Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

did the writer of this article forget that they were creating a rationalwiki article and not in fact a love letter to Jeremy Corbyn? its not even very subtle about it. and chuka Umunna is apparently satan. seriously, this isn't a rationalwiki article. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

While I've never had any intention to hide my innate biases as a Labour member, it's straight on my user page, (and if you're a TIGfC member and feel I've in some way misrepresented them, feel free to edit their section mercilessly) I didn't feel I tried to paint Chuka as some unsavoury figure, rather a man who somehow felt he could start a new party that would Fix British Politics, discovered reality, and abandoned it to his disciples to go join the Lib Dems.
My perspective may have prevented me from depicting parties fairly, so if you want to edit this accordingly to show YOUR perspective, (which is inevitable in an article as politically charged as this) feel free. It's your right as a RatWiki member. Minish (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem here is the lack of references. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Very good point. I'll get to work adding them - you can do me a big favour by pointing out where they're desperately needed. If you judge it's horrifically lacking to the point I shouldn't have made it a main article, please move it back to the draft section. Minish (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Article requires amending[edit]

Between an immense lack of references and mistakes in my writing, the article is not ready to be a full article. I will need to work on it more to bring it to proper condition. Minish (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The Lib Dem/green/Plaid Cymru pact[edit]

It's not about who's on the left and who's in the centre, it's about stopping brexit - they're all remain parties, and the pact is called Unite to Remain. Politics as usual has been eaten alive by brexit and the pact is entirely about that. Other arguments, they've decided, can wait, as they see brexit as the biggest fuckup this country could possibly make. Avida Dollarsher again 18:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

there are no other arguments. you cannot promise the world in your manifesto, ie labour, when it is all dependent on Brexit eventually looks like. only the tories core cut taxes/services (everything else is a sop they can drop once elected) is not dependent on how much of a hit the economy takes, just what trade deals are in place, are needed, are achievable.
its been 3 years of this purgatory and the government is a shambles of divisive bluster yet the tories are way ahead in the polls. how the fuck is that possible? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Acknowledged. The pact has been removed as a negative. Thank you for your criticism Minish (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The most popular 'candidate'[edit]

... is not on the list - 'None of the Above.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much. Strange times we live in. Minish (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Scottish Green Party[edit]

They're also standing, they're independent from the English & Welsh Greens, and no they won't get any seats. --Annanoon (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

They're highly irrelevant and weren't included in the 2017 election article, but if you or someone else wants to add a section for them feel free. Minish (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A bit harsh[edit]

I feel like this article is a bit biased against the lib dems in favour of labour. Policy wise they're probably a tad left of blairite labour which gives them a valuable role in the political ecosystem: appealing to the more informed tory voters who still think Corbyn wants to copy Venezuela. I'm personally fine with them dragging the overton window back into the sanity zone by presenting a sane "Centre Right"/"Centrist"/"Soft Left"/"Economic Liberal" option, as soon as I figure out exactly what they are. Either way, they're probably not evil and are at least on the right side of most issues, go easy on them McUrist (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because austerity and the related ideology of "fuck the poor" is very sane and reasonable. Oxyaena Harass 11:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Austerity is their fault and part of their ideology because they were in coalition? TIL. I know they're not "your" party, but they are certainly not an evil for conservatives seats disenchanted by bojos crazy fun time clown brigade. Labour has no chance in hell where I am.
Neoliberalism is what brought us Trump and Brexit, take a seat. Oxyaena Harass 11:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
the whole page is a distorted view of all the parties involved, especially labour, and it focus is all the place.
I am not a fan of the advantage/disadvantage set up. it makes very difficult input accurate information and assessments, correct errors, and there the whole issue of weighting that information.
my original complaint stands. this is still a party political broadcast on behalf the labour party, or even more accurately Jeremy Corbyn. you don't need to be a tory to see why this might be a problem AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
yarp, this hardly comes across as "Rational", let alone impartial. Even if it is technically accurate, its exceedingly emotive.McUrist (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Drink! Nothing is not "emotional," indeed you had an emotional reaction that caused you to comment on this page. Oxyaena Harass 13:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree. I just think its immature to put the blinkers on and assume anything right of corbyn is neoliberal. British politics needs to shift away from neoliberalism more than almost any country in the world, but... baby steps. The gammons can only take so much. As an aside, 3 elections in 5 years, people are going to look at this like the Weimar elections. A coalition to oppose the extreme right could have formed if left wing parties didn't see each other as their biggest adversaries -McUrist (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
problem there is that is no time for baby steps. we got a week till the election, the last chance to step back from brink or at the very least cushion the fall.
but its not going to happen. labour are getting caned in the polls. beaten by a government that has not been able to get any legislation through, is both a disgrace and laughing stock, a government manned by proven liars and absolute cunts.
we all know why. we all know this is all about Brexit. the only issue that matters right now. an issue corbyn doesn't even want to discuss, seems not even to understand, but still expects everyone to rally around him.
the tories are objectively and unapologetically cunts, who will doom the uk if they get in. there will be nothing left to stop them. and corbyn is letting them. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Too right. I wish I could go back to NZ politics where we could take a giant leap left, but there just isn't the electorate to allow that in the UK. Corbyns handling of brexit is bizarre but he really is all we get. The only point I was trying to make was that theres no advantage of being a) so obviously partisan so as anyone not voting labour already will just ignore the article, and b) anti-other remain parties (especially the lib dems who are being described as a party of mini hitlers), as it propagates this self destructive idea that the remain parties are irreconcilable. This article reads as if labour are the second party in every constituency, eg. "its snp who are splitting the scottish vote letting the tories in". — Unsigned, by: McUrist / talk / contribs
Looking at it, I don't see any way in which Corbyn can win the most seats (and even less likely, win the most votes). But another hung Parliament can't be ruled out. We may yet get to witness this grand coalition of the left. --RWRW (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
that all said it's neither here nor there, concerning this article. there is not one line of it from start to finish that I would not change or remove entirely. its struggle to get through. it distorts everything to such a degree that whatever truths it may hold are lost under a tidal wave of bullshit, and misses the point so often on so many things.
and aside from anything else, do we even need a page on this election? we are not the us. we do not have two year election campaigns, thank fuck, and aside from what the outcome may eventually mean or will lead, there is nothing particularly special about how this election is being run. any interesting information (if there is any) would be better placed elsewhere on the relevant party's page or the relevant issue, like Brexit (a similarly awful page). this page would need to be a live blog to be accurate and of use in the short time span of the election - not something i'd advocate. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Lib Dems would rather hand another election to the Tories than see Corbyn as No. 10. Oxyaena Harass 13:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
empty rhetoric gets us the tories too. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay There are articles on previous elections, I think the 2010 election article looks pretty good. I considered creating an article for this election but opted not to, I knew it would get rewritten to look like it was sponsored by Momentum. --RWRW (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
probably be easier to do after the fact though. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, no offense, but only two of the people who have edited this page have edited the main article, and one of them is me. Again, as I've said before, if you think something is inaccurate, edit it. I have to say it's a little childish to start talking about writing an entirely new article when you haven't done anything for this one. Is this talk page for improving this article or complaining about the state of British Politics? Minish (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

how exactly can it be improved? its not a question of tweaking this or correcting that, the problems I have with it wont be corrected by that. its too imbedded, the tone too hysterical, its just too slanted that it would be far easier start a fresh.
you will also note that I had issues with this article from the outset, but then it was removed from mainspace. now its back and the issues remain so here I am again. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Flush it into essay space and let them embarrass themselves there. With all the material available, the useless cunts can't even muster effective polemic. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Answering my question of whether you actually want to contribute then. Minish (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I did try edit it yesterday, nothing to extreme, but was blocked by drive by filter. Fair enough I guess, new account and all. I'm happy to work on the article as is, want to add a bit more current events as well. Personally very close to a lot of events this week.-McUrist (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to edit! Please contact a mod on this page and they should be able to fix the problem Minish (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Election night coverage[edit]

Snooping around I saw that RW did a special election night coverage for ‘15. Anyone interested in doing it this year? —RWRW (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Oxyaena Harass 15:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 :( --RWRW (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
We used to have great fun on UK and US election nights, but it seems to have fizzled out. I guess it's hard to have fun watching a bunch of knobclangers cheat their way to power. Avida Dollarsher again 15:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@RWRW Yes, please. Would be terrific fun. Hell, I'll start it alone and empty myself if I have to Minish (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I reckon we'll try and organise something next week. See if we can't bring back an old RW tradition. --RWRW (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Would be interesting[edit]

... if people voted for the 'fun space candidates' (Lord Buckethead/Count Binface etc).

And what would happen in an election if the majority of participating voters spoilt their papers? Anna Livia (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Could make a funspace article for all the extremely small, joke, and protest parties? Would be interesting, yes. Minish (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Renew UK[edit]

I saw a giant billboard for these guys, who are apparently indistinguishable from TIGCHANGEUK. Maybe the article needs a section on really really really minor parties. --Annanoon (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a paragraph. Seem very dull. --Annanoon (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Essay space[edit]

Can we just move this to essay? this is just embarrassing AMassiveGay (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You are a child Minish (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You incessantly complain about the state of the article, yet have never once edited it. You say it's 'not rational', yet when asked about the problems with it, you ignore the question and make declarations about the 'tone' being 'hysterical', and demand that the entire page be deleted or pushed out of your line of sight - now for the second time!
The page stays. If you have issues with it, edit it, actually say what they are, or sit down and walk away. Everyone actually editing the page is willing to hear them. Minish (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
i'm a child? get the fuck over yourself. have you read the shite that this article consists of? and ive already told you why i'm not editing it - its too slanted to such a hysterical degree, editing it would require deleting it all and starting a fresh.
this is NOT a rationalwiki article AMassiveGay (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
ive tried to be polite about this but it is fucking trash AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no merit in engaging with you. You continue to be as unreasonable as you started, and it's plainly evident you have no interest in contributing when you continue to repeat how 'hysterical' this article is without actually being constructive. I will not be responding to this further. Minish (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
don't give me that shit. you have at no point addressed my concerns at all. the article as it stands is bloated nonsense. it gives too much weight to parties that don't need more than a mention. it does not adequately explain the situation going into this election, does not explain the issues that the election is being fought on, does not adequately explain what the consequences will, and its all done with a ridiculously hysterical tone that makes it a hard slog to actually read through, while giving such a skewed view of all involved that it is useless in giving an over view of the election.
on top of that, its not simply as matter of correcting falsehoods or dialling back the histrionics because the whole format is crap and not fit for purpose, making deleting and starting again the sensible option. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"it gives too much weight to parties that don't need more than a mention. it does not adequately explain the situation going into this election, does not explain the issues that the election is being fought on, does not adequately explain what the consequences w[e]ll" Thank you for giving some constructive feedback - I'll engage now.
I disagree that it "gives too much weight to parties that don't need more than a mention" - unless you're referring to the new section made today, every section is needed to give an accurate view of the election in all areas of the country, something all previous GE pages (2010/2015/2017) have done. While I can see removing UKIP since they're dead weight, having entries for the SDLP and UUP helps to understand the situation in Northern Ireland, and having information of ChUK helps to understand the context of what happened before this election. Every party besides them and UKIP could win / hold seats in the election coming. Frankly, I believe I've failed by not including an entry for Alliance, a NI party that may get a seat.
I can see your point that "it does not adequately explain the situation going into this election" - while the individual entries include information on the histories of the parties, only the beginning and the first section are dedicated to it. Those could definitely be expanded.
I do not entirely disagree with your view the article "does not explain the issues that the election is being fought on" - the election is being fought on Brexit, social care, austerity, and environmentalism. While there is information on Brexit and austerity, information on social care and environmentalism for each party is lacking to some degree. Some entries could be rewritten to better show this.
I disagree that the article "does not adequately explain what the consequences w[e]ll", and disagree that this is achievable - we cannot tell the future, and Brexit among other things could play out many, many different ways. Informing the reader of each parties' history helps to narrow down would the future could be, however.
I hope you can accept that I'm not trying to sealion here, and sincerely trying to engage with you to improve the article. This is what the talk page is for. Minish (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

the problems are too ingrained. it is just biases just too prominent. it just is not a rationalwiki article. it would have been fine in essayAMassiveGay (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
+1 for essay space. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
+1 for edit it according to usual RW principles if you don't like it. If you don't like the format, suggest an alternative one on the talk page and if there are no serious objections, change it. --Annanoon (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


Ignore the removals on my first edit, not sure how I managed that. McUrist (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's cool. Minish (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Election night coverage[edit]

Behold. Since I'm sad, I'll probably be watching the results all night and put notable stuff on the coverage page if anyone else is interested. --RWRW (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hell yeah. I'll be posting in here tomorrow for sure. Happy to help kickstart and old tradition again Minish (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


I don't think I can continue to defend this page in the face of what has transpired. Delete it. Move it to essay. I don't care anymore. How could I have gotten things so horribly wrong? Minish (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)