 72% Leave zone, I'm pretty sure they'll be happy to have Ms. Hard Brexit as PM. I'd argue that maybe UKIP could win that se-ahahahaha. I mean, if UKIP could actually win elections, then sure, they could really have a shot at this seat. But somehow I feel it will remain Tory.

The SNP will be taking Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale. 900 votes is a hairline victory and given the SNPs continued gains, it will be SNP come june.

Click to expand...

That one is, indeed, an ultra-marginal seat, so the SNP will have a credible shot at it. Of course, it had been an ultra-marginal seat for a decade of Tory wins, so it's not like it will be easy, considering how the recent Scottish elections showed the SNP plateauing and your hated polls show the Tories gaining a few points in Scotland overall, but yes. It will be a close deal.

Norwich North will go to Labour, Smith is widely unpopular now in the city, both in her own constituency and in Norwich South, over her continued inaction over issues in the city.

Click to expand...

What can I say? Another seat where Labour's share has collapsed rapidly since Blair's first term. Now they have a three-termer Tory MP who has been steadily increasing her majority in every election. And her recent inaction may be excused because, well, maternity leave.

I mean, I don't live in any of those places. I don't know how people there "feel". And we don't have constituency polling (because, as much as you hate polls, they are the closest thing we have to knowing how people "feel" without having to collect anecdotes and hope they aren't overly biased). Maybe there will be a 15-point swing for Labour in any of those seats. But somehow sings are hinting towards the opposite.

Again, hell, keep up the enthusiasm. Go canvassing around your place! Give pamphlets! Tll people to vote Labour! You have my most sincere support for that. But I still think Corbyn is headed towards a catastrophe.

Hands · Apr 21, 2017

Ivysaur said:
snip

I work in Norwich North and subsequently spend a lot of time there in pubs, I also, through work and through other means, have a lot of friends in the NN area. She's not popular, she's failed to act on anything outside of the odd token statement. More and more labour and UKIP signs go up by the day there. I've not seen a single "Vote Conservative" sign in N North. The only reason she's held it is the relatively upper class areas of Taverham, Drayton and Old Catton are in N North. When the boundary changes were being proposed she came out fighting against having another poorer area added to her constitutions because she knew she'd lose it. I'll be door knocking around Norwich North in the coming weeks and talking up Labour policy, not Corbyn, not the party, not how bad Smith is, but policy, in the local pubs.

UKIP saw massive gains in Yarmouth in 2015, Labour and Tory both saw small gains. Labour's image in Yarmouth was damaged by Blair. Labour done next to nothing to improve things in Yarmouth under the "New Labour" govt(s). Corbyn is different, he's better received there. His pledge to save the NHS comes at a time where Yarmouth's hosptial has been defunded to the point of breaking. Lewis refuses to see constituents, he done nothing to alleviate trade concerns after the massive fire last year, he barely bothers to attend any local meetings. People in Yarmouth were won over by expensive campaigning promoting Cameron, not Lewis. Cameron is gone, and May just refused to visit Yarmouth because of the atmosphere there. Labour will likely take it, if not them, then UKIP will. Laugh all you want, but in a poor area where immigration has had an adverse effect and there are high tensions between the indigenous Yarkos and the turks who've bought most of the sea front businesses then UKIP does pose a danger of winning, especially when the UKIP candidate attends all kinds of meetings and gatherings where the standing MP does not.

Polling is not reliable. If you took a sample size of 1,000 people in Norwich North (Norwich has over 240,000 residents) and they mostly came from the Mile Cross estate, UKIP would likely be heading for a landslide win. If you took the same number from Norwich North but you went to the Sprowston/Old Catton general area, Tories would likely win a landslide. I don't dismiss all polls, I dismiss polls from YouGov because they're essentially owned by the Tories.

EDIT: Just so everyone is clear, I keep mentioning Yarmouth, Norwich N and Waveney because these are constituencies that border/are close to my own and I've had a lot of talks with people in those areas. I do not speak for other English seats because I have no first hand interaction with the voters there

Ivysaur · Apr 21, 2017

Hands said:
Polling is not reliable. If you took a sample size of 1,000 people in Norwich North (Norwich has over 240,000 residents) and they mostly came from the Mile Cross estate, UKIP would likely be heading for a landslide win. If you took the same number from Norwich North but you went to the Sprowston/Old Catton general area, Tories would likely win a landslide. I don't dismiss all polls, I dismiss polls from YouGov because they're essentially owned by the Tories.

But that's not polling works! What you are describing is a "clicker", in which people volunteer to answer with no regard for proportionality or demographic representation. Pollsters -the ones acknowledged by the official institute on polling anyway- make sure to ask people who are representative of all ages, demographics, areas and any possible relevant groups.

You are dismissing polls by describing how polls aren't conducted. You are essentially saying that all car drivers are dangerous because if they can't brake properly, they'll cause accidents. Everybody is well aware- and they make sure to avoid that sort of thing to the best of their ability. Not only that, but you actually linked, in the last page to a supposed "poll" that falls victim to all your red flags!

Anyway, okay, let's ignore Yougov. ICM says Con +21. Opinium is Con+9. Those two work for that Tory-infested nest of conservatism known as The Guardian. ComRes, for the hard-right Mirror (notice: sarcasm) says Con +21. I can accept you being skeptical of Ipsos because it works for Osborne's Evening Standard, but still, they say Con +13, which is along the lines. Either you find faults with all the pollsters, or you must agree that things do not look good as of today. They can certainly change, of course. But polling is more accurate that relying on anecdotal info from a handful of constituencies.

Arsenic · Apr 21, 2017

Ahh... It's good to see another country struggling to remind me that it's not just the US that's fucked, but the whole world due to a huge increase in nationalism.

Isn't that how World War One came about?

gimmepie · Apr 21, 2017

Sword Master said:
Corbyn as Prime minister is an awful idea, he is woefully unequipped to be leader of a party let alone a country, and Tim Farron and Theresa May won't be laughing stocks for the rest of the world unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn also wanted to disarm Britain, not nukes the whole thing, his party hates him, and the country thinks he is a fool... unlike May or Farron
It should've been May v Farron, but the Lib dems aren't in a position to get to a majority atm.

Speaking as someone who lives elsewhere in the world, I have no idea who Tim Farron is and Theresa May is already a laughing stock among anyone who isn't strongly conservative.

Do I think Corbyn will win? Honestly, no. I don't think so. I do think that the UK would be much better off if he did though.

Hands · Apr 22, 2017

Sword Master said:
I mean I disagree strongly here, Theresa May is flawed, yes, do I wish we had a better Prime Minister? yes, but I can at least be thankful we haven't hit the bottom of the barrel with Corbyn.
I mean I could rephrase your phase to say Corby is already a laughing stock among anyone who isn't strongly far left.
Corbyn is already a clown in his own country, people see him as a joke, his own party disagrees with most of his views, and he is a weak leader and more than half of the labour backbenchers will vote against his foolish ideas (eg disarming the armed forces) , the UK doesn't need instability that Corbyn will surely bring, whilst Thersea May comes out strong with those that aren't that political, which I disagree with but there is a reason for Conservatives poll lead.
Look up Tim Farron, he should hopefully become leader of the opposition.

This is hands down the least accurate and most misinformed post I have ever read on the Community. Nobody should pay any mind to your comments.

Corbyn never once said, in any year, that he would disarm the Army. He said in an ideal world we would not need an army. No one would. At a Peace conference.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heres-what-jeremy-corbyn-really-6438877

Here, for the benefit of any soul unfortunate enough to believe the Daily Mail, here's the speech in full.

http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

Gee, can't see anything about abolishing the army here

http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/policies

Or here

Because he. never. said. it.

As for "joke among his own party" please, do explain to us then how he won two landslide elections to become Labour Leader. Twice.

As for Tim Farron, if you want a relative nobody who heads a party that lost all of it's support because it sold out during the 2010 coalition and went back on every single policy it had who is also a homophobic ape with no actual policies other than reverting the democratic process of Brexit, be my guest, try and make an even lukewarm case for him. Although I'll make it a little harder for you, unlike with your comments rgding Corbyn, you have to use things that really happened this time round.

Also the fact you think Corbyn is anywhere close to hard left is the funniest thing I've ever read. Try reading some actual Communist literature (hell, try reading anything that isn't the Daily Mail) then come back here.

Ivysaur said:
But that's not polling works! What you are describing is a "clicker", in which people volunteer to answer with no regard for proportionality or demographic representation. Pollsters -the ones acknowledged by the official institute on polling anyway- make sure to ask people who are representative of all ages, demographics, areas and any possible relevant groups.

You are dismissing polls by describing how polls aren't conducted. You are essentially saying that all car drivers are dangerous because if they can't brake properly, they'll cause accidents. Everybody is well aware- and they make sure to avoid that sort of thing to the best of their ability. Not only that, but you actually linked, in the last page to a supposed "poll" that falls victim to all your red flags!

Anyway, okay, let's ignore Yougov. ICM says Con +21. Opinium is Con+9. Those two work for that Tory-infested nest of conservatism known as The Guardian. ComRes, for the hard-right Mirror (notice: sarcasm) says Con +21. I can accept you being skeptical of Ipsos because it works for Osborne's Evening Standard, but still, they say Con +13, which is along the lines. Either you find faults with all the pollsters, or you must agree that things do not look good as of today. They can certainly change, of course. But polling is more accurate that relying on anecdotal info from a handful of constituencies.

No, a clicker is open to everyone. That doesn't link up to what I said about deliberate samples. Pollsters have complete control over who they approach. Clickers do not.

The fact that that YouGov has a +24 lead but Opinium is only +9 is exactly what I'm talking about. They asked different sample groups. Also for the record I find Ipsos has always been significantly more trustworthy as a Poll source than YouGov even despite their other shady activities. I do not hold Polls too highly regardless, but the only one I outright disregard as completely dishonest is YouGov

Klippy · Apr 22, 2017

Try to keep a level head, everyone. :) Let's make sure nobody is getting insulted or degraded as best we can. Thanks!

Kanzler · Apr 22, 2017

Hands said:
No, a clicker is open to everyone. That doesn't link up to what I said about deliberate samples. Pollsters have complete control over who they approach. Clickers do not.

The fact that that YouGov has a +24 lead but Opinium is only +9 is exactly what I'm talking about. They asked different sample groups. Also for the record I find Ipsos has always been significantly more trustworthy as a Poll source than YouGov even despite their other shady activities. I do not hold Polls too highly regardless, but the only one I outright disregard as completely dishonest is YouGov

When pollsters, or any other study, "control" their participants, that means they are trying to obtain a representative sample. That means they randomize their phone calls or whatever contact method they use to prevent any biases from distorting their results.

Because clickers are open to everyone they suffer from what is called participation bias. The voting population at large is not equally exposed to the clicker, and since it's voluntary, your results will be biased towards those who take the initiative to participate in the clicker, which might not be representative of the population. It's important to control for this bias since there's a pretty wide swath of intentional voters who would never access the clicker, or even if they did wouldn't bother participating in it.

It's kind of counterintuitive, but yeah if you deliberately "select" your sample randomly - that is take active measures to prevent your data from being biased, that would be more representative than if you took a laissez-faire approach - because that would allow the bias of the medium of your study to be expressed.

Every sample group is going to be different, obviously, because every sample group measures a different (but hopefully representative) slice of the population. Each sample group could have its own sample bias and each organization might have slight biases in the way it selects its samples, but you can minimize their effects by aggregating multiple polls and look at the general trend.

Basically, yeah, if you've studied statistics at all there's no reason to express the belief that clickers are in any way equivalent to polls. If you don't regard polls too highly, then by your own high standards you shouldn't even give clickers the time of day.

I'm not too informed about British politics, but I do know a thing or two about scientific studies and thought I should chime in and clear up any misunderstandings.

Hands · Apr 24, 2017

Kanzler said:
When pollsters, or any other study, "control" their participants, that means they are trying to obtain a representative sample. That means they randomize their phone calls or whatever contact method they use to prevent any biases from distorting their results.

Because clickers are open to everyone they suffer from what is called participation bias. The voting population at large is not equally exposed to the clicker, and since it's voluntary, your results will be biased towards those who take the initiative to participate in the clicker, which might not be representative of the population. It's important to control for this bias since there's a pretty wide swath of intentional voters who would never access the clicker, or even if they did wouldn't bother participating in it.

It's kind of counterintuitive, but yeah if you deliberately "select" your sample randomly - that is take active measures to prevent your data from being biased, that would be more representative than if you took a laissez-faire approach - because that would allow the bias of the medium of your study to be expressed.

Every sample group is going to be different, obviously, because every sample group measures a different (but hopefully representative) slice of the population. Each sample group could have its own sample bias and each organization might have slight biases in the way it selects its samples, but you can minimize their effects by aggregating multiple polls and look at the general trend.

Basically, yeah, if you've studied statistics at all there's no reason to express the belief that clickers are in any way equivalent to polls. If you don't regard polls too highly, then by your own high standards you shouldn't even give clickers the time of day.

I'm not too informed about British politics, but I do know a thing or two about scientific studies and thought I should chime in and clear up any misunderstandings.

I think you've misunderstood me. A clicker is open to everyone, so of course it's open to bias. But it's no less open to bias than a Tory run Polling company that chooses a deliberately bias polling sample. In fact it's probably more accurate because 69k people from around the country will likely present a more realistic national view than 1,000 deliberately chosen voters picked by areas of wealth and party membership.

That's why the YouGov poll has the tories at a 24 point lead whereas the fairly right wing Ipsos has them at 13 and Opinium has them at 9.

Something to note, is the notoriously right wing paper, the Daily Mail (yeah, the ones who's readership en masse mocked refugees drowning) has posted their most recent poll where Corbyn has slashed the tory lead in half over 4 days from their last poll. Even theres is down to an 11% lead now.

Between the lowest number and the YouGov poll there is a 15 point discrepancy. That's far beyond the usually accepted margin of error of 3 points.

This was my point. If you deliberately poll around posh, traditional tory areas then you will get massive leads for the tories. That's what YouGov does and has always done. The rest of the polls are designed to report opinion, YouGov polls are designed to manipulate opinion.

Mana1 · Apr 24, 2017

Hands said:
As for Tim Farron,... who is also a homophobic ape

Does calling gay sex (not homosexuality all together) a sin automatically act against his voting record?

Key votes on gay rights:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/divisions?policy=826
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/divisions?policy=6686

He's been absent for some, sure (as do they all), but hasn't voted against any gay rights since 2007...

I'm no Lib Dem, but I think that if someone still seeks equality despite their religion then they're a good (and probably not homophobic) person. Sins are for God to judge and persecute for, and he seems to get that?

Hands · Apr 24, 2017

Mana said:
Does calling gay sex (not homosexuality all together) a sin automatically act against his voting record?

Key votes on gay rights:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/divisions?policy=826
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/divisions?policy=6686

He's been absent for some, sure (as do they all), but hasn't voted against any gay rights since 2007...

I'm no Lib Dem, but I think that if someone still seeks equality despite their religion then they're a good (and probably not homophobic) person. Sins are for God to judge and persecute for, and he seems to get that?

He didn't call gay sex a sin (not that any adult should be bothered what two consenting adults are doing in their own time together). He called gay marriage sin. So that's not really fighting for equality is it?

In fact, he didn;t call anything a sin. He was too cowardly to answer a question that was presented to him three times because he knew it would harm his image. He can't believe in it that much then can he? At least the nutjob from UKIP who claimed gay marriage caused flooding had the balls to openly say his beliefs.

Mana1 · Apr 25, 2017

Hands said:
He didn't call gay sex a sin (not that any adult should be bothered what two consenting adults are doing in their own time together). He called gay marriage sin. So that's not really fighting for equality is it?

In fact, he didn;t call anything a sin. He was too cowardly to answer a question that was presented to him three times because he knew it would harm his image. He can't believe in it that much then can he? At least the nutjob from UKIP who claimed gay marriage caused flooding had the balls to openly say his beliefs.

Where are you getting this from? His votes are pretty much all FOR gay marriage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ntral-to-debate-as-he-plots-to-win-back-seats

Describing himself as "a liberal to my fingertips", Farron said his defining cause in life was "celebrating people's right to be who they are, to love who they love, to marry who they marry".

He said equal marriage legislation was progress but there was further work to be done. "It doesn't include full equal marriage for people who are transgender and our fight for rights and freedom will continue," he said.

Whilst he has not directly said "I think gay sex is a sin, it seems fair to come to that conclusion when he's avoided the question but clarified he doesn't think being gay is a sin.

And again - does it matter? Does Theresa May strike you as gay-friendly? Corbyn?

Hands · Apr 25, 2017

Mana said:
Where are you getting this from? His votes are pretty much all FOR gay marriage.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ntral-to-debate-as-he-plots-to-win-back-seats

Whilst he has not directly said "I think gay sex is a sin, it seems fair to come to that conclusion when he's avoided the question but clarified he doesn't think being gay is a sin.

And again - does it matter? Does Theresa May strike you as gay-friendly? Corbyn?

Corbyn has routinely defended civil rights for just about every group in Britain, including the lbgtq community. As for May, i want her gone. But Garron doesnt, no, he of little principal is happy to go into coalition with a cretin like May.

May calls UK snap election

More options

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Mewtwolover

Mewtwo worshiper

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Kanzler

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Arsenic

[div=font-size: 18px; font-family: 'Kaushan script

gimmepie

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Klippy

L E G E N D of

Kanzler

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Mana1

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Mana1

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns